From: Sanet Krugel [mailto:SKrugel@deat.gov.za]
Sent: 31 July 2007 14:11
Subject: Final text of Integrated Coastal Management Bill Approved byCabinet - to be tabled in Parliament
Ministry of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
For immediate release
STATEMENT BY THE OFFICE OF THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM, MARTHINUS VAN SCHALKWYK, ON TUESDAY, 31 JULY 2007
Final text of Integrated Coastal Management Bill Approved by Cabinet - to be tabled in Parliament
Cabinet has approved the Integrated Coastal Management Bill for tabling in Parliament. The Bill was Gazetted on 15 December 2006 and, as it is a complex Bill it was open for public comment for a period of 90 days.
"Comments received from the public participation process indicate overwhelming support for the Bill and its principles. These comments have now been incorporated into a new version of the Bill which is scheduled for tabling in Parliament. This important piece of legislation will lead to the adoption of a new approach in managing the nation's coastal resources. This will promote social equity and lead to the better use of coastal resources, whilst also protecting the natural environment," said Minister van Schalkwyk.
Fundamentally, the purpose of the National Coastal Management Bill is
to:
- Provide a legal and administrative framework that will promote
cooperative, coordinated and integrated coastal development;
- Preserve, protect and enhance the status of the coastal
environment as the heritage of all;
- Ensure coastal resources are managed in the interests of the whole
community;
- Ensure there is equitable access to the opportunities and benefits
derived from the coast; and
- To give effect to certain of South Africa's international law
obligations.
This Bill further seeks to ensure existing access points to the coastal area are reinstated and properly maintained and allows for the demarcation of access land.
The Bill also ensures that two zones are created:
- "Coastal public property" * state land along the coast, the beach,
estuaries and seas
- "Coastal protection zone" * 100 m wide in urban and 1000m wide in
rural areas
The "Coastal protection zone's" inland boundary can be adjusted to:
* Make it narrower in non-sensitive areas
* Make it wider in sensitive areas
The sections of the Bill pertaining to "coastal public property" and the "coastal protection zone" do not affect:
* Existing property rights
* Provincial, municipal, cadastral, or other legally recognised
boundaries
* Powers of any organ of state to dispose of land
It also gives government the power to prevent development too close to the sea by establishing 'set-back lines'.
The Minister added that "the most important changes to the gazetted version were the streamlining of government processes, reduction of duplication, clarification of certain clauses and better alignment with other legislation. For example, all activities requiring environmental impact assessments along the coast will now be done in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA).
Whether provincial, municipal or private, the Bill seeks to regulate activities with potential adverse environmental impacts. More specifically this Bill also provides new measures to protect coastal areas from being degraded by inappropriate developments and pollution,"
said the Minister.
MEDIA ENQUIRIES: RIAAN AUCAMP - 083 778 9923
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
The law is on our side !
PRETORIA NEWS 17 Jan 2007 Page 11
Coastal resources need this bills protection
The proposed legislation will ensure that future generations of South Africans will still be able to have fun at the beach, Jan Glazewski
writes
At a time when millions of South Africans are returning to their work stations after their annual trip down to the coast, the national Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism has published the National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Bill.
The public can comment on the bill until March, after which it is expected to come before the national assemblies environmental portfolio committee.
If it is enacted into law, it will replace the outdated Sea-shore Act 21 of 1935 the oldest environmental legislation on the statute book.
A fundamental deficiency of the Seashore Act is that it was drafted at a time when the law took scant cognisance of ecological processes or principles of environmental management.
The outdated act applies bluntly to the sea and shore below high-water mark, disregarding the fact that the coastal area is a unified, dynamic and sensitive ecosystem and that the area landward of high-water mark is an inherent part of the coastal ecosystem that should be managed in an integrated and sensitive way.
The new bill tackles this fundamental deficiency in that it applies to the coastal zone, which is defined broadly provide coastal access land to provide access to that part of the coast defined as coastal public property.
The Sea-shore Act paid little attention to the management of estuaries.
Estuaries are unique, biodiverse ecosystems, partly because of the mixing of salt water and fresh water Our estuaries have become degraded as four components: coastal public property; the coastal buffer zone; coastal access land; and coastal protected areas.
Each of these is in turn extensively defined, creating a cascade of complex and technical definitional terms with the welcome result that the future law will facilitate a more integrated approach to the management of the entire coastal environment.
The cornerstone of the bill is that it preserves the Roman law and Roman-Dutch law notion that the sea and seashore are not subject to private ownership, but to the use and enjoyment of all. This is particularly relevant in the transformed South Africa.
Would South Africans like to see parts of the coastline being privately owned and enjoyed only by rich and wealthy foreigners, like in Cannes?
The bill prevents this to some extent, stating that ownership of coastal public property vests in the citizens of the Republic and must be held in trust by the state on behalf of the citizens of the Republic.
The bill also expands the notion of a public servitude or right of way to the sea and sea-shore, stating that every person has the right of reasonable access to, and the right to use and enjoy, coastal public property.
Coastal local authorities will have to because of inappropriate development and specifically because of the damming of river systems upstream, which interferes with the natural flushing effect estuaries have had during periods of flooding.
The bill has one chapter devoted to estuaries.
The main tool here is that the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism must, with the concurrence of the Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry develop a national estuarine management protocol that must meet criteria set out in the bill.
These will be implemented by lower spheres of government under estuarine management plans.
The proposed legislation also promotes the notion of integrated coastal management, which is currently international best practice in coastal area management.
A myriad government agencies are involved in developing or managing the coastal area and tensions arise.
The cornerstone of the bill is that it preserves the Roman law and Roman-Dutch law notion that the sea and sea-shore are not subject to private ownership, but to the use and enjoyment of all A pertinent example is the tension between the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, responsible for clean seas, and the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry which tends to regard the sea as a waste disposal site.
The Department of Water Affairs and Forestry has approved more than 70 effluent and industrial outfall pipelines, some of which are causing severe pollution particularly on the KwaZulu-Natal north coast.
Another specific chapter of the bill, titled Marine and Coastal Pollution. supplements the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry’s powers by providing for a supplementary permitting regime regarding sea outfall pipelines to be administered by the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism.
In terms of coastal management, each of the three spheres of government would be required to develop coastal plans for their respective spheres.
Thus the bill requires the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism to adopt a national coastal management programme within a stipulated period.
This must be a policy directive on integrated coastal management and (must) provide for an integrated, coordinated and uniform approach to coastal management ... including the use of coastal resources.
Similarly, at the provincial level, each MEC of each of the four coastal provinces must within four years of the act coming into force adopt a provincial coastal management programme. Its contents must include a vision for the management of the coastal zone in the province, including the use of coastal resources.
At local level, coastal municipalities must prepare and adopt, within four years, a municipal coastal management programme.
These programmes must include a vision for the management of the coastal zone within the jurisdiction of the municipality, including sustainable use of coastal resources, coastal management objectives, priorities and strategies.
Provision is made for by-laws to be made in this regard.
The concluding part of the chapter on coastal management, perhaps optimistically, provides for the co-ordination of plans required by other legislation arid the various coastal management programmes described above.
The chapter also makes provision for coastal zoning schemes, but it is difficult to ascertain how these will dovetail with the zoning schemes made under land use planning legislation in coastal provinces.
The chapter titled Protection of Coastal Resources is dedicated things to assessing, avoiding and minimising adverse effects on the coastal environment.
For instance, it stipulates that any organ of state authorized by any law to grant consent for any activity that may have an adverse effect on the coastal environment must be satisfied that it will not cause irreparable and longterm effects.
This would cover all planning authorisation, mining and so on.
It states that if the minister has reason to believe that a person is carrying out, or intends to carry out, an activity that is having or likely to have an adverse effect on the coastal environment, then he may issue a coastal protection notice to mitigate such adverse effects.
The minister and the relevant MEC of the coastal province may also issue a written report and removal notice to any person not only if the activity is in contravention of any law, but also if it is likely to have an adverse effect on the coastal environment.
This part of the chapter is applicable only to the coastal buffer zone.
No authorisation may be issued in the coastal buffer zone without an environmental impact assessment report.
In any event, any planning or development authorisation must take into consideration the purposes of the coastal buffer zone.
Certain activities are also prohibited in the coastal buffer zone except in exceptional circumstances, when a permit would be required.
A big problem, particularly along the Transkei coast, is the illegal construction of houses often without proper planning permission and usually for holiday purposes.
The bill tackles this problem by stating that a person who has unlawfully constructed a building or other structure on coastal public property must within a year of the commencement of this act either apply for a coastal land lease or demolish the structure and restore the site to its original condition.
The South African coastline has seen unprecedented development in the past few decades, in particular of golf estates on the southern Cape coast.
This results in loss of biodiversity and puts immense pressure on scarce water resources.
The bill is welcome and, provided that the necessary financial resources are made available and human capacity is developed, South Africans should continue to enjoy much of the recreational and other riches the coastline provides.
Glazewski is a professor at the Institute of Marine and Environmental Law at the University of Cape Town
Coastal resources need this bills protection
The proposed legislation will ensure that future generations of South Africans will still be able to have fun at the beach, Jan Glazewski
writes
At a time when millions of South Africans are returning to their work stations after their annual trip down to the coast, the national Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism has published the National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Bill.
The public can comment on the bill until March, after which it is expected to come before the national assemblies environmental portfolio committee.
If it is enacted into law, it will replace the outdated Sea-shore Act 21 of 1935 the oldest environmental legislation on the statute book.
A fundamental deficiency of the Seashore Act is that it was drafted at a time when the law took scant cognisance of ecological processes or principles of environmental management.
The outdated act applies bluntly to the sea and shore below high-water mark, disregarding the fact that the coastal area is a unified, dynamic and sensitive ecosystem and that the area landward of high-water mark is an inherent part of the coastal ecosystem that should be managed in an integrated and sensitive way.
The new bill tackles this fundamental deficiency in that it applies to the coastal zone, which is defined broadly provide coastal access land to provide access to that part of the coast defined as coastal public property.
The Sea-shore Act paid little attention to the management of estuaries.
Estuaries are unique, biodiverse ecosystems, partly because of the mixing of salt water and fresh water Our estuaries have become degraded as four components: coastal public property; the coastal buffer zone; coastal access land; and coastal protected areas.
Each of these is in turn extensively defined, creating a cascade of complex and technical definitional terms with the welcome result that the future law will facilitate a more integrated approach to the management of the entire coastal environment.
The cornerstone of the bill is that it preserves the Roman law and Roman-Dutch law notion that the sea and seashore are not subject to private ownership, but to the use and enjoyment of all. This is particularly relevant in the transformed South Africa.
Would South Africans like to see parts of the coastline being privately owned and enjoyed only by rich and wealthy foreigners, like in Cannes?
The bill prevents this to some extent, stating that ownership of coastal public property vests in the citizens of the Republic and must be held in trust by the state on behalf of the citizens of the Republic.
The bill also expands the notion of a public servitude or right of way to the sea and sea-shore, stating that every person has the right of reasonable access to, and the right to use and enjoy, coastal public property.
Coastal local authorities will have to because of inappropriate development and specifically because of the damming of river systems upstream, which interferes with the natural flushing effect estuaries have had during periods of flooding.
The bill has one chapter devoted to estuaries.
The main tool here is that the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism must, with the concurrence of the Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry develop a national estuarine management protocol that must meet criteria set out in the bill.
These will be implemented by lower spheres of government under estuarine management plans.
The proposed legislation also promotes the notion of integrated coastal management, which is currently international best practice in coastal area management.
A myriad government agencies are involved in developing or managing the coastal area and tensions arise.
The cornerstone of the bill is that it preserves the Roman law and Roman-Dutch law notion that the sea and sea-shore are not subject to private ownership, but to the use and enjoyment of all A pertinent example is the tension between the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, responsible for clean seas, and the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry which tends to regard the sea as a waste disposal site.
The Department of Water Affairs and Forestry has approved more than 70 effluent and industrial outfall pipelines, some of which are causing severe pollution particularly on the KwaZulu-Natal north coast.
Another specific chapter of the bill, titled Marine and Coastal Pollution. supplements the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry’s powers by providing for a supplementary permitting regime regarding sea outfall pipelines to be administered by the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism.
In terms of coastal management, each of the three spheres of government would be required to develop coastal plans for their respective spheres.
Thus the bill requires the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism to adopt a national coastal management programme within a stipulated period.
This must be a policy directive on integrated coastal management and (must) provide for an integrated, coordinated and uniform approach to coastal management ... including the use of coastal resources.
Similarly, at the provincial level, each MEC of each of the four coastal provinces must within four years of the act coming into force adopt a provincial coastal management programme. Its contents must include a vision for the management of the coastal zone in the province, including the use of coastal resources.
At local level, coastal municipalities must prepare and adopt, within four years, a municipal coastal management programme.
These programmes must include a vision for the management of the coastal zone within the jurisdiction of the municipality, including sustainable use of coastal resources, coastal management objectives, priorities and strategies.
Provision is made for by-laws to be made in this regard.
The concluding part of the chapter on coastal management, perhaps optimistically, provides for the co-ordination of plans required by other legislation arid the various coastal management programmes described above.
The chapter also makes provision for coastal zoning schemes, but it is difficult to ascertain how these will dovetail with the zoning schemes made under land use planning legislation in coastal provinces.
The chapter titled Protection of Coastal Resources is dedicated things to assessing, avoiding and minimising adverse effects on the coastal environment.
For instance, it stipulates that any organ of state authorized by any law to grant consent for any activity that may have an adverse effect on the coastal environment must be satisfied that it will not cause irreparable and longterm effects.
This would cover all planning authorisation, mining and so on.
It states that if the minister has reason to believe that a person is carrying out, or intends to carry out, an activity that is having or likely to have an adverse effect on the coastal environment, then he may issue a coastal protection notice to mitigate such adverse effects.
The minister and the relevant MEC of the coastal province may also issue a written report and removal notice to any person not only if the activity is in contravention of any law, but also if it is likely to have an adverse effect on the coastal environment.
This part of the chapter is applicable only to the coastal buffer zone.
No authorisation may be issued in the coastal buffer zone without an environmental impact assessment report.
In any event, any planning or development authorisation must take into consideration the purposes of the coastal buffer zone.
Certain activities are also prohibited in the coastal buffer zone except in exceptional circumstances, when a permit would be required.
A big problem, particularly along the Transkei coast, is the illegal construction of houses often without proper planning permission and usually for holiday purposes.
The bill tackles this problem by stating that a person who has unlawfully constructed a building or other structure on coastal public property must within a year of the commencement of this act either apply for a coastal land lease or demolish the structure and restore the site to its original condition.
The South African coastline has seen unprecedented development in the past few decades, in particular of golf estates on the southern Cape coast.
This results in loss of biodiversity and puts immense pressure on scarce water resources.
The bill is welcome and, provided that the necessary financial resources are made available and human capacity is developed, South Africans should continue to enjoy much of the recreational and other riches the coastline provides.
Glazewski is a professor at the Institute of Marine and Environmental Law at the University of Cape Town
Friday, July 27, 2007
The Mercury 27 July 2007
Proposed harbour plan hits rough water
July 27, 2007 Edition 1
Tony Carnie
DURBAN yachtsmen, ski-boaters and other watersport clubs are likely to pull out of negotiations with the Durban Point Development Company until there is more clarity on the new shape of the controversial small craft harbour at Vetch's Pier.
This after a decision earlier this month by the KZN Department of Environmental Affairs to request several changes to the original harbour plan, including the scrapping of a proposed underground parking lot for club members.
Members of the Durban Ski Boat Club were to vote on whether to sign a memorandum of agreement with the company this weekend. Members of the Point Yacht Club and Durban Undersea Club are to meet on August 6 to consider the same issue.
A draft memorandum of agreement prepared by the development company has proposed the formation of a joint "super club" to accommodate skiboaters, yachtsmen, windsurfers, Hobie cat and paddleski members under a single roof.
However, the Durban Ski Boat club has decided to postpone voting on the super club proposal until it can get clarity on several issues from development company project leader Neels Brink.
Club spokesman Eddie Lahee said the recent amendments and queries from the provincial environment department had created several areas of uncertainty and it was likely that any firm decisions about the super club proposal would have to be postponed for the time being.
Senior Point Yacht Club members Nigel Milne and Rob Goulden were not available for comment on whether the memorandum would be tabled at the club's August 6 meeting.
But Johnny Vasillaros, Chairman of the Durban Paddleski Club, has cautioned all water sport club members against signing "blank cheque" agreements.
Vasillaros said Brink seemed to be pressuring clubs to sign to demonstrate that the interests of club members had been accommodated.
"We also strongly believe this proposal has been carefully drawn up for the purpose of setting the clubs up to fail and go into liquidation . . . There will be no swimming, no surfing, no snorkelling, no boogie boards, no sunbathing, no kids building sandcastles. I believe the boating fraternity of this city deserves a far, far better deal and if all the clubs refuse to sign there can be no way that the city will even think about evicting us."
Brink did not respond to telephone messages.
July 27, 2007 Edition 1
Tony Carnie
DURBAN yachtsmen, ski-boaters and other watersport clubs are likely to pull out of negotiations with the Durban Point Development Company until there is more clarity on the new shape of the controversial small craft harbour at Vetch's Pier.
This after a decision earlier this month by the KZN Department of Environmental Affairs to request several changes to the original harbour plan, including the scrapping of a proposed underground parking lot for club members.
Members of the Durban Ski Boat Club were to vote on whether to sign a memorandum of agreement with the company this weekend. Members of the Point Yacht Club and Durban Undersea Club are to meet on August 6 to consider the same issue.
A draft memorandum of agreement prepared by the development company has proposed the formation of a joint "super club" to accommodate skiboaters, yachtsmen, windsurfers, Hobie cat and paddleski members under a single roof.
However, the Durban Ski Boat club has decided to postpone voting on the super club proposal until it can get clarity on several issues from development company project leader Neels Brink.
Club spokesman Eddie Lahee said the recent amendments and queries from the provincial environment department had created several areas of uncertainty and it was likely that any firm decisions about the super club proposal would have to be postponed for the time being.
Senior Point Yacht Club members Nigel Milne and Rob Goulden were not available for comment on whether the memorandum would be tabled at the club's August 6 meeting.
But Johnny Vasillaros, Chairman of the Durban Paddleski Club, has cautioned all water sport club members against signing "blank cheque" agreements.
Vasillaros said Brink seemed to be pressuring clubs to sign to demonstrate that the interests of club members had been accommodated.
"We also strongly believe this proposal has been carefully drawn up for the purpose of setting the clubs up to fail and go into liquidation . . . There will be no swimming, no surfing, no snorkelling, no boogie boards, no sunbathing, no kids building sandcastles. I believe the boating fraternity of this city deserves a far, far better deal and if all the clubs refuse to sign there can be no way that the city will even think about evicting us."
Brink did not respond to telephone messages.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Vetch's Pier plan faces rethink
July 19, 2007 Edition 1
Tony Carnie
THE controversial plan that will elbow out Durban's water-sports community from Vetch's Pier for a new yacht marina and commercial waterfront development has run into an obstacle.
The provincial Department of Environmental Affairs is unhappy with aspects of the marina plan and the mandatory environmental impact report lodged by the deve-lopers.
It has now insisted that a public meeting be held soon to discuss and clarify a new "compromise" plan negotiated between the eThekwini Metro and the Durban Point Deve-lopment Company.
The latest developments follow a series of objections from the city, watersport enthusiasts and members of the public over the perceived privatisation of a popular public beach.
Some of the central concerns raised by the provincial environment department include the likelihood of overcrowding at the beach, the legality of alienating a public amenity and the need to explain who will win and who will lose if the plan goes ahead.
According to a letter sent to the Durban Point Development Company spokesman Neels Brink, the provincial environment department's internal review task team had identified several "short- comings" and issues which required clarity.
Brink was not prepared to discuss what modifications were being considered when The Mercury spoke to him yesterday.
"When we go public everyone will see what is there . . . You are trying to pre-empt the legal public process," he responded when asked whether Durban Point Development Company had modified its original layout plans.
However, City Manager Michael Sutcliffe has confirmed that the city had asked the company to change certain aspects of the proposal and it is believed the deve-lopers were told to scale down the size of the yacht marina and to create a larger public beach area.
Sutcliffe said the eThekwini Metro Council supported the concept of a new small craft harbour, but the city's professional planning team did not agree with some of the developers' proposals.
From the perspective of urban design, the city wanted to see a "unique urban environment - not just a huge blob of concrete or a glorified shopping centre".
Sutcliffe believed the city had come up with a proposal, which was technically feasible.
Asked whether the proposed modifications would address the concerns of watersport clubs, which were worried about being "cooped up" in small premises, Sutcliffe said: "I think we are getting there . . . we were able to workshop a number of issues, but it's not going to satisfy everyone."
He suggested it was unrealistic to expect either a status quo situation or a maximisation of development. However, it appears that land ownership of the site may represent a significant legal stumbling block for the developers.
The Department of Environment Affairs and the Durban Paddleski Club have questioned who owns the land and the adjoining sea, and whether it is legal for the company to alienate it.
Sutcliffe said the ownership issue was still being discussed with Transnet Chief Executive Maria Ramos and Chief Operating Officer Louis van Niekerk. "It's not something we have resolved yet, but I'm hoping we will get a breakthrough."
In his letter to Brink and the environmental impact assessment project team, Malcolm Moses of the provincial Environment department said there was no proof or clarity on who owned the Vetch's site and whether the company was entitled to alienate this land if it was sold or leased.
Comment
Moses said his department had been informed that the final layout plans had undergone "several changes" and the public should be given an opportunity to comment on the changes.
He noted that the length of the beach at Vetch's would be reduced by nearly 100m when the harbour mouth was widened and uShaka beach had been created specifically to mitigate the loss of beach.
"Will the small craft harbour confine current users of Vetch's to a smaller area and will this result in the overcrowding of uShaka beach? Please provide a detailed response," wrote Moses.
The department also wanted clarity on whether adequate parking facilities would be provided and what would be done to address the fate of the water sports clubs and seine-netters.
Moses also raised concerns about a social impact assessment study conducted by the University of KwaZulu-Natal Centre for Environmental Management, noting that more information was needed to assess the distribution of benefits and costs of the affected people.
The department also expected clearer responses to the concerns raised by interested and affected groups, rather than just the deve-lopers' preferred options.
July 19, 2007 Edition 1
Tony Carnie
THE controversial plan that will elbow out Durban's water-sports community from Vetch's Pier for a new yacht marina and commercial waterfront development has run into an obstacle.
The provincial Department of Environmental Affairs is unhappy with aspects of the marina plan and the mandatory environmental impact report lodged by the deve-lopers.
It has now insisted that a public meeting be held soon to discuss and clarify a new "compromise" plan negotiated between the eThekwini Metro and the Durban Point Deve-lopment Company.
The latest developments follow a series of objections from the city, watersport enthusiasts and members of the public over the perceived privatisation of a popular public beach.
Some of the central concerns raised by the provincial environment department include the likelihood of overcrowding at the beach, the legality of alienating a public amenity and the need to explain who will win and who will lose if the plan goes ahead.
According to a letter sent to the Durban Point Development Company spokesman Neels Brink, the provincial environment department's internal review task team had identified several "short- comings" and issues which required clarity.
Brink was not prepared to discuss what modifications were being considered when The Mercury spoke to him yesterday.
"When we go public everyone will see what is there . . . You are trying to pre-empt the legal public process," he responded when asked whether Durban Point Development Company had modified its original layout plans.
However, City Manager Michael Sutcliffe has confirmed that the city had asked the company to change certain aspects of the proposal and it is believed the deve-lopers were told to scale down the size of the yacht marina and to create a larger public beach area.
Sutcliffe said the eThekwini Metro Council supported the concept of a new small craft harbour, but the city's professional planning team did not agree with some of the developers' proposals.
From the perspective of urban design, the city wanted to see a "unique urban environment - not just a huge blob of concrete or a glorified shopping centre".
Sutcliffe believed the city had come up with a proposal, which was technically feasible.
Asked whether the proposed modifications would address the concerns of watersport clubs, which were worried about being "cooped up" in small premises, Sutcliffe said: "I think we are getting there . . . we were able to workshop a number of issues, but it's not going to satisfy everyone."
He suggested it was unrealistic to expect either a status quo situation or a maximisation of development. However, it appears that land ownership of the site may represent a significant legal stumbling block for the developers.
The Department of Environment Affairs and the Durban Paddleski Club have questioned who owns the land and the adjoining sea, and whether it is legal for the company to alienate it.
Sutcliffe said the ownership issue was still being discussed with Transnet Chief Executive Maria Ramos and Chief Operating Officer Louis van Niekerk. "It's not something we have resolved yet, but I'm hoping we will get a breakthrough."
In his letter to Brink and the environmental impact assessment project team, Malcolm Moses of the provincial Environment department said there was no proof or clarity on who owned the Vetch's site and whether the company was entitled to alienate this land if it was sold or leased.
Comment
Moses said his department had been informed that the final layout plans had undergone "several changes" and the public should be given an opportunity to comment on the changes.
He noted that the length of the beach at Vetch's would be reduced by nearly 100m when the harbour mouth was widened and uShaka beach had been created specifically to mitigate the loss of beach.
"Will the small craft harbour confine current users of Vetch's to a smaller area and will this result in the overcrowding of uShaka beach? Please provide a detailed response," wrote Moses.
The department also wanted clarity on whether adequate parking facilities would be provided and what would be done to address the fate of the water sports clubs and seine-netters.
Moses also raised concerns about a social impact assessment study conducted by the University of KwaZulu-Natal Centre for Environmental Management, noting that more information was needed to assess the distribution of benefits and costs of the affected people.
The department also expected clearer responses to the concerns raised by interested and affected groups, rather than just the deve-lopers' preferred options.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
