FINAL S24G EIR COMMENCEMENT OF HOPE VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT PRIOR TO ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION - commencement of hope village development prior to ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
FINAL S24G EIR COMMENCEMENT OF HOPE VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT PRIOR TO ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION
Final Environmental Impact Report
COMMENCEMENT OF HOPE VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT
PRIOR TO ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION
DE DEUR, GAUTENG.
S24G/03/20-21/0515
FINAL S24G ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT
Prepared for:
Door of Hope Children’s
Mission 8 Copelia Avenue,
Glenvista Ext 3
Johannesburg, 2091 South Africa
Prepared by:
Cape Town
3 Caledonian Road, Mowbray,
7700
Also in Grahamstown, East London, Johannesburg, Port
Elizabeth and Maputo (Mozambique)
www.cesnet.co.za
APRIL 2021
FINAL Environmental Impact Report
REVISIONS TRACKING TABLE
CES Report Revision and Tracking Schedule
Document Title: S24G FINAL EIR S24G/03/20-21/0515
COMMENCEMENT OF HOPE VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT PRIOR
TO ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION
Client Name & Door of Hope Children’s Mission
Address:
Status: Final
Issue Date: 20 April 2021
Lead Author: Amber Jackson
Tarryn Martin
Reviewer:
Study Leader/ Registered Tarryn Martin
Environmental Assessment
Practitioner – Approval:
No. of hard No. electronic
Report Distribution Circulated to
copies copies
Draft:
Library 1
Website 1
Final:
GDARD S24G Department 2 1
Website 1
Report Version Date
Draft:
March 2021
Final:
20 April 2021
This document has been prepared in accordance with the scope of
CES’s appointment and contains intellectual property and
proprietary information that is protected by copyright in favour of
CES. The document may therefore not be reproduced, used or
distributed to any third party without the prior written consent of
CES. This document is prepared exclusively for use by CES’s client.
CES accepts no liability for any use of this document other than by
Info@cesnet.co.za
its client and only for the purposes for which it was prepared. No
www.cesnet.co.za
person other than the client may copy (in whole or in part), use or
rely on the contents of this document, without the prior written
permission of CES. The document is subject to all confidentiality,
copyright, trade secrets rules and intellectual property law and
practices of South Africa.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services Hope Village S24G
ii
Final Environmental Impact Report
ENVIRONMENTAL TEAM
The process where the environmental impacts associated with a project are assessed is a
collective effort from a team of appropriate and independent specialists, as well as an
independent Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP). The BA is required to assess the
planned development from a holistic perspective, considering all aspects and characteristics
within the affected natural and social environment. The following consultants have provided
expert input and a detailed assessment of the project in order to assess the environmental
and social impacts within the affected environment as well as the acceptability of the
application.
Amber Jackson: Project Management and Report Writer
Amber holds a Masters in Environmental Management from the University of Cape Town and
has a background in both Social and Ecological work. Her undergraduate degrees focused on
Ecology, Conservation and Environment with particular reference to landscape effects on
Herpetofauna, while her masters focused on the environmental management of social and
ecological systems. With a dissertation in food security that investigated the complex food
system of informal and formal distribution markets. At CES, Amber has been responsible for
the management of projects and specialist teams, the preparation and monitoring of project
budgets in excess of $500 000. She has managed Environmental, Social and Health Impact
Assessments for projects in the renewable, housing, agri-forestry and mining sectors in
Mozambique and South Africa to national and international lenders standards including the
AfDB, EIB, FSC and IFC. Amber specializes in faunal assessments and has conducted a
number of these in the both South Africa and Mozambique to international standards, the
majority were assisted by and to Prof Bill Branch. She has recently concluded an
Environmental and Social Rik management course with the IFC held in Johannesburg over
2018.
Ms Tarryn Martin: Project Leader
Tarryn holds a BSc (Botany and Zoology), a BSc (Hons) in African Vertebrate Biodiversity and
an MSc with distinction in Botany from Rhodes University. Tarryn’s Master’s thesis examined
the impact of fire on the recovery of C3 and C4 Panicoid and non-Panicoid grasses within the
context of climate change for which she won the Junior Captain Scott-Medal (Plant Science)
for producing the top MSc of 2010 from the South African Academy of Science and Art as well
as an Award for Outstanding Academic Achievement in Range and Forage Science from the
Grassland Society of Southern Africa. She conducts vegetation assessments including
vegetation and sensitivity mapping to guide developments and thereby minimise their impacts
on sensitive vegetation. Tarryn has undertaken several vegetation and impact assessments
in Mozambique (to IFC standards) which include the Lurio Forestry Project in Nampula, the
Syrah Graphite Mine in Cabo Delgado and the Baobab Iron Ore Mine in Tete, Mozambique.
She has undertaken critical habitat assessments, to IFC standards, for a solar farm in
Cameroon and a graphite mine in Mozambique. She has co-designed and implemented the
Terrestrial Monitoring Program for the Kenmare Namalope heavy minerals mine in
Mozambique and has recently developed a Biodiversity Management Plan and monitoring
plan for the Kenmare Pilivilli deposit. She has also worked on the Lesotho Highlands
Development Authority botanical baseline survey for Phase 2 of the Lesotho Highlands Water
Project.
FINAL Environmental Impact Report
Contact Details: Project Management and Report Writer
Name Ms Amber Jackson
Designation Principal Environmental Consultant
E-mail a.jackson@cesnet.co.za
Contact Details: Project Leader
Name Ms Tarryn Martin
Designation Principal Environmental Consultant
E-mail t.martin@cesnet.co.za
Role on Study
Declaration of independence
Team
Report Writer • I, Amber Jackson, declare that, in terms of the National Environmental
Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998), as amended and the Amended
Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2017;
• 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 report 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.
……………………………………….. 20.04.2021……………
SIGNED DATE
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services Hope Village S24G
1
FINAL Environmental Impact Report
ACRONYM LIST
BOD Biological Oxygen Demand
EAP Environmental Assessment Practitioner
EIR Environmental Impact Report
ERP Emergency Response Plan
GDARD Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development
IAPs Interested and Affected Parties
IBR Inverted Box Rib
kl Kilolitre
km Kilometre
LED Light-Emitting Diode
MEC Member of the Executive Council
NEMA National Environmental Management Act
PPP Public Participation Process
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services Hope Village S24G
ii
FINAL Environmental Impact Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 2
1.1 Background ........................................................................................................... 2
2. 24G PROCESS ................................................................................................... 3
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................. 5
3.1 Project Location .................................................................................................... 5
3.2 Project details ....................................................................................................... 6
3.3 Project Need and Desirability............................................................................. 14
4. DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ..................................... 16
4.1 Socio-economic Context .................................................................................... 16
4.1.1 Population and household profile ................................................................... 16
4.1.2 Age and Gender Structure ............................................................................. 16
4.1.3 Level of Education ......................................................................................... 16
4.1.4 Level of Employment ..................................................................................... 16
4.1.5 Household Incomes ....................................................................................... 16
4.2 Archaeology ........................................................................................................ 16
4.3 Palaeontology ..................................................................................................... 17
4.4 Vegetation ........................................................................................................... 17
4.5 Wetland................................................................................................................ 21
5. MITIGATION MEASURES IMPLEMENTED ..................................................... 22
6. IMPACT ASSESSMENT ................................................................................... 23
7. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ...................................................... 26
8. ANNEXURE A: PLANS FOR THREE CONSTRUCTED HOUSING UNITS ..... 27
9. ANNEXURE B: IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ............................ 28
10. ANNEXURE C: PLANNING APPROVALS ....................................................... 33
11. ANNEXURE D: APPLICANT AFFIDAVIT ......................................................... 35
12. ANNEXURE E: STORM WATER MANAGEMENT ........................................... 36
13. ANNEXURE F: EMERGENCY RESPONSE ..................................................... 38
14. ANNEXURE G: WASTE DISPOSAL ON SITE ................................................. 42
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services Hope Village S24G
1
FINAL Environmental Impact Report
15. ANNEXURE H: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ....................................................... 43
16. ANNEXURE I: FINANCIALS ............................................................................. 73
17. ANNEXURE J: EMPR ....................................................................................... 79
18. ANNEXURE K: WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN .............................................. 80
19. ANNEXURE L: DUST MANAGEMENT PLAN .................................................. 81
20. ANNEXURE M: REHABILITATION MANAGEMENT PLAN ............................ 82
21. ANNEXURE N: STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN ................................ 83
22. ANNEXURE O: SPECIALIST OPINION LETTERS .......................................... 84
22.1 Ecological Opinion Letter................................................................................... 84
22.2 Wetland Opinion Letter....................................................................................... 84
22.3 Heritage Opinion Letter ...................................................................................... 84
22.4 Palaeontological Opinion Letter ........................................................................ 84
23. ANNEXURE P: GDARD DIRECTIVE ................................................................ 85
24. ANNEXURE Q: ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION ................................... 86
25. ANNEXURE R: EAP DECLARATION AND CV ................................................ 87
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services Hope Village S24G
2
FINAL Environmental Impact Report
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1: Commencement and completion dates ................................................................ 6
Table 3-2 :Design specifications .......................................................................................... 9
Table 4.1: Vegetation transformed ...................................................................................... 17
Figure 4-7. Sensitivity Map of watercourses surrounding the study area showing the location
of the disturbed area on site. ............................................................................................... 21
Table 5.1: Materials for Recycled ........................................................................................ 22
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1: The housing units (white) and vegetation clearing for six proposed housing units.
............................................................................................................................................. 2
Figure 3-1:Project Location, Portion 19 of the farm 332 Hartsenbergfontein in De Deur........ 5
Figure 3-2: A) Aerial image May 2017. B) Aerial Image August 2019. ................................... 6
Figure 3-3: Three-bedroom Unit ............................................................................................ 7
Figure 3-4: New Road ........................................................................................................... 8
Figure 3-5: Design of 10kl sewerage plant .......................................................................... 10
Figure 3-6: Effluent/Sewerage lines from new housing units to new 10kl sewerage treatment
plant .................................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 3-7: Vegetable garden in 2016 compared to 2020. ................................................... 11
Figure 3-8: Vegetation clearing for six proposed housing units (white outline) .................... 13
Figure 4-1: Illustrating the change of vegetation at the site ................................................. 18
Figure 4-2: Map of the disturbed areas on site. .................................................................. 18
Figure 4-3: Site specific vegetation community map for the Hope Village Estate and
surrounds. ........................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 4-4: Sensitivity map for the Hope Village Estate and surrounds. .............................. 19
Figure 4-5: Infrastructure on the Ridge. A) Second Proposed Layout. B) Final realigned
layout .................................................................................................................................. 20
Figure 4-6: One of six units ................................................................................................. 20
Figure 7.1: Pre- and Post- Mitigation Impact Summary ....................................................... 26
LIST OF PLATES
Plate 3-1: A) Front of unit. B) Back of unit. ............................................................................ 7
Plate 3-2: Sewage Package Plant. ...................................................................................... 10
Plate 3-3: Vegetable garden................................................................................................ 12
Plate 4-1: Proposed house on the south eastern corner of the ridge ................................... 14
Plate 4-2: Proposed area for 3 of the 6 proposed housing units in the west of the site looking
onto two 24G housing units. ................................................................................................ 13
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services Hope Village S24G
1
FINAL Environmental Impact Report
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
Environmental Authorisation (GAUT 002/19-20/E0263) was granted for the development of a
village estate for abandoned and orphaned children in De Deur, Gauteng on the 28th of
September 2020.
Due to the construction of three housing units, the 10 KL sewerage treatment plant and short
dirt road prior to attaining the environmental authorisation for the clearing of indigenous
vegetation, a directive (S24G/03/20-21/0515) was issued by Gauteng Department of
Agriculture and Rural Development (GDARD) on the 21 December 2020 in terms of Section
24G (1) of NEMA: Unlawful Clearance of Indigenous Vegetation for the Development of an
Orphanage on Portion 19 of the Farm Hartsenbergfontein 332-IQ, Midvaal Local Municipality.
This report includes the six housing units which were not granted authorisation due to their
proximity to the three 24G buildings and thus fall within the ambit of the S24G rectification
process.
Figure 1-1: The housing units (white) and vegetation clearing for six proposed housing units.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services Hope Village S24G
2FINAL Environmental Impact Report
2. 24G PROCESS
The requirement for the rectification of ex post facto activities undertaken without authorisation
is for the unlawful clearance of indigenous vegetation for the development of an orphanage
on Portion 19 of the Farm Hartsenbergfontein 332-IQ, Midvaal Local Municipality (26° 23'
8.12"S; 27° 57' 58.39"E). The total size of the area affected by the unlawful activity is
approximately 2180 square meters.
Listing Notice 3
GN R. 324, Activity 12 (c) (ii)
The clearance of an area of 300 square metres or more of indigenous vegetation.
c. In Gauteng:
ii. Within Critical Biodiversity Areas or Ecological Support Areas identified in
the Gauteng Conservation Plan or bioregional plans.
The process followed is prescribed in Government Notice 40994, No. R. 698 published on 20
July 2017 referred to as Section 24G Fine Regulations.
A Section 24G Application Form for the consequences of unlawful commencement or
continuation of a listed activity/ies was submitted to GDARD on the 25 June 2020.
Prior to submission of the application a 20-day public participation process was held for the
review of the application and associated documentation from the 27 February 2020 to 17
March 2020.
GDARD then assessed the application and conducted a site visit on 07 October 2020.
Following this directive (S24G/03/20-21/0515) was issued in terms of section 24G(1)(i-viii) of
the NEMA on the 21 December 2020.
A public participation plan was drafted and submitted to GDARD on 15 January 2021 and
approved on the 22 February 2021.
Inception public participation process (PPP) was conducted as per Regulation 8 of the Section
24G Fine Regulations and included compiling a list of interested and affected parties (IAPs),
sending these IAPs a letter of notification and background information document sent on 09
March 2021 and erection of a site notice on the boundary fence. For proof of PPP conducted
to date please refer to (Appendix E).
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (this report) and associated documentation is then
drafted to retrospectively assess the impacts of unlawful clearance of indigenous vegetation.
The EIR is then released for public comment for a 30-day period from the 16 March 2021 to
17 April 2021. An advertisement will be placed in the local newspaper Rising Lenasia Sun on
the 16 March 2021 and a letter of notification was sent to all IAPs to inform them that the draft
report is available for review.
Following the review of the draft reports the environmental assessment practitioner (EAP)
addressed all IAP comments and include them in the final report (this report) for submission
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services Hope Village S24G
3FINAL Environmental Impact Report
to GDARD for decision making. The final report was submitted within four months of receiving
the directive i.e. by the 21 April 2021.
GDARD will issue an administrative fine, this may be up to a maximum of R5 million. In terms
of the provisions of section 24G of NEMA, the applicant must pay an administrative fine before
the MEC/Competent Authority decides on the application.
The applicant must within 14 days of receipt of the determination of the quantum of the fine,
ensure that all registered interested and affected parties are notified of the determination of
the quantum of the fine, including the reasons provided and access to the determination.
The administrative fine must be paid within the time period stipulated in the administrative Fine
Letter. Failure to pay the fine within the specified period, will result in the lapse of the
application and any partial amounts paid in will not be refunded.
Proof of payment of the fine must be submitted to the Department. Upon payment of the
administrative fine, the MEC/Competent Authority may-
➢ refuse to issue an environmental authorisation; or
➢ issue an environmental authorisation to such person to continue, conduct or undertake
the activity subject to such conditions as may be deemed necessary, which
environmental authorisation shall only take effect from the date on which it has been
issued; or
➢ direct the applicant to provide further information or take further steps prior to making
a decision provided for above;
➢ together with the above decision the MEC/Competent Authority may direct a person to
rehabilitate the environment within such time and subject to such conditions as may
deem necessary or take any other steps necessary under the circumstances.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services Hope Village S24G
4FINAL Environmental Impact Report
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The project is located approximately 15 km south Johannesburg and 30 km north Vereeniging,
on Portion 19 of the farm 332 Hartsenbergfontein in De Deur. The property is located within
the Midvaal Local Municipality and Sedibeng District Municipality of the Gauteng Province
Figure 3-1). Although zoned as ‘agricultural’ no agricultural activities have taken place in
recent years.
Figure 3-1:Project Location, Portion 19 of the farm 332 Hartsenbergfontein in De Deur
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services Hope Village S24G
5FINAL Environmental Impact Report
3.2 PROJECT DETAILS
The development included:
➢ Three housing units (operational),
➢ Dirt road,
➢ 10kl Sewerage package plant,
➢ Vegetable garden and
➢ Clearance of indigenous vegetation for the proposed six housing units.
These are illustrated in Figure 3-2 and the commencement and completion dates of the
infraction is indicated in the Table 3-1 below.
Table 3-1: Commencement and completion dates
Infrastructure Commencement Date Completion date
Clearing of indigenous vegetation August 2017 October 2018
Three housing units January 2018 November 2018
Sewerage Package Plant October 2018 November 2018
Vegetable Garden &
Figure 3-2: A) Aerial image May 2017. B) Aerial Image August 2019.
3.2.1 Housing units
Three housing units have been constructed. These include two three-bedroom units
(approximately 170 m2 each which includes the patios) and 1 two-bedroom unit (approximately
124 m2 which includes patios).
The walls of each house have been constructed of stumbelbloc and conventional brick
and are plastered and painted. Chromodek IBR roof sheeting has been used for the roofs.
General ‘green building principles’ have been applied. This includes rainwater harvesting
tanks, gas stoves, LED lighting and the use of building materials that require less
maintenance. The design of the buildings also incorporates natural cross-ventilation (to
minimise the need for mechanical ventilation), optimisation of sun exposure and the use of
natural light.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services Hope Village S24G
6FINAL Environmental Impact Report
Figure 3-3: Three-bedroom Unit
Plate 3-1: A) Front of unit. B) Back of unit.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services Hope Village S24G
7FINAL Environmental Impact Report
3.2.2 Dirt Road
A new dirt road of approximately 110m long and 4.5m wide has been constructed.
Figure 3-4: New Road
3.2.3 Sewerage package plant
There is no municipal bulk sewerage infrastructure currently on-site. A 10KL sewer treatment
plant has been installed to service the existing infrastructure. Underground sewerage lines
connecting the houses to the sewer treatment plant have been installed.
The main process used by the sewerage treatment plant is a standard activated sludge
system, where the BOD is broken down using air and bacteria, which grow in this medium.
The bacteria grow naturally, and no additional bio-chemicals have to be added in the process.
The effluent specification is General Standard in accordance with the terms of the current
South African Legislation. (Government Gazette 20526 of 8 October 1999, Department of
Water Affairs publication No.1191 in terms of Section 39 of the National Water Act No 36 of
1988) this excludes both phosphate removal and special denitrification. This effluent is
suitable for irrigation.
The system is based on the activated sludge process. The use of a single fibreglass tank,
which gives the advantage of the much stronger fibreglass construction as well as being a
single tank, installation is easy and can be done quickly.
The raw sewage is introduced into a series of zones, where it is contacted with air, blown into
the tanks by means of a special blower so that the natural aerobic bacteria break down the
sewage. A coarse bubble aeration system, which does mix the liquor strongly and has proven
to be very effective.
The plant is based on a continuous treatment of the sewage and flow through the plant is
based on gravity. These rather basic design considerations have however significant effect on
the operation of the plant:
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services Hope Village S24G
8FINAL Environmental Impact Report
➢ The design can cope with fluctuating flows during the day. As the flow is attenuated
through the plant, peaks can be handled very effectively. The series of zones used
ensure that peak flows reduce through the plant even if we have allowed for the high
peak values.
➢ No pumps are used in the main sewage flow inside the plant. These normally need to
be designed for peak flows so that the plant operates generally at peak flow conditions.
In the plant itself, flows are by gravity only.
➢ Because of the fact that the system operates continuously, the effluent is of a constant
nature. It is thus easier to maintain a good effluent quality with little or no operator
interference.
➢ Because of the series of zones used, the system can also cope with high and low input
levels.
In addition to the normal installation of this plant, it has been installed below Natural Ground
Level (NGL) within sealed vinyl housing surrounded by river sand on each side. Two
inspection pipes have been installed within the housing to the tank floor level to monitor for
any spillages. The effluent water from the treatment plant is of agricultural quality and will be
used for irrigation of the gardens. The external and internal sewer drainage
network operates as a gravity system.
The design will be based on the specifications in table 3-2 below.
Table 3-2 :Design specifications
Design Standards
1 Sewerage outflow per day 10 kℓ/day
2 Peak factor 2.5
3 Sewer capacity Pipes Shall be designed to run at 70% full,
measured in terms of flow depth
4 Provision of stormwater infiltration 15%
5 Flow formula Manning n = 0.013
6 Minimum velocities in sewers 0.75 m/s at full flow
7 Minimum pipe size for reticulation 145 mm internal diameter
8 Minimum gradients
Nominal Minimum grade with depth of Minimum grade with depth of flow =
o (mm) flow = 1/5 D and V = 0.6m/s 1/2 D and V = 0.82m/s
160 1/80 1/100
200 1/120 1/200
250 1/160 1/240
300 1/200 1/300
9 Fall through manholes 80 mm
10 Depth of sewer
• In mid-blocks 1.2m depth to invert
• In street reserves 1.5m depth to invert
11 Maximum manhole spacing 110m
12 Placement of sewers in road reserve 1m from erf boundary on high side of street
13 Placement of sewer inside midblock 1m from boundary
14 Dolomitic risk category None
15 Pipe material
• Type uPVC
• Class Class 400
• Supply Lengths 12 m minimum
• Joints uPVC
16 Sewer manholes Concrete Manhole rings with steps
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services Hope Village S24G
9FINAL Environmental Impact Report
Figure 3-5: Design of 10kl sewerage plant
Plate 3-2: Sewage Package Plant.
No formal municipal bulk water infrastructure exists, nor could be found in the near vicinity of
the development. Water is currently being supplied by existing borehole on site. An existing
borehole can provide a constant daily supply of 10.5kl/hour/day, resulting in a constant daily
supply of 252kl/day which can accommodate the development’s water demand. The water
quality falls within the minimum standards of the South African National Drinking Water
Standards (SANS 241:2015).
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services Hope Village S24G
10FINAL Environmental Impact Report
The water reticulation consists of a pipe network varying in diameter from 90mm to
110mm. Currently the new pipes connecting to the new houses are lying on top of
the ground. Each housing unit also has a 5000L rainwater tank to ensure that rooftop
rainwater runoff can be collected.
Figure 3-6: Effluent/Sewerage lines from new housing units to new 10kl sewerage treatment
plant
3.2.3 Vegetable Garden
The vegetable garden is approximately 0.1ha (869m2) and is currently a productive area
fenced off (Plate 3-3).
Figure 3-7: Vegetable garden in 2016 compared to 2020.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services Hope Village S24G
11FINAL Environmental Impact Report
Plate 3-3: Vegetable garden.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services Hope Village S24G
12FINAL Environmental Impact Report
3.2.4 Clearance of Indigenous vegetation for six housing units
Six housing units were not granted authorisation due to their proximity to the three 24G
buildings and thus fall within the ambit of this S24G rectification process (Figure 3-8, Plate
4-1, Plate 4-2).
Figure 3-8: The six proposed housing units are illustrated in black.
Plate 4-1: Proposed area for 3 of the 6 proposed housing units in the west of the site looking
onto two 24G housing units.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services Hope Village S24G
13FINAL Environmental Impact Report
Plate 4-2: Proposed house on the south eastern corner of the ridge
3.3 PROJECT NEED AND DESIRABILITY
The applicant received local planning approvals and was under the impression that they could
start construction. However, the applicant realised that they have made a mistake and began
the rectification process (24G). All further construction stopped at this time. Proof of planning
approvals are included in Annexure C. As per the directive (point 13) the applicant has a
signed affidavit explaining this and has committed to not undertake any listed activities without
prior approval Annexure D.
The infrastructure which has already been constructed forms part of Phase 1 of the Door of
Hope Village Estate. Each housing unit has the capacity to accommodate between 6 and 8
orphans. Considering that there is no bulk sewerage infrastructure on site, it was necessary
to install the 10kl sewerage plant to service all existing infrastructure.
Three permanent jobs were created on site as well as temporary jobs during the construction
phase. The temporary jobs equated to an average of 10 people for 1 year.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services Hope Village S24G
14FINAL Environmental Impact Report
Door of Hope receives support from USA and European organizations and the money directly
received from overseas for the site has easily exceeded R2 000 000 to date. This is direct
foreign capital flowing into the area and country and was used to pay staff and buy materials
used on site to build the homes and infrastructure. Additional funds will be received in future
to further develop the site.
Mitigation measures for the remainder of the site (not part of the Section 24G application)
include conservation of the remaining ridge areas. The proponent has indicated that this will
be done, with these areas utilised only for conservation comparable activities such as hiking,
bird watching and environmental education.
Approved Environmental Authorisation:
Environmental Authorisation (GAUT 002/19-20/E0263) was granted for the development of a
village estate for abandoned and orphaned children in on Portion 19 of the farm
Hartsenbergfontein 332 IQ, De Deur, Gauteng on the 28th of September 2020.
The development is for a private village estate for a possible 300 abandoned and orphaned
children. The village estate will include 70 Housing Units (which includes a baby house), an
early childhood development centre, a large dining hall, a school, sports and recreational
facilities, storage facilities, medical clinic and therapy offices, maintenance workshops and
storerooms, indoor and outdoor private gym, a library, administrative offices, green spaces,
subsistence farming gardens, a multipurpose hall / church, four attenuation ponds, a sewerage
treatment plant and internal access roads and parking areas. Electricity, water and sewerage
lines will also be laid to support the new infrastructure.
Applicant motivation:
Door of Hope Children’s Mission has been running for 20 years and has taken in over 1650
abandoned babies during that time. They generally run at capacity and at any time have
around 175 babies and toddlers in their care. Their vision is to expand their operation to care
of many more orphaned children at the village. They are well respected amongst the local and
international community and always strive towards the highest possible level of ethical
behavior.
Money is always an issue in an organization like theirs which is why an experienced developer
with many years of experience was not hired upfront. They are therefore learning in many ways
as they go along with the development and were therefore unaware of the need to apply for
an environmental authorization for certain of our development activities. At the time they
received the official approval from Midvaal Municipality to build the homes and had the signed
house and site plans.
They have however since contracted experienced Town Planners and Environmental
Consultants to take them through the full authorization process. Construction of the homes
was halted when they found out about the contraventions from their Environmental
Consultants and remains as such until they are given the go ahead which they hope will be
received soon. They are also committed to complying with all the recommendations made by
the consultants going forward.
They will not make any profits from the homes that were built. Their only intention is to give
more children a better start at life by giving them a home. Their staff are all very passionate
about saving children’s lives and none are there to profit from the venture. A fine will set them
back significantly and remove income that would have been used to build children’s homes. It
is for that reason that they ask for a favorable consideration when reviewing their application.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services Hope Village S24G
15FINAL Environmental Impact Report
4. DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED
ENVIRONMENT
4.1 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT
The study area falls under the administrative area of the Midvaal Local Municipality (MLM) in
the Sedibeng District Municipality.
4.1.1 Population and household profile
Midvaal Local Municipality has a population of about 111 612 (Statistics SA community survey,
2016). This is an increase from 95 301 recorded by the 2011 Statistics SA census. The number
of households has increased from 29 964 in 2011 to 38 046 in 2016 (27%). The population is
generally concentrated in areas close to the R59 road. The remaining areas have relatively
low population densities, increasing towards the local municipal border with the Emfuleni
municipality.
4.1.2 Age and Gender Structure
A majority of Midvaals’s population (70.5 %) falls within the economically viable 15-64 age
group, indicating a large supply of labour. The dependency ratio within Midvaal is 42 %,
meaning that every person comprising this age group supports 0.42 people comprising the
economically inactive age groups (youth and elderly). The gender profile of the Midvaal Local
Municipality indicates that there are slightly more males (52%) than females (48%) within the
population.
4.1.3 Level of Education
Only 5.2% of the total population of people aged 20 years or older living within the Midvaal
Local Municipality have not received any schooling. 34.4% have some secondary education,
32.3% have completed matric and 15.3% have some form of higher education.
4.1.4 Level of Employment
The unemployment rate in the Midvaal Local Municipality is 18.8%. This means Midvaal has
an employment rate of 81.2%, which is among the highest when compared to the provincial
and district situation.
4.1.5 Household Incomes
There is a wide distribution of income per household within the Midvaal Local Municipality.
The weighted average household income is R 15,794 per month. 13.9 % of all households
earn no income.
4.2 ARCHAEOLOGY
The archaeological specialist was consulted regarding the constructed infrastructure. The
specialist provided an opinion letter stating that the clearing of vegetation and other
construction activities did not have a significant impact on heritage resources or the larger
heritage landscape and it is recommended that the developer be exempted from further
Phases of heritage and / or archaeological impact assessments for the S24G application area,
subject to Minimum Standards: Archaeological and Paleontological Components of Impact
Assessment as set out by the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA).
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services Hope Village S24G
16FINAL Environmental Impact Report
4.3 PALAEONTOLOGY
No features were identified. The Paleontological Specialist noted that the likelihood that fossils
are preserved in the study site are slim due to the thermal metamorphosis this formation would
have experienced during the intrusion of the syenite dyke.
4.4 VEGETATION
The study area comprises both ridge open thicket (4.11ha) and grassland (12.97ha). Tree and
shrub species are found exclusively in the rocky ridge areas.
The ridge comprises sections that form a Class 3 ridge, and some areas of the ridge that are
transformed. The study area also falls within a CBA and ESA identified by the Gauteng C-
Plan. The study area comprises Gauteng Shale Mountain Bushveld (Vulnerable) according
to Mucina and Rutherford (2012). No protected areas or National Protected Areas Expansion
Strategy areas lie within 10kms of the site.
The ridge vegetation forms an open thicket, with a grassy understory with some herbaceous
species and geophytes. It is about 5m tall at its tallest. The indigenous trees dominating this
vegetation community type are Vachellia caffra, Celtis africana and Dombeya rotundifolia as
relatively large trees and Euclea crispa and Erhetia rigida forming the shorter trees and
shrubs stratum. The basal layer comprised grass species (either dry or burnt) with exposed
rocky areas supporting Boophone disticha, Kohautia amatymbica, Pentanisia angustifolia,
Asparagus sp., Ipomoea bathycolops, Scadoxis punicens and Aloe zebrina, among others.
This vegetation type is heavily invaded by a variety of invasive species including Melia
azedarach, Agave sisalana, Agave Americana, Pinus sp., Opuntia ficus-indica,
Cercus jamacara and Jacaranda mimosifolia. The most dominant invasive
is Acacia mearnsii which forms a dominant tree species on the northern part of the ridge.
Although the infrastructure has been built within a CBA and on a ridge, historical imagery
indicates that two of the three housing units were built in an area that was previously covered
by lawn, indicating low impacts on the indigenous vegetation. However, the third housing unit,
the road and the 10kl sewerage package plant resulted in the clearing of approximately
2180m2 of vegetation on the category 3 ridge. Ridge vegetation forms valuable and sensitive
habitat, indicating that impacts here are moderate.
Table 4.1: Vegetation transformed
Indicate the physical spatial size of the activity as well as associated
1355 m2
infrastructure (footprints):
Indicate the area that has been transformed / cleared to allow for the activity as
4185 m2
well as associated infrastructure
Total area (sum of the footprint area and transformed area) 5540 m2
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services Hope Village S24G
17FINAL Environmental Impact Report
Figure 4-1: Illustrating the change of vegetation at the site
Figure 4-2: Map of the disturbed areas on site.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services Hope Village S24G
18FINAL Environmental Impact Report
Figure 4-3: Site specific vegetation community map for the Hope Village Estate and surrounds.
Figure 4-4: Sensitivity map for the Hope Village Estate and surrounds.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services Hope Village S24G
19FINAL Environmental Impact Report
The Gauteng Ridges Policy is aimed at the conservation of ridges and the 200m buffer area
surrounding the ridges. These areas provide habitat for a wide variety of fauna and flora, some
of which are Red List, rare or endemic species or, in the case of certain plant species, are
found nowhere else in South Africa or the world. The proposed development falls within a
Class 3 Ridge, which is governed and managed under the framework and guidelines stipulated
in this policy. Following discussions with the applicant regarding the proposed infrastructure
located on the ridge, the second proposed layout was revised and updated further to avoid
the ridge as far as possible.
As seen in the Figure 4-5B above, there is still some infrastructure that has been proposed
on the ridge.
The land has already been disturbed and is well away from the rocky outcrop and tree line.
The photos below show the proposed area. The white posts are the old fence line which
demarcates the edge of the ridge.
Figure 4-5: Infrastructure on the Ridge. A) Second Proposed Layout. B) Final realigned layout
Figure 4-6: One of six units
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services Hope Village S24G
20FINAL Environmental Impact Report
4.5 WETLAND
Based on desktop analysis of the site, the infrastructure developments and construction
activities that took place on site, appear to be more than 240m from the nearby watercourses
outside of moderate and high sensitivity areas (Figure 4-7).
The specialist’s opinion is that there were no impacts on the aquatic and wetland environment
surrounding the development and all activities took place within the low sensitivity areas.
Disturbed
areas on
site
Figure 4-7. Sensitivity Map of watercourses surrounding the study area showing the location of
the disturbed area on site.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services Hope Village S24G
21FINAL Environmental Impact Report
5. MITIGATION MEASURES IMPLEMENTED
The directive issued on the 21 December 2020 instructed the applicant to draft a surface or
storm water management plan and an Emergency Response Plan (“ERP”). The applicant had
a storm water management plan drawn up in July 2018 and (Annexure E). Evacuation plans,
firefighting equipment and emergency signs have been placed on site (Annexure F).
The directive also instructed that the following additional plans be drafted and kept on site
Within thirty (30) days of the date of receipt of the directive:
➢ Waste Management; and
➢ Dust Management; and
➢ Rehabilitation Plan.
A copy of these plans can be found in Annexure K, L, M, N and on site.
Waste measurements in place on site include a designated and cordoned off general waste
area and building rubble has been sectioned off with shade cloth. Refer to Annexure G for
photographs.
During the construction phase, construction solid waste generated 300m3 by the
project was gathered and stored in an appropriate, central area on site. Where possible the
construction waste was reused on site. The remainder has been kept on site and will be used
as backfill in future construction within the property. This is a continuous and ongoing process.
Currently all domestic waste produced (5m3/month) is collected and stored in weather and
scavenger proof containers on site. Where possible it is recycled. The remainder is collected
by the local municipality.
All users of the property participate in recycling by using standard procedures. Colour coded
and labelled bins at focal points will be used to easily identify recycling options.
Table 5.1: Materials for Recycled
Metal Partnership in place with a metal recycling company to collect and take
for recycling
Paper and Cardboard Paper bins
Cardboard and paper to be recycled
Large paper bins when volume allows
Biodegradable plant Compost bins
waste Worm farms
Reuse on property in vegetable gardens and as compost
Hard Plastic Partnership with owl box manufacturers who collect for recycling into
owl boxes
Soft Plastic Partnership with Ecobrick Exchange to create Eco bricks as building
material
Construction Waste Construction waste to be used as backfill in future construction within
the property. This is a continuous and ongoing process.
Glass Recycled at glass stations
Other Recycled when possible
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services Hope Village S24G
22FINAL Environmental Impact Report
The following additional mitigation measures were implemented for the 24G alliable activities:
Visual
• Vegetation has been incorporated into the design of each house
• Houses have been painted natural colours to fit in with the landscape
• Construction activities only took place during daylight working hours (i.e. 7am – 5pm)
• Construction activity and equipment was restricted to the site footprint
Noise
• Construction activities only took place during daylight working hours (i.e. 7am – 5pm)
Fire Risk
• Flammable substances were stored in demarcated dry areas
• Smoking was not allowed on site
• Cooking was restricted to demarcated areas were fire risk was low
• No open fires were allowed, unless in the demarcated areas
• Fire extinguishers were available on site
Sanitation
• During the construction phase adequate sanitary facilities were provided for
construction workers.
• The facilities were regularly serviced to reduce the risk of pollution.
• The facilities were located far away from any watercourses.
Topsoil
• Topsoil and subsoil were separated during stockpiling.
• Areas that were rehabilitated/landscaped were covered with 150-200mm of topsoil on
top of the subsoil.
• Topsoil was not stockpiled higher than 2m or for longer than 1 year.
Vegetation
• The footprint of the construction was kept as small as possible.
• The construction area was demarcated.
• Construction vehicles were not permitted beyond the demarcated construction site.
Invasion of Alien Species
• Many Seringa trees have been removed at the site where construction took place.
Rehabilitation of Disturbed Areas
• Some impacted areas were rehabilitated with species indigenous to the area.
• Only topsoil from the immediate area was used for rehabilitation.
• Many of the indigenous plants were removed from the construction areas and re-
planted in gardens around the new buildings.
Socio-Economic
• Access was controlled to ensure no unauthorised people entered the site
• Where possible, construction materials were bought locally
• Where possible, local people were employed to help with construction
6. IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The impact assessment for the project is assessed in detail below.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services Hope Village S24G
23FINAL Environmental Impact Report
IRREPLACEABLE
SPATIAL SCALE
REVERSIBILITY
BENEFICIAL
(LIKELIHOOD)
SEVERITY /
NATURE OF
CERTAINTY
MITIGATION
POTENTIAL
DURATION
SIGNIFICANCE
SCALE
IMPACT
SIGNIFICANCE
SCALE
LOSS
THEME DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT PRE- MITIGATION MEASURES POST-
MITIGATION MITIGATION
Ridge vegetation lost • The footprint was kept as small as possible.
(Moderate Sensitivity) • The construction area was demarcated.
Reversible
Permanent
will be lost
Resource
MODERATE Construction vehicles were not permitted beyond the MODERATE
Moderate
Localised
•
Difficult
Definite
The development of one of three housing unit, road, NEGATIVE demarcated construction site. NEGATIVE
Direct
vegetable patch and Sewage packaging plant removed • Many Seringa trees have been removed at the site
2180m2 of Ridge vegetation.
where construction took place.
Degraded vegetation lost • The footprint was kept as small as possible.
Reversible
Permanent
Achievable
will be lost
(Low Sensitivity)
Resource
Localised
LOW • The construction area was demarcated. LOW
Definite
The development of two of three housing units NEGATIVE • Construction vehicles were not permitted beyond the NEGATIVE
Direct
Slight
removed degraded (infrastructure) vegetation. demarcated construction site.
Loss of
Vegetation • Keep the footprint of the construction as small as
Loss of Moderately Sensitive Ridge vegetation for the possible, the area of construction should be
Reversible
Permanent
will be lost
proposed 6 housing units.
Resource
MODERATE demarcated, and personnel not allowed to heavily MODERATE
Moderate
Localised
Difficult
Definite
The development of 6 housing units will remove 2,110 NEGATIVE use the surrounding natural vegetation. NEGATIVE
Direct
m2 of Ridge vegetation. • Avoid any construction or related activity occurring
within the grasslands outside of the property.
• Keep the footprint of the construction as small as
Loss of Low Sensitive possible, the area of construction should be
Achievable
Reversible
Permanent
will be lost
Degraded vegetation for the proposed 6 housing units.
Resource
LOW demarcated, and personnel not allowed to heavily LOW
Localised
Definite
The development of 6 housing units will remove NEGATIVE use the surrounding natural vegetation. NEGATIVE
Direct
Slight
degraded (infrastructure) vegetation. • Avoid any construction or related activity occurring
within the grasslands outside of the property.
• During the construction phase sanitary facilities were
provided for construction workers.
Short Term
achievable
Reversible
will not be
Resource
LOW The facilities were regularly serviced to reduce the LOW
Localised
•
Construction crew sanitation
Definite
NEGATIVE risk of pollution. NEGATIVE
Easily
Direct
Slight
• The facilities were located far away from any
lost
Sanitation watercourses.
Achievable
The packaging plant is fiberglass and sealed within a
Study Area
Reversible
Long Term
•
will not be
Resource
Moderate
MODERATE vinyl housing so that if any leaks should occur these LOW
Definite
Operational use of the Sewage packaging plant
NEGATIVE will be contained, and the two inspection pipes were NEGATIVE
Direct
lost
installed to monitor any spillages.
• Waste measurements in place on site include a
designated and cordoned off general waste area and
building rubble has been sectioned off with shade
cloth.
• During the construction phase, construction solid
waste generated 300m3 by the project was gathered
Development and operation of the 24G activities and stored in an appropriate, central area on site.
Resource will not be lost
MODERATE Where possible the construction waste was reused LOW
Waste would have resulted in construction solid waste and
NEGATIVE on site. The remainder has been kept on site and NEGATIVE
general waste
will be used as backfill in future construction within
the property.
• Currently all domestic waste produced (5m3/month)
Achievable
Reversible
Short-term
is collected and stored in weather and scavenger
Moderate
Regional
proof containers on site. Where possible it is
Definite
Direct
recycled. The remainder is collected by the local
municipality.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services Hope Village S24G
24FINAL Environmental Impact Report
Resource will
The construction of three housing unit, road,
Irreversible
Achievable
not be lost
vegetable patch and Sewage packaging would have
Short-term
LOW Construction activities only took place during daylight LOW
Localised
•
Probable
Noise pollution increased the ambient noise levels and could’ve been NEGATIVE working hours (i.e. 7am – 5pm). NEGATIVE
Direct
Slight
a nuisance for surrounding residents.
Resource will
• No dust reduction measures were in place during the
Irreversible
Achievable
Development of the 24G activities may have resulted
not be lost
Short-term
LOW construction process; however, this impact may not LOW
Localised
Probable
Dust in dust generation during construction activities. NEGATIVE have been felt as there would be little impact due to NEGATIVE
Direct
Slight
lack of neighboring residents and little wind.
• Some impacted areas were rehabilitated with species
Resource will not
indigenous to the area.
During the development and operation of the 24G
Only topsoil from the immediate area was used for
Medium-term
•
activities Hope Village implemented rehabilitation MODERATE MODERATE
Achievable
Reversible
Rehabilitation rehabilitation.
NEGATIVE POSITIVE
Localised
measures to disturbed areas.
Definite
Many of the indigenous plants were removed from the
be lost
•
Direct
Slight
construction areas and re-planted in gardens around
the new buildings.
• Where possible, local people were employed to help
Resource will
with construction
Irreversible
Achievable
not be lost
Job creation during construction and operation of 24G MODERATE MODERATE
Long-term
Three permanent jobs were created on site as well as
Beneficial
•
Probable
Regional
activities. POSITIVE temporary jobs during the construction phase. The POSITIVE
Direct
temporary jobs equated to an average of 10 people
for 1 year
Socio-economic
Resource will
Achievable
Reversible
not be lost
Long-term
Increased housing and care for orphaned and HIGH HIGH
beneficial
No mitigation required.
Regional
•
Definite
abandoned children during the operational phase. POSITIVE POSITIVE
Highly
Direct
• It is recommended that to optimize the benefit a
During the operational phase materials and products
Resource will
procurement policy should be put in place to ensure
that are needed to run facility will be sourced from
Irreversible
Achievable
Cumulative
MODERATE MODERATE
May Occur
that the local people and businesses benefit as much
not be lost
Long-term
Beneficial
local businesses and this will result in a boost of the
Regional
POSITIVE as possible. POSITIVE
local economy of the immediate vicinity
and surrounding areas. • Where possible, construction materials were bought
Cumulative locally
Impacts
Resource will not
Highly beneficial
During the operation phase there will be an increase
in housing for orphaned and abandoned children. In HIGH HIGH
Achievable
Cumulative
Reversible
• No mitigation required.
Long-term
doing so the resources burden will be slightly reduced POSITIVE POSITIVE
Regional
Definite
be lost
by ensuring private care of orphans.
CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services Hope Village S24G
25You can also read
