Concerns over GR Dam development

Dean Chandler, George:

I am not opposed to the proposed development at the Garden Route Dam, in fact quite the contrary. However, there are serious concerns raised with conflicting information which I believe need to be carefully addressed.

Some of my concerns are:

1. Excessive increase in traffic load and congestion on existing suburban roads. These roads are already over-burdened during peak times. Refer to the Saasveld / Knysna road and Saasveld / Glenwood road intersections. Meyer and Stander streets are both narrow roads which currently do not even allow for passing traffic if there are stationary parked cars on one or both sides of these roads. It is understood that a traffic impact assessment is to be carried out, but there will be a substantial infrastructure upgrade required to accommodate this and one has to wonder if this will ever be fully implemented.

2. Impact on water supply. It took some 15 years or so for the raising of the existing level of the Garden Route Dam wall and spillway to be completed, so this has barely caught up with the ever increasing demand on this resource. The dam has also been silted up over the years so the capacity is also less than it potentially used to be.

3. Impact on solid waste management. What capacity does the city's existing landfill and solid waste disposal sites have to accommodate the increased pressure from this and other developments?

4. Proximity of development to the region's sustainable drinking water supply and the negative impact that such a development will have in terms of pollution of this water source.

5. The potential visual impact and noise disturbance that this development will have on the existing peaceful suburbs of

Eden and Loerie Park, and the resulting potential negative impact on property values that could result. With reference to the draft proposed rezoning document as prepared by Aurecon, the extent of the development as illustrated in this report is substantially more impactive on these suburbs than that illustrated in the Sharples EIA submission. It is quite clear that the intentions are quite different. The proposal per Aurecon impacts substantially more on the existing suburbs of Eden and Loerie Park. There is already a huge outcry from the local residents in this regard and this must be re-addressed. It is very concerning that two approval processes / applications from two different consultants (Sharples and Aurecon) run with contradictory information that could have a serious impact.

6. The land use allocation of the Sharples and Aurecon reports differ significantly in that the latter has 15 hectares (29%) more developed area i.e. 15ha (29%) less public open space. One has to question why the environmental impact assessment being carried out is so different from the draft rezoning application. This is deeply concerning.

8. Why a university / research institute / academy? Why compete economically with the existing Saasveld campus of NMU which is currently under-resourced, offering only limited courses and students? I am very supportive of the concept of George becoming an academic hub for the Southern Cape. However, this should be done in a sustainable and complementary manner.

* The public has till 21 August to view and comment on the proposed development's draft scoping report on the Sharples Environmental Services website (www.sescc.net). Read a related article elsewhere in the paper