Your cart is currently empty!
Tag: the
SayPro is a Global Solutions Provider working with Individuals, Governments, Corporate Businesses, Municipalities, International Institutions. SayPro works across various Industries, Sectors providing wide range of solutions.
Email: info@saypro.online Call/WhatsApp: Use Chat Button 👇
SayPro Diepsloot Youth Project …1.1 Background on the Nancefield Station Precinct
The Nancefield Station Precinct in Soweto is a flagship Transit Oriented Development (TOD) node, which the City wishes to develop over the medium-term. It is one of the precincts identified in the Cluster Business Plan as part of the TOD sub-programme, with the aim of creating“a restructured space economy that gives poor households better access to well-located accommodation, jobs and markets; optimised land use and energy consumption; and improved living standards and mobility for large numbers of people in well serviced and managed transit neighbourhoods.”
The Nancefield Station Precinct is situated within the Klipspruit township, east of the Klipspruit Valley, approximately 18km south of the Johannesburg Inner City and 8km west of the N1 Highway the Diepkloof Interchange. The precinct is bounded by Moroko (Nancefield) Road on the
south, Sofasonke Street on the north, Mbambisa Drive on the east and floodplain area on the west, and the railway line.
The development concept for the precinct was approved by Council in July 2010, which identifies the area as highly suitable for high density residential accommodation that complements the public transport facilities in the area. The vision is for a transformed area; with the vacant and underutilized land parcels developed with higher density housing typologies and supporting social facilities; development opportunities that will be able to attract private sector investment, including business development; the emphasis on transit oriented development with Nancefield Station as a focal point and a safe, walkable environment is critical.
The broader vision of the Nancefield Precinct is as follows:
- That it is the business heart of the Klipspruit area, but also provides an opportunity for the initiation of residential developments that appeal to a diverse range of
- That it offers high quality urban environment with available social and educational facilities, generous quality open spaces and ample entertainment opportunities
- That it acts as a key transportation transit point for the Klipspruit area, but also a destination of choice where people want to walk the streets;
- That it showcases best urban management practices – clean and safe, with strong by-law enforcement and maintenance of public
While the official Urban Development Framework vision is of interest, we would like to explore what local residents and stakeholders think about the future and potential of their neighbourhood. The application of the City Futures project in the Nancefield Station Precinct might yield innovative and creative ideas to inform future development strategies.
SayPro Diepsloot Youth Project …HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED DIEPSLOOT PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT, RANDBURG MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, GAUTENG PROVINCE
A small, unnamed stream, a tributary of the Jukskei River, passes through the Diepkloof settlement, dividing the community in two. At present, only a few formal crossings allow access to the opposite sides. These are single lane, low water bridges, with limited access for pedestrians. In summer, many of these crossings become flooded, creating a dangerous situation if people want to cross to the other side. Therefore the Johannesburg Development Agency plans to build a proper, safe, crossing for pedestrians to use.
In accordance with Section 38 of the NHRA, an independent heritage consultant was appointed by Envirolution Consulting to conduct a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) to determine if any sites, features or objects of cultural heritage significance occur within the boundaries of the area where it is planned to develop the project.
- As no heritage sites occur in the study area, there would be no impact resulting from the proposed
Therefore, from a heritage point of view we recommend that the proposed development can continue. However, we request that if archaeological sites or graves are exposed during construction work, it should immediately be reported to a heritage practitioner so that an investigation and evaluation of the finds can be made.
SayPro Diepsloot Youth Project …HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED DIEPSLOOT PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT, RANDBURG MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, GAUTENG PROVINCE
A small, unnamed stream, a tributary of the Jukskei River, passes through the Diepkloof settlement, dividing the community in two. At present, only a few formal crossings allow access to the opposite sides. These are single lane, low water bridges, with limited access for pedestrians. In summer, many of these crossings become flooded, creating a dangerous situation if people want to cross to the other side. Therefore the Johannesburg Development Agency plans to build a proper, safe, crossing for pedestrians to use.
South Africa’s heritage resources, also described as the ’national estate’, comprise a wide range of sites, features, objects and beliefs. However, according to Section 27(18) of the National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA), Act 25 of 1999, no person may destroy, damage, deface, excavate, alter, remove from its original position, subdivide or change the planning status of any heritage site without a permit issued by the heritage resources authority responsible for the protection of such site.
In accordance with Section 38 of the NHRA, an independent heritage consultant was appointed by Envirolution Consulting to conduct a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) to determine if any sites, features or objects of cultural heritage significance occur within the boundaries of the area where it is planned to develop the project.
SayPro Diepsloot Youth Project …1. DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The study area is located southwest of the N14/R511 intersection, the west of Centurion in Gauteng Province (Fig. 1). For more information, please see the Technical Summary presented above.
Fig. 1. Location of the study area in regional context.
The geology of the area is made up of granite and the original vegetation is classified as Rocky Highveld Grassland. However, the vegetation has completely being changed on the site due to previous farming activities and current urban development.
There is clear evidence that all the land, on both sides of the stream, was previously subjected to agricultural activities, right down to the banks of the stream. This would have impacted negatively on any archaeological sites that might have occurred in the area.
- Overview of the region
- Stone Age
Records indicate that stone tools dating to the Early and Middle Stone Age and especially the Later Stone Age occurred all over, for example in the Jukskei River area at Glenferness shelter, excavated by Prof. Revil Mason (1969).
- Iron Age
Iron Age people started to settle in southern Africa c. AD 300, with one of the oldest known sites at Broederstroom south of Hartebeespoort Dam dating to AD 470. Having only had cereals (sorghum, millet) that need summer rainfall, Early Iron Age (EIA) people did not move outside this rainfall zone, and neither did they occupy the central interior highveld area.
The occupation of the larger geographical area (including the study area) did not start much before the 1500s. By the 16th century things changed, with the climate becoming warmer and wetter, creating condition that allowed Late Iron Age (LIA) farmers to occupy areas previously unsuitable, for example the Witwatersrand in the region of Klipriviersberg and the Magaliesberg to the north (Horn 1996).
- Historic period
White settlers moved into the area during the first half of the 19th century. They were largely self-sufficient, basing their survival on cattle/sheep farming and hunting. Pretoria was established in 1850 and proclaimed as town in 1855.
The study area falls within that zone usually located on the front edge of (city) urban-sprawl where the land previously used for agricultural use (only) have become subdivided into small holdings. What may used to be a large single agricultural unit or farm now consists of a number of small properties. These units do not have their economic base in traditional agriculture but are sustained by a variety of land uses and economic activities with strong urban associations. This phenomenon happened in the past thirty years. Therefore most of the built fabric, date from this period. The result was that any historic farmsteads older than 60 years that may have existed, have either disappeared or have been ‘upgraded’.
The oldest physical remains in these areas usually are planted vegetation such as lanes and tall trees in mature gardens, cemeteries, the remains of portions of farm and farmstead walling (dry stacked stone walls erected to demarcate the boundaries of a farmstead, an orchard or cattle kraal) farm roads, weirs (in the river) and water furrows.
- Identified sites
- Stone Age
No sites, features or objects of cultural significance dating to the Stone Age were identified in the study area.
5.3 2 Iron Age
No sites, features or objects of cultural significance dating to the Iron Age were identified in the study area.
5.3.3 Historic period
No sites, features or objects of cultural significance dating to the historic period were identified in the study area.
SayPro Diepsloot Youth Project THE APPLICATION OF DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS IN THE DIEPSLOOT NODE
Although there was market demand for a range of commercial and residential uses in the Diepsloot Node, the lack of bulk infrastructure constrained developers from building projects that could meet this demand. Furthermore, attainment of required land use and development approvals from local government authorities was preconditioned upon these infrastructure constraints being addressed. This problem was exacerbated by the fact that the various local government authorities had insufficient capital budgets to build the necessary infrastructure upfront, even if the costs could be recouped through payment by developers of DCs over time.
Specifically, several types of bulk infrastructure needed to be installed to make the developments possible. Firstly, the R511 provincial road had to be expanded. This was funded through a partnership arrangement involving the provincial road authority and two of the developments in a two thirds/ one third ratio. However, as DCs do not apply to provincial infrastructure, the two developments could not off-set their contribution towards this infrastructure against any DCs that they were required to pay the local authority to get the necessary rights to develop the sites.
Similarly, each of the three developments had to fund and build electrical sub-stations on their respective sites. As the electrical supply authority was a national state-owned enterprise – Eskom, they similarly could not offset these costs against any DCs demanded by the local authorities.
Other key pieces of urban infrastructure necessary to unlock the developments included a water reservoir, a sewer pump station and the upgrade of several municipal roads.
The water reservoir was funded by a combination of two of the developments, but both developments were able to off- set these costs against the DCs required by the municipality for this bulk infrastructure type. The sewer pump station was funded by a different combination of two of the
developments and similarly were able to off-set these costs against the required municipal DCs. It appears that all three developments recognised the need to share the burden of collectively providing this key infrastructure upfront.
In addition, the different developments had to build and upgrade several municipal roads. Although they were able to off-set these against the DCs owed to the municipality, they could not off-set the total cost incurred. One of the developers argued that this was because the capital unit cost (as discussed in 5.1 above) was incorrectly calculated by the municipality such that the actual cost was 2 – 3 times higher than what was charged in terms of the DCs. Hence, by building the infrastructure upfront in lieu of DCs, the developers incurred higher costs that had to be borne by the development.
The calculation of the capital unit cost raises some debate. In the City of Johannesburg, the actual cost of the infrastructure provided by the developer is used in determining the amount that can be off set against the DCs (as per option 1 in Table 1) . Whilst this can be more accurate, it can be administratively cumbersome and can result in protracted negotiations, the outcomes of which can be difficult to predict and hence to factor into the viability study of the development.
Other municipalities, such as the Municipality of Tshwane, apply a standard unit cost rate (as per option 4 in Table 1) regardless of the actual costs, which may differ substantially depending on the local conditions. For example, the costs to develop a road may be lower if the required material is nearby, but equally may be higher if a bridge needs to be constructed due to the topography. However, it was felt that over time it balances out – “you win on one project and lose on another” as one developer said. Furthermore, this approach was seen by the developers to be simpler, quicker and more predictable.
In addition, the upfront development of the bulk infrastructure by the developers raised the issue discussed in 6.7 above. In some instances, the bulk infrastructure had to be delivered at a scale that was greater than what was needed by the developments (for example, an electrical sub-station comes in standard sizes and hence additional capacity beyond the requirements of the developments was provided). This raised two problems:
Firstly, the cost of this additional capacity was high, putting pressure on the developments to bear these costs upfront. Secondly, a mechanism needed to be put in place for the developers to recoup the cost of the excess capacity over time. In this case the City of Johannesburg did not have a mechanism in place for this to happen and therefore an additional burden was placed on the developments.
A possible solution may have been to apply the City of Tshwane policy, which allows the cost of any excess
capacity provided by the developer to be recouped through the future DCs paid by subsequent developments that utilise this capacity. In this case, the developer providing the excess capacity would enter into a service level agreement, whereby the municipality would pay the developer the DCs paid to it by the subsequent developers.
This agreement would usually be limited to a time period of 5 – 10 years and therefore the initial developers would run the risk that no subsequent development takes place. Notwithstanding this, this approach was seen by the developers to be more equitable and viable.
Though complicated to execute, the funding of key bulk water, sewer and road infrastructure using DCs enabled commercial centres and over 30 000 houses, of which 4500 were affordable, to be developed in the area.
SayPro Diepsloot Youth Project Purpose of the Environmental Impact Assessment Report
The purpose of the Environmental Impact Assessment Report is to ensure that the environmental
implications of decisions are taken into account before decisions are made. Social and
environmental implications are also considered. The Environmental Impact Assessment Report presents the findings of the assessment, namely the potential impacts, both positive and negative, of the proposed development. The extent, duration, intensity, probability, significance and people that will be affected are all taken into account. Possible mitigation measures are identified and discussed in the report. Findings presented in the Environmental Impact Assessment provide the basis for an Environmental Management Plan.
SayPro Diepsloot Youth Project LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Environmental Impact Assessment process, which includes a Scoping study, is required by legislation. The process ensures that all relevant information is presented in order to facilitate good management decision-making. The legislations that require development projects to undergo through the Scoping / EIA Process are:
- National Environmental Management Act (act 107 of 1998) as amended: This Act requires that the report concerning the impact of the proposed development on the environment be prepared. There are certain activities that are listed as activities that require EIA process. These activities are listed in Government Notice R386 and R387, 21 April 2006. The proposed development, which is the rezoning of “Undetermined” land into residential, is listed under Activity 2 (R387). Please note that although there are new Regulations (NEMA 2010) the proposed project falls under the NEMA 2006 Regulations as the application was submitted during the period of the NEMA 2006 Regulations. Therefore the processes followed are as per the NEMA 2006 Regulations and not the NEMA 2010
- Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Act 108 of 1996): Section 24(b)(i) encourages prevention of pollution and ecological degradation. Section 24(b) (iii) promotes ecologically sustainable
- National Heritage Resource Act of 1999 (Act 25 of 1999) (NHRA): Section 34, no person may alter or demolish any structure or part of a structure, which is older than 60 years without a permit issued by the relevant provincial heritage resources authority (SAHRA).
- The National Water Act (Act No 36 of 1998).
- National Environmental Management: Waste Act 2008 (Act 59 of 2008)
- The National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No.10 of 2004).
The following policies and guidelines were consulted:
- From the NEMA Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations Guideline and Information Document Series the following guidelines were used:
- Guideline on Public Participation in the Environmental Impact Assessment Process (October 2012)
- Draft Guideline on Need and Desirability in Terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations, 2010 (October 2012)
- Guideline on Alternatives (August 2010)
- GDARD requirements for Biodiversity Assessments (2008 & 2012)
- City of Johannesburg Spatial Development
SayPro Diepsloot Youth Project Diepsloot East Residential Development – section to the north of the wetland
In order to service the high laying portion of the Diepsloot East Residential Development, located north of the wetland, as well as future developments located in the area to the west of the proposed site, it is proposed that a new DN 375 bulk main and 1600kl tower be constructed.
In the meantime, while the reservoir, tower and bulk pipe line are still planned, a temporary connection to the existing DN600 Johannesburg Water (JW) pipe line will be proposed. This pipe line runs along the wetland area on the northern part of the property.
SayPro Diepsloot Youth Project Diepsloot East Residential Development – section to the south of the wetland
In order to service the southern section of the proposed development it will be necessary to construct the reservoir with a DN325 connection to the existing DN600 pipe line. A secondary connection to the Dainfern bulk pipe line (to be constructed within the next 2 years) is proposed to establish a ring feed to the existing DN 600 Diepsloot bulk pipe line.