Visual Impact Assessment - Western Cape AMENDMENT CC...Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) as part of the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) process being undertaken by Cindy Poslethwayt

AMENDMENT 2 31 MARCH 2017

ANNEXURE CC

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF AERODROME ROAD ALTERNATIVES

CONRADIE BLMEP

Square One Landscape Architects cc March 2017

Aerodrome Link Road

Associated with the Conradie BLMEP,

Thornton and Pinelands

(Source: Square One)

Draft Visual Impact Assessment

24th March 2017

VIA Report prepared by Square One Landscape Architects

for ARG Design

V I A : A e r o d r o m e R o a d , M a i t l a n d


CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 4

1.1. Approach to the Study ........................................................................................................ 4

1.2. Terms of Reference ............................................................................................................. 4

1.3. Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 5

1.4. Assumptions and Limitations .............................................................................................. 5

1.5. Information Sources ............................................................................................................ 6

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................... 7

2.1. Project Background ............................................................................................................. 7

2.2. Project Location .................................................................................................................. 7

2.3. Project Alternatives ............................................................................................................. 8

2.3.1 Alternative 1 ......................................................................................................................... 8

2.3.2 Alternative 2 ......................................................................................................................... 9

2.3.3 Alternative 3 ......................................................................................................................... 9

3. RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................................... 10

3.1. Geology and Landform ...................................................................................................... 10

3.2. Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 10

3.3. Vegetation ......................................................................................................................... 10

3.4. Land Use and Settlement Patterns ................................................................................... 12

4. VISUAL ANALYSIS / SITE VISIBILITY ................................................................................................ 13

4.1. Visibility versus Distance and Landscape Character ......................................................... 13

4.2. Viewpoints ........................................................................................................................ 14

4.3. Photomontages ................................................................................................................. 15

5. VISUAL MITIGATION MEASURES ................................................................................................... 19

5.1. Alternative 1 ...................................................................................................................... 19

5.1.1 Section through Jewish Cemetery Southern Perimeter: ................................................... 19

5.1.2 Section through Jewish Cemetery Eastern Perimeter: ...................................................... 19

5.1.3 Elevation through Jewish Cemetery and Forest Drive: ...................................................... 19

5.2. Alternative 2 and 3 ............................................................................................................ 24

5.2.1 Elevation along Forest Drive .............................................................................................. 24

5.2.2 Section through western portion of Forest Drive .............................................................. 24

5.3. Alternative 3 ...................................................................................................................... 24

5.3.1 Section and Elevation through eastern portion of Forest Drive ........................................ 24



5.4. All alignment Alternatives ................................................................................................. 29

5.4.1 Section through Private Property North of Forest Drive: .................................................. 29

5.4.2 Elevation over Railway to Maitland Cemetery: ................................................................. 29

6. VISUAL ASESSMENT CRITERIA ....................................................................................................... 33

6.1. Visibility – Viewshed Area and Zone of Visual Influence .................................................. 33

6.2. Visual Exposure ................................................................................................................. 33

6.3. Visual Absorption Capacity ............................................................................................... 34

6.4. Visual Sensitivity of the Area ............................................................................................ 34

6.5. Visual Sensitivity of the Receptors .................................................................................... 34

6.6. Visual Intrusion ................................................................................................................. 35

6.7. Summary Table ................................................................................................................. 35

7. VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ....................................................................................................... 36

7.1. Impact Rating Methodology ............................................................................................. 36

7.2. Visual Impacts ................................................................................................................... 37

7.2.1 Construction Phase Impacts............................................................................................... 38

7.2.2 Construction Phase Mitigation Measures .......................................................................... 39

7.2.3 Operational Phase Impacts ................................................................................................ 42

7.3. Preferred alternative: ....................................................................................................... 45

7.3.1 Operational Phase Mitigation Measures ........................................................................... 46

8. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................. 47

9. CONTRIBUTORS ............................................................................................................................. 48

10. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 49

11. APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................................... 50



LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: Conradie BLEMP location ...................................................................................................... 7

Figure 2.2: Alternative 1 – Quarter Link .................................................................................................. 8

Figure 2.3: Alternative 2 – Directional Ramp .......................................................................................... 9

Figure 2.4: Alternative 3 – Elevated T ..................................................................................................... 9

Figure 3.1: Elsieskraal River Canal to the south of Jewish Cemetery 2 ................................................ 10

Figure 3.2: Disturbed indigenous vegetation to the south of Jewish Cemetery 2 ................................ 11

Figure 3.3: Disturbed vegetation to the east of Jewish Cemetery 2, looking towards Forest Drive .... 11

Figure 3.4: Existing mature trees along Forest Drive with Jewish Cemetery 2 to the south and Jewish

Cemetery 1 to the north .......................................................................................................... 11

Figure 3.5: Disturbed road edge within Maitland Cemetery with mature tree avenue in southern

portion ..................................................................................................................................... 12

Figure 4.1: Proximity of project alternatives to sensitive receptors..................................................... 13

Figure 4.2: Viewpoints towards the project alternatives ..................................................................... 14

Figure 4.3: Viewpoint 1 – View towards Jewish Cemetery 2 looking in a northeasterly direction from

the Elsieskraal River Canal ....................................................................................................... 15

Figure 4.4: Viewpoint 1 – Artistic impression of view towards Jewish Cemetery 2 looking in a

northeasterly direction from the Elsieskraal River Canal for Alternative 1 ............................. 16

Figure 4.5: Viewpoint 2 – View along Forest Drive looking in a northeasterly direction ..................... 16

Figure 4.6: Viewpoint 2 – Artistic impression along Forest Drive looking in a northeasterly direction

for Alternative 1 ....................................................................................................................... 17

Figure 4.7: Viewpoint 2 – Artistic impression along Forest Drive looking in a northeasterly direction

for Alternatives 2 and 3 ........................................................................................................... 17

Figure 4.8: Viewpoint 3 – View from the central access road in the Maitland Cemetery looking in a

southerly direction toward the Northern Railway line. ........................................................... 18

Figure 4.9: Viewpoint 3 – Artistic impression from the central access road in the Maitland Cemetery

looking in a southerly direction toward the Northern Railway line. ....................................... 18

Figure 5.1: Section through Jewish Cemetery 2 – southern perimeter ................................................ 20

Figure 5.2: Section through Jewish Cemetery 2 – eastern perimeter – Option 1 ................................ 21

Figure 5.3: Section through Jewish Cemetery 2 – eastern perimeter – Option 2 ................................ 22

Figure 5.4: Elevation through Jewish Cemetery and Forest Drive ........................................................ 23

Figure 5.5: Elevation along Forest Drive ............................................................................................... 25

Figure 5.6: Section through western portion of Forest Drive ............................................................... 26

Figure 5.7: Section through eastern portion of Forest Drive ................................................................ 27

Figure 5.8: Elevation east of Elevated T Towards Maitland Cemetery ................................................. 28



Figure 5.9: Section through Private Property North of Forest Drive and Section through Maitland

Cemetery. ................................................................................................................................. 30

Figure 5.10: Section through Private Property North of Forest Drive indicating relative position to

apartment blocks. .................................................................................................................... 31

Figure 5.11: Elevation over railway to Maitland Cemetery .................................................................. 32

LIST OF TABLES

Table 6.1: Visual Criteria Summary Table: ............................................................................................ 35

Table 7.1: Extent, magnitude and duration of impacts: ....................................................................... 36

Table 7.2: Impact significance: .............................................................................................................. 36

Table 7.3: Probability rating: ................................................................................................................. 37

Table 7.4: Confidence rating: ................................................................................................................ 37

Table 7.5: Reversibility rating: .............................................................................................................. 37

Table 7.6: Construction Phase Impacts ................................................................................................. 40

Table 7.7: Operational Phase Impacts .................................................................................................. 43

Table 7.8 Operational Phase Impact Summary Table ........................................................................... 45

V I A : A e r o d r o m e R o a d , M a i t l a n d P a g e | i


ABBREVIATIONS

BLMEP Better Living Model Exemplar Project

DEA&DP Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

FOV Field of View

HIA Heritage Impact Assessment

HWC Heritage Western Cape

NID Notification of Intent to Develop

PGWC Provincial Government Western Cape

VAC Visual Absorption Capacity

VIA Visual Impact Assessment

V I A : A e r o d r o m e R o a d , M a i t l a n d P a g e | ii


DEFINITIONS

Fatal flaw: A fatal flaw is defined as an impact that could have a "no-go" implication for the project.

Impact A noticeable change to the status quo when perceived under normal conditions. This change is not necessarily negative or positive, but may contain aspects of both.

Impact (visual): A description of the effect of an aspect of the development on a specified component of the visual, aesthetic or scenic environment within a defined time and space.

Issue (visual): A context-specific question that asks “what will the impact of some activity/aspect of the development be on some element of the visual, aesthetic or scenic environment?”

Key issue: An issue raised during the scoping process which requires further investigation before it can be resolved.

Landscape integrity: The relative intactness of the existing landscape or townscape, whether natural, rural or urban, and with an absence of intrusions or discordant structures.

Receiving environment: The surrounding area within which the development is situated. The area depends on the scale of the development and its influence on the context.

Receptors: Individuals, groups or communities who are subject to the visual influence of a particular project. Also referred to as observers, viewers, or viewer groups.

Sense of place: The unique quality or character of a place, whether natural, rural or urban. Relates to uniqueness, distinctiveness or strong identity. Sometimes referred to as genius loci meaning 'spirit of the place'.

Scenic corridor: A linear geographic area that contains scenic resources, usually, but not necessarily, defined by a route. See also view corridor.

Scenic route: A linear movement route, usually in the form of a scenic drive, but which could also be a railway, hiking trail, horse-riding trail or 4x4 trail.

Stakeholders: A subgroup of the public whose interests may be positively or negatively affected by a proposal or activity and/or who are concerned with a proposal or activity and its consequences. The term includes the proponent, authorities and all interested and affected parties.

View catchment area: A geographic area, usually defined by the topography, within which a particular project or other feature would potentially be visible (sometimes called the visual envelope).

View corridor: A linear geographic area, usually along movement routes, that is visible to users of the route.

Viewpoint: A selected point in the landscape from which views of a particular project or other feature can be obtained.

Viewshed: The outer boundary defining a view catchment area, usually along crests and ridgelines (similar to a watershed).

V I A : A e r o d r o m e R o a d , M a i t l a n d P a g e | iii


View shadow: An area within the view catchment visually obscured from a particular project or feature by the topography, vegetation or buildings.

Visual The full range of visual, aesthetic, cultural and spiritual aspects of the environment, which together contribute to the sense of place.

Visual Absorption Capacity: The ability of an area to visually absorb development as a result of screening topography, vegetation or structures in the landscape.

Visual exposure: The degree to which a potential project or feature would be exposed or visually apparent to receptors.

Visual intrusion Visual intrusion refers to the compatibility of the project with the particular characteristics and qualities of the receiving environment.

Zone of visual influence: An area subject to the direct visual influence of a particular project.

V I A : A e r o d r o m e R o a d , M a i t l a n d P a g e | iv


1. INTRODUCTION

Square One Landscape Architects cc (Square One) was appointed by ARG Design to complete a Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) as part of the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) process being undertaken by Cindy Poslethwayt for the construction of the proposed Aerodrome link road required for the Conradie Better Living Model Exemplar Project (BLMEP) (the proposed project).

Heritage Western Cape (HWC) requested the completion of a HIA inclusive of a VIA as part of their response to the Notification of intent to Develop (NID) for the project. The purpose of the VIA is to ascertain, comment on and assess the potential visual impacts associated with the proposed project, particularly as these relate to heritage resources associated with the Jewish and Maitland Cemeteries. Three project alternative alignments have been identified and these alternatives are comparatively assessed as part of the VIA. The VIA also includes the identification of visual design mitigation to complement the VIA Report. High level landscape architectural input aims to identify visual screening techniques, mitigation measures and conceptual detailed design aimed at reducing potential visual impacts associated with the alignment alternatives.

1.1. Approach to the Study

This VIA Report adheres to the criteria outlined by the Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEA&DP) Guideline for Involving Visual and Aesthetic Specialists in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process (the DEA&DP Guidelines) (Oberholzer, 2005), which recommends that the following concepts underpin the visual evaluation of the project proposals:

Understand that ‘visual’ implies the full range of visual, aesthetic, cultural and spiritual aspects of the environment, which together contribute to the local character and sense of place;

Understand that ‘impact’ means a noticeable change to the status quo when perceived under normal conditions and this change is not necessarily negative or positive, but may contain aspects of both;

Identify all significant scenic resources, including protected areas, scenic drives, sites of special interest and tourist destinations, together with their relative importance within the region;

Understand the dynamic landscape processes, including geological, biological, horticultural and human settlement patterns, which contribute to landscape character, visual attributes and scenic amenity value;

Include both quantitative criteria, such as visibility, and qualitative criteria, such as aesthetic value or sense of place to achieve a balanced perception of visual impact;

Include visual input as an integral part of the project planning and design process, to ensure that the visual findings and recommended measures for mitigation can influence the final design pro-actively; and

Determine the value and significance of visual and aesthetic resources responsibly through a rigorous process, of which participatory public engagement forms an essential component.

1.2. Terms of Reference

The general terms of reference for a level 4 VIA based on the criteria described in the DEA&DP Guidelines (Oberholzer, 2005) are as follows:

Describe the proposed project, in terms of its form, scale, massing, and general ‘fit’; including technical data with respect to layout, bulk, boundary treatment, etc.

Describe the receiving environment, identifying landscape types, landscape character and sense of place based on geology, landforms, vegetation cover and land-use patterns.

Identify significant issues and real values relating to visual, aesthetic and scenic resources - highlighted through previous and on-going planning processes, site visits and surveys.

V I A : A e r o d r o m e R o a d , M a i t l a n d P a g e | 5


Identify important viewpoints and view corridors within the affected environment, including sensitive receptors.

Determine the Visual Absorption Capacity (VAC) of the landscape, based on topography, vegetation cover or urban fabric in the area; the relative visibility, or visual intrusion, of the proposed project.

Provide high level input into the conceptual road layout design and suggest visual mitigation techniques that can be integrated into the design for both alternatives.

Identify mitigation measures aimed at reducing potential visual impacts of the proposed roadway, particularly the elevated portions and barriers to the affected sensitive heritage areas (cemeteries) for both alternatives.

Conduct 3D modelling simulations and photomontages to determine relative compatibility or conflict of the proposed project with its surroundings; and to compare the existing situation with the probable effect of the proposed project.

Identify potential visual and cumulative impacts using established criteria – for construction and operational phases of the proposed project.

Identify aesthetically appealing road treatment designs with the aim of mitigating the visual impact of the proposed road to receptors (i.e. residents, cemetery users and visitors) for both alternatives.

Provide strategic design input for visual consideration, propose measures for the mitigation of negative visual impacts and recommend management actions to maintain or enhance visual quality.

1.3. Methodology

The methodology to complete the VIA involved the following:

Existing information regarding the proposed project, site and surrounding area was collected and reviewed.

The relevant spatial data was collated, including informants related to landscape character, sensitive receptors and heritage resources, existing development, topography and elevation.

An initial site visit was undertaken in August 2016 and the study area was photographed to record visual data and to determine the extent of the visibility of the project (recognising the screening effect of foreground elements).

Meetings were held with the professional consulting team including the traffic, heritage and noise specialists to discuss the conceptual design development of the project.

An additional site visit was undertaken in February 2017 and photographs were taken from critical viewpoints onto the site, to identify sensitive receptors within the viewshed and to create a series of photo-montaged images of the proposed project viewed from these critical viewpoints.

The project proposal was tested against the visual impact criteria (visibility, visual exposure, sensitivity of the site and receptors, VAC and visual intrusion).

Visual impacts (including cumulative impacts) were described and assessed based on a synthesis of criteria (nature of impact, extent, duration, intensity, probability and significance).

Mitigation measures and conceptual designs were recommended to reduce potential visual impacts.

1.4. Assumptions and Limitations

A number of assumptions and limitations apply to this VIA:

It is assumed that the information provided to Square One is correct, that the proposed project is reasonable and feasible and that no fatal flaws associated with the project were



identified during the planning process. It is also assumed that the proposed project seeks to unlock the most appropriate use of the site.

Vertical alignment information was provided by the project engineers for each of the three alignment alternatives. This information was used to generate the 3d modelling. The 3d modelling is conceptual in nature and does not intent to produce a photo-realistic representation of the finalised design interventions. The photomontages do provide an indication of the size and scale of the proposed project. It is assumed that the engineering designs that were provided represent the accurate size and scale of the proposed project.

The visual mitigation designs are based on design information and specifications provided by the project engineers. The information presented is of a conceptual nature and would need to be considered in detail during the technical design development phase of the project.

As the project is located in a low-lying area and involves the construction of road that would be most obtrusive to receptors within the immediate vicinity of the site, the generation of viewshed modelling was not considered necessary to inform the assessment. This is evaluated instead from site photographs and observations at grade.

Photographs were taken from publicly accessible areas. Specific views from residences bordering onto the site were not photographed, as these areas are not publicly accessible.

The timeframe to complete the Report was limited due to strict project timelines. However, the level of detail included in the Report is considered sufficient to support the visual assessment.

1.5. Information Sources

Information used for the preparation of this Report has been provided by the project professional team, as follows:

Project Manager ARG Design Alistair Rendall

Project Engineers HHO Africa Stef Naudé

Heritage Specialist: Cindy Poslethwayt Noise Specialist: Machoy Terry Mackenzie-Hoy



2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1. Project Background

The project is associated with the Conradie BLMEP, which is an innovative integrated affordable housing project located on the former Conradie hospital site between the suburbs of Pinelands, Thornton and Maitland. It is being proposed by the Provincial Government Western Cape (PGWC) as an exemplary project to redress apartheid spatial planning legacies and unlock well located state-owned properties for desirable, integrated, secure, affordable and sustainable neighbourhoods close to economic opportunities (Ignis Project & Finance Solutions Pty Ltd 2016).

The Aerodrome road link crossing between Forest Drive Extension and Voortrekker Road over the Northern railway line is required to accommodate the Conradie BLEMP development and a number of project alternatives have been identified. This study aims to assess the visual impacts associated with the project alternatives as part of the HIA.

2.2. Project Location

The Conradie BLMEP is located between Pinelands, Maitland, Goodwood, Thornton and Epping Industria. The site is bounded by Forest Drive Extension, Metro Rail’s central line and Jan Smuts Drive, the Elsieskraal River Canal and the Pinelands Jewish Cemetery (Jewish Cemetery 1 and 2). The Maitland Cemetery and Voortrekker Road are located further to the northeast (see Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.1: Conradie BLEMP location

Source: HHO Africa, 2017



2.3. Project Alternatives

Three road alignment alternatives are currently under consideration. An initial alignment that connected Viking Way to Voortrekker Road through the proposed Odin Drive Extension has been suspended due to comments received as part of the public participation process. The three alignment alternatives are discussed in more detail below.

2.3.1 Alternative 1

Alternative 1 is interchangeably referred to as the ‘Quarter Link’ (see Figure 2.2). This proposal links into the Conradie BLEMP to the west of the Jewish Cemetery and the north of the Elsieskraal River Canal. It runs adjacent to the Canal to the south of the Jewish Cemetery and ramps up to cross Forest Drive and the Northern Railway line. A minimum clearance of 5.1m is required over the Northern railway line. After crossing the railway line, the road ramps down again and crosses through the Maitland Cemetery, terminating in Voortrekker Road.

Figure 2.2: Alternative 1 – Quarter Link




2.3.2 Alternative 2

Alternative 2 is interchangeably referred to as the ‘Directional Ramp’ (see Figure 2.3). This proposal links Forest Drive to Voortrekker Road through the Maitland Cemetery with a directional ramp crossing over the railway line. This alignment alternative links with the Alternative 1 alignment at the bridge structure over the railway (with a minimum clearance of 5.1m) and follows the same alignment through the Maitland Cemetery. The Forest Drive Extension will remain at grade with east and west bound lanes shifting to accommodate the directional ramp in the center.

Figure 2.3: Alternative 2 – Directional Ramp


2.3.3 Alternative 3

Alternative 3 is interchangeably referred to as the ‘Elevated T’ proposal (see Figure 2.4). Similar to alternative 2, this proposal links Forest Drive to Voortrekker Road through the Maitland Cemetery. However, an elevated tee junction allows crossing over the railway line. Ramps are located on either side of the crossing point over the railway line along Forest Drive Extension. East- and west bound lanes are accommodated on either side of the ramp structures.

Figure 2.4: Alternative 3 – Elevated T




3. RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT

This section describes the existing visual environment that will be affected by the proposed project. The landscape character and sense of place of the surrounding environment is described, based on an understanding of the geology, landform, hydrology, vegetation cover, anthropogenic influences and historic land use patterns.

3.1. Geology and Landform

The project area is located in a flat, low-lying area associated with the Elsieskraal River. The Maitland Cemetery is located to the south of Voortrekker Road, the historic route between settlements of Cape Town and Bellville. The Northern railway line separates the Maitland Cemetery from the Jewish Cemetery further to the south. Both the railway line and Voortrekker Road were historically constructed on flat, low-lying ground to ensure ease of transportation. The project area is therefore not associated with a prominent ridgeline or plateau which would increase its visibility from a broader area.

3.2. Hydrology

The Elsieskraal River Canal is located to the south of Jewish Cemetery 2 and forms the boundary between the Cemetery and the residential area further to the south (see Figure 3.1). This portion of the river is located along its lower lying reaches. The river has been canalized and its ecological condition is poor. The River holds water perennially due to the number of hard surfaces surrounding the catchment. Despite its current poor ecological condition, the river provides amenity value and opportunities for improved ecological function.

Figure 3.1: Elsieskraal River Canal to the south of Jewish Cemetery 2

3.3. Vegetation

The project area falls within the threatened Fynbos biome which is known for its unique and biodiverse vegetation. The original vegetation at the site falls within the Cape Flats Sand Fynbos vegetation type. The vegetation at the site has been significantly transformed and there are no remnants of indigenous vegetation. The area between Jewish Cemetery 2 and the Elsieskraal River Canal has been colonized by flowering annuals, providing seasonal interest in a disturbed landscape (see Figure 3.2). Invasive grasses shrubs have colonized portions of the project area (see Figure 3.3). Mature exotic trees form an avenue of trees along Forest Drive, screening the existing road to a certain degree and providing wind shelter and shade (see Figure 3.4). The existing roadway through the Maitland Cemetery is disturbed with little or no vegetation growing adjacent to the road. Mature trees similarly provide shade and shelter in this area, and an avenue of trees is located further to the south along the route, intersecting with Voortrekker Road (see Figure 3.5).



Figure 3.2: Disturbed indigenous vegetation to the south of Jewish Cemetery 2

Figure 3.3: Disturbed vegetation to the east of Jewish Cemetery 2, looking towards Forest Drive

Figure 3.4: Existing mature trees along Forest Drive with Jewish Cemetery 2 to the south and Jewish Cemetery 1 to the

north



Figure 3.5: Disturbed road edge within Maitland Cemetery with mature tree avenue in southern portion

3.4. Land Use and Settlement Patterns

The areas surrounding the project area that will be affected by the proposed project include the Jewish Cemeteries (1 and 2), the Maitland Cemetery and residential areas at Thornton. The Jewish Cemetery has been cohesively designed and is well kept and preserved. There is limited land available at the Jewish Cemetery (1 and 2) for burials and this is of key concern to the Cemetery due to the space requirements for burials. There is currently no fencing between the Elsieskraal River Canal and Jewish Cemetery 2 and there are some security concerns at the Cemetery for this reason.

Although the Maitland Cemetery remains well used, portions of the Maitland Cemetery have fallen into disrepair. The portion of the Cemetery that will be affected contains an existing internal fence structure and the proposed project has been designed in such a way to avoid directly impacting on any grave sites. However, the road will edge closely onto the existing fence and the adjacent grave sites. Both Cemeteries are regarded as places of remembrance, with regular commemorative activities, burials and visits by mourners.

Residential areas at Thornton that will be affected by the proposed alternative alignment are located to the east and south of Jewish Cemetery 1 and 2 and to the north and south of Forest Drive. The residential area to the south of Forest Drive that will be affected (by Alternative 3) is characterized by medium density single residential houses. Although many of the units face onto the road, a vibacrete fence runs along Forest Drive, screening the residences from the road. The residential area to the north of Forest Drive is characterized by higher density 3 storey high apartment buildings that face onto Forest Drive. These units are located adjacent to the Northern railway line. Permeable fencing and some tree planting has been introduced along the street edge, but the tree have not reached maturity.

The residential units that may be affected by Alternative 1 along Rooikans Drive (to the east of Jewish Cemetery 2) include double storey apartment buildings and medium density single residential units. An existing fence and some tree screening currently shields views from this area towards Jewish Cemetery 2. The residential units to the south of the Jewish Cemetery include lower density single residential units. These units do not face onto the Elsieskraal River Canal and have walled boundaries against the Canal. There is little existing vegetative screening between the units and Jewish Cemetery 2 as this portion of the Cemetery is not fenced off from the Canal.



4. VISUAL ANALYSIS / SITE VISIBILITY

This section describes the visual analysis that was conducted to determine the visibility of the project area from various locations. The visibility of the project area is described in relation to distance and landscape character. Viewpoints were identified and photomontages of the proposed project were created from these viewpoints.

4.1. Visibility versus Distance and Landscape Character

The overall visibility of the project area from various viewpoints is largely dependent on the presence and positions of screening elements, including vegetation and urban development. The proposed project is expected to fade from view with increasing distance from the project area. Visibility will decrease exponentially with the apparent decrease in size of the project area within the receptor’s Field of View (FOV) and as contextual visual information increases with the receptors FOV.

The project area is anticipated to be most visually apparent within a 100m distance from the proposed road alignment alternatives. Due to the low-lying topography and existing infrastructure, buildings and vegetation, the proposed project is not anticipated to be highly visible from an area greater than 1km from the project area and will be most visible from areas within 100m.

Sensitive receptors located in close vicinity to the various project alternatives include the following for each of the project alternatives (see Figure 4.1):

Alternative 1: Jewish Cemetery 2; medium to high density residential areas east of Jewish Cemetery 2; and higher density residential apartment blocks to the east of Jewish Cemetery 1 (to the north of Forest Drive)

Alternative 2: Jewish Cemetery 1 and Jewish Cemetery 2; residential apartment buildings to the east of Jewish Cemetery 2

Alternative 3: Jewish Cemetery 1 and Jewish Cemetery 2; residential apartment buildings to the east of Jewish Cemetery 2; medium density single residential houses to the south of Forest Drive and higher density apartment buildings to the north of Forest Drive.

Figure 4.1: Proximity of project alternatives to sensitive receptors



The 10m offset distance between the sensitive receptor areas and the proposed project alignments is illustrated in Figure 4.1. From this figure it is evident that alternative 1 will fall within 10m from Jewish Cemetery 2, while residential areas to the south and east of Jewish Cemetery 2 are located at a distance of more than 10m from the proposed road alignment. Alternative 2 will fall within 10m from Jewish Cemetery 1 and 2 along Forest Drive, while the apartment block to the east of Jewish Cemetery 2 will be located just beyond 10m from the ramp building up to cross over the Northern railway line. Alternative 3 is located within 10m of Jewish Cemeteries 1 and 2 and the medium-density residential area to the south of Forest Drive. The higher density apartment buildings to the north of Forest Drive are located at a slightly further distance away from the ramp structures, while the residential apartment block to the east of Jewish Cemetery 1 is affected in the same manner as Alternative 2.

4.2. Viewpoints

Three critical viewpoints were identified towards the project area, to illustrate how the proposed project would impact on heritage resources associated with the Maitland Jewish Cemeteries (see Figure 4.2). Photomontages were produced from these viewpoints to illustrate the design mitigation measures that could be implemented to ameliorate visual impacts. Visual mitigation designs that were developed to ameliorate potential visual impacts associated with each of the project alternatives are discussed in more detail in Section 5.

Photomontages were produced from the following viewpoints (see Section 4.3):

Viewpoint 1: View towards Jewish Cemetery 2 looking in a north-easterly direction from the Elsieskraal River Canal

Viewpoint 2: View along Forest Drive looking in a north-easterly direction

Viewpoint 3: View from the central access road in the Maitland Cemetery looking in a southerly direction toward the Northern Railway line.

Figure 4.2: Viewpoints towards the project alternatives



4.3. Photomontages

Photomontages were produced to illustrate the extent of the visual change that would be experienced by receptors at selected viewpoints. These provide simulations of the qualitative visual impact as experienced by the observer. Before and after images were produced for viewpoints from selected viewpoints for all three project alternatives (see Figure 4.3 to Figure 4.9).

These photomontages incorporate proposed visual mitigation measures that are discussed in more detail in Section 5. Noise barriers would need to be implemented in certain scenarios to reduce noise impacts as recommended by the noise specialist, and this presents an opportunity to create aesthetically pleasing designs that provide amenity value while reducing the anticipated noise impacts and providing the required screening of obtrusive structures and vehicles. Vegetative screening and articulated facades would further assist with the amelioration of visual impacts through design. This and other visual mitigation techniques are discussed in more detail in Section 5).

Viewpoint 1 looking towards Jewish Cemetery 2 will be affected by Alternative 1 only (see Figure 4.3 and Figure 4.4).). This viewpoint illustrates the visual barrier that will be created between Jewish Cemetery 1 and the Elsieskraal Canal, with the intention of creating a green corridor with tree planting along the route as visual mitigation (see Section 5).

Viewpoint 2 will be affected by all three project alternatives. The impact of Alternatives 2 and 3 is illustrated in Figure 4.7 while the impact of Alternative 1 is illustrated in Figure 4.6. It is clearly evident that the impact of Alternatives 2 and 3 will be more pronounced from this vista as compared to Alternative 1, where only the ramping structure over the Northern railway line would be visible in the distance.

Viewpoint 3 illustrates the ramping structure leading down into the Maitland Cemetery associated with all three project alternatives. The ramp structure will be significant in scale compared to the existing scenario and the visual mitigation to address potential visual and noise impacts is illustrated in more detail in Section 5).

Figure 4.3: Viewpoint 1 – View towards Jewish Cemetery 2 looking in a northeasterly direction from the Elsieskraal River

Canal



Figure 4.4: Viewpoint 1 – Artistic impression of view towards Jewish Cemetery 2 looking in a northeasterly direction

from the Elsieskraal River Canal for Alternative 1

Figure 4.5: Viewpoint 2 – View along Forest Drive looking in a northeasterly direction



Figure 4.6: Viewpoint 2 – Artistic impression along Forest Drive looking in a northeasterly direction for Alternative 1

Figure 4.7: Viewpoint 2 – Artistic impression along Forest Drive looking in a northeasterly direction for Alternatives 2

and 3



Figure 4.8: Viewpoint 3 – View from the central access road in the Maitland Cemetery looking in a southerly direction

toward the Northern Railway line.

Figure 4.9: Viewpoint 3 – Artistic impression from the central access road in the Maitland Cemetery looking in a

southerly direction toward the Northern Railway line.



5. VISUAL MITIGATION MEASURES A number of visual design mitigation measures were identified to illustrate conceptual designs through which the visual impact of the proposed project could be ameliorated for each of the project alternatives. International precedent design was investigated to identify suitable visual mitigation (see Appendix A). A number of detailed sections and elevations were provided illustrating the proposed design mitigation techniques. Each of these sections and the intended design mitigation is discussed in more detail below for each of the project alternatives.

5.1. Alternative 1

5.1.1 Section through Jewish Cemetery Southern Perimeter:

Two options were investigated to address potential concerns at the southern perimeter of Jewish Cemetery 2 (the interface between Jewish Cemetery 2 and the Elsieskraal River). The first option aligns with the preferred road alignment identified by the project engineers. This option does not allow for the inclusion of separate cycling lanes and these are included in the roadway. Cycling and vehicular traffic is separated from pedestrian traffic by planting strips, creating a visual buffer and softer, more pleasant environment along the road edge. Provision is made for pedestrian walkways and strips of screening planting (including trees and vegetation). A sculptural screening wall is suggested at the interface with the Cemetery. The intention is for the wall to become integrated with the design aesthetic and requirements of the Cemetery, when viewed from within the Cemetery. The wall would also serve as a noise barrier as the need to reduce noise levels along this portion of the route was identified by the noise specialists. The wall would need to be made from a solid material at a height of 2m (seeFigure 5.1).

The second option allows for an increased buffer area between the edge of the Cemetery and the Road edge. The road verges in this section include pedestrian walkways and cycling lanes separated by plating strips for visual screening. With this alternative, the road alignment would need to be shifted closer to the edge of the Elsieskraal River Canal, which would require increased fill. However, this alternative would provide a more generous buffer area between the road edge and the Cemetery, thereby creating more generous planting areas, allowing plants to become established to allow increased visual and noise screening (see Figure 5.1). 5.1.2 Section through Jewish Cemetery Eastern Perimeter:

Along the Eastern Perimeter of the Jewish Cemetery, the road will be located at a greater distance from the Cemetery and there is sufficient space to allow for visual screening. The road would need to be raised in this area to clear the railway track to the north. Terraced, planted gabion structures are therefore suggested to ameliorate the visual impacts that would be associated a raised road structure in this area. Planted gabion structures can be pushed up against the raised bridge structure and the road would be viewed as a planted element when seen in elevation from the Jewish Cemetery. Sculptural Noise Barriers are suggested to be implemented on the edges of the raised carriageway to minimise noise onto adjacent properties. These can be articulated in an attractive and colourful way, creating an interesting aesthetic, while reducing noise associated with the movement of cars. Section A illustrates how seating alcoves can be created at the interface with the Jewish Cemetery to allow visitors to access the planted edge, which would be experienced as a constructed green infrastructural element in the landscape (see Figure 5.2).

Due to the space requirements at the Cemetery, a second option was developed that would reduce the amount of space required to provide visual screening to the roadway. This alternative incorporates the use of tree planting and articulated expressed concrete facades to reduce the visual impact of the roadway (see Figure 5.3).

5.1.3 Elevation through Jewish Cemetery and Forest Drive:

This section illustrates the noise barrier associated with the elevated carriageway in Elevation, as the road crosses over Forest Drive to the north of the Jewish Cemetery. The noise barrier can be articulated as a series of panels attached to the side of the proposed bridge structure. These could vary in height and colour to create an interesting aesthetic for passers-by on Forest Drive. The underside of the bridge will be enclosed and surrounded by planting. The Jewish Cemetery fence can be integrated with the concrete panels, which would become a perimeter wall, thereby prohibiting access below the structure for safety reasons (see Figure 5.4).



Figure 5.1: Section through Jewish Cemetery 2 – southern perimeter



Figure 5.2: Section through Jewish Cemetery 2 – eastern perimeter – Option 1



Figure 5.3: Section through Jewish Cemetery 2 – eastern perimeter – Option 2



Figure 5.4: Elevation through Jewish Cemetery and Forest Drive



5.2. Alternative 2 and 3

5.2.1 Elevation along Forest Drive

Figure 5.5 illustrates the proposed elevation of the elevated roadway looking from the edge of Jewish Cemetery 1 towards Forest Drive. The ramp structure will be associated with both alternatives 2 and 3 and will need to increase to a considerable height of approximately 9m to reach the required height to allow a minimum clearance of 5.1m for crossing over the Northern Railway line. The structure will be significant in scale and size and visual mitigation would include articulating the concrete façade of the structure with undulating patterns to provide visual interest. Tree planting and additional vegetative screening through the provision of creepers along intermittent spacing against the façade would further assist with the visual screening of the structure. The provision of noise barriers along this portion of the route may also be required by the noise specialist and has therefore been included in the design mitigation. The noise barrier can be articulated in an interesting and colourful way to provide visual interest and reduce the perceived size and scale of the structure.

5.2.2 Section through western portion of Forest Drive

Figure 5.6 illustrates the section through the ramping structures required along the western portion of Forest Drive for alternatives 2 and 3. Jewish Cemetery 1 is indicated to the left of the image and Jewish Cemetery 2 is indicated to the right. The section illustrates the scale of the ramp structure compared to the additional lanes that will be constructed at grade. Provision is made for noise barriers along the top of the ramp structure and as boundaries toward both portions of the Jewish Cemeteries. The extent of the required noise barrier will be subject to input from the noise specialist. The section also illustrates the implementation of screening planting where the height of the ramp increases and space is created by the widening of the adjacent lanes to allow for tree planting. This will serve to ameliorate the visual impact of the ramp structure when viewed from Jewish Cemetery 1 and the apartment block to the east of Jewish Cemetery 1.

5.3. Alternative 3

5.3.1 Section and Elevation through eastern portion of Forest Drive

Figure 5.7 and Figure 5.8 illustrates a section and elevation through the eastern portion of Forest Drive for alternative 3. The ramping structures and their approximate proximity to the existing medium density residential housing is illustrated, indicating that the structures will protrude significantly above the existing medium-density housing in places. Visual screening suggested in this location includes the articulation of the concrete façade and the implementation of colourful noise barriers and creeping vegetation to create visual interested intermittently along portions of the façade. Due to space constraints, the inclusion of a walkway along the interface between the medium density residential units and the roadway is not feasible. However, tree planting and the inclusion of a walkway and screening vegetation could be included along the interface between Forest Drive and the medium density apartment blocks.



Figure 5.5: Elevation along Forest Drive



Figure 5.6: Section through western portion of Forest Drive



Figure 5.7: Section through eastern portion of Forest Drive



Figure 5.8: Elevation east of Elevated T Towards Maitland Cemetery



5.4. All alignment Alternatives

Project alternatives align for all three project alternatives to the north of Forest Drive, in-between the medium density apartment buildings where the road structure is required to ramp over the Northern railway line at a minimum height of 5.1m. The ramp structures crossing through the apartment buildings in this area and ramping down into the Maitland Cemetery would be similarly designed for all three project alternatives and the conceptual sections described below therefore relate to all three project alignment alternatives.

5.4.1 Section through Private Property North of Forest Drive:

The private property to the north of Forest Drive consists of residential apartment buildings. The raised carriageway would cross over an existing parking area. The underside of the carriageway has been kept accessible in this section, to allow access underneath the carriageway. The noise barrier would continue through the space so that noise on residents is minimized and it becomes an interesting and pleasing design element for residents to look out onto (see Figure 5.9). The scale of the ramp structures in comparison to the existing residential apartment blocks is illustrated in Figure 5.10. The ramp structures will be clearly visible within close proximity to the apartment buildings located to the east of Jewish Cemetery 1 in particular.

5.4.2 Elevation over Railway to Maitland Cemetery:

Figure 5.11 illustrates the elevated carriageway crossing over the railway and into the Maitland Cemetery. Because of the proximity of carriageway to graves at the Cemetery, it is suggested that concrete panels are used to close of the sides of the carriageway. These panels can be textured, articulated or coloured in such a way as to create visual interest (similar patterns and designs should be implemented along other portions along the route, to create visual cohesion). The noise barrier would continue through the elevated portion of the carriageway to reduce noise and create visual interest. The edge between the railway and the carriageway will be closed off to prevent people from gaining access beneath the structure. The ramping structure will be located in close proximity to existing grave sites and it is important that screening vegetation (trees) is provided where possible to provide additional screening to the ramp structure.



Figure 5.9: Section through Private Property North of Forest Drive and Section through Maitland Cemetery.



Figure 5.10: Section through Private Property North of Forest Drive indicating relative position to apartment blocks.



Figure 5.11: Elevation over railway to Maitland Cemetery



6. VISUAL ASESSMENT CRITERIA

This Section describes the visual criteria that will inform the impact assessment (see Section 7).

6.1. Visibility – Viewshed Area and Zone of Visual Influence

The zone of visual influence is defined as the area which is subject to the direct visual influence of the proposed project. The zone of visual influence will be experienced at different scales by receptors located at various distances from the site. Visibility (viewshed area and zone of visual influence) is defined as follows:

High visibility - Visible from a large area (E.g.: several square kilometres, >5km radius).

Moderate visibility - Visible from an intermediate area (E.g.: several hectares, 2.5 – 5 km radius).

Low visibility - Visible from a small area around the project site (E.g.: <1km radius).

Due to the low-lying location of the project area, and due to the screening effect of foreground elements such as buildings and trees, the project is not anticipated to be highly visible from greater distances. Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 will be perceived by receptors in close proximity to the project area and will have Low visibility. The bridge structure associated with Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 will have higher visibility and may be noticeable from areas at a distance between 2.5 and 5km away, although the structure will not be prominent in receptors’ FOV from these distances.

The bridge structure associated with Alternative 1 will ramp up towards the crossing over Forest Drive and the Northern railway line from a greater distance to the east of Jewish Cemetery 2 and this portion of the route would therefore be visible from a wider area than the bridge structure associated with Alternatives 2 and 3. All three alternatives are considered to have Low visibility, while the bridge and ramp structures associated with all three alternatives may have Low to Moderate visibility. The bridge and ramp structure associated with Alternative 1 will have comparatively higher visibility (be visible from a wider area) than the bridge structures associated with Alternatives 2 and 3.

6.2. Visual Exposure

Visual Exposure is based on the degree to which the project area is visually apparent and the distance from the project to selected viewpoints towards the project area. Visual Exposure tends to diminish exponentially with distance and is defined as follows:

High exposure – Dominant or clearly noticeable.

Moderate exposure – Recognisable to the viewer.

Low exposure – Not particularly noticeable to the viewer.

The portion of the project area to the south and east of Jewish Cemetery 2 (associated with Alternative 1) is Highly exposed when viewed from Jewish Cemetery 2 and residential houses to the south of Jewish Cemetery 2. The area is currently characterized by low-lying vegetation and open vistas towards the Elsieskraal Canal. There is no visible screening between Jewish Cemetery 2 and this portion of the project area.

The portion of the route associated with Alternative 1, 2 and 3 that ramps over the Northern railway line and crosses through the Maitland Cemetery is also Highly exposed, although some existing tree planting may screen portions of the route in the southern portion of the Maitland Cemetery. The portion of Alternative 2 along Forest Drive is highly exposed to Jewish Cemeteries 1 and 2, while the portion of Alternative 3 along Forest Drive is highly exposed to the medium density residential units and higher density apartment blocks along Forest Drive.

The project alternatives are considered to have Low exposure at distance further than 5km from the project area due to the low-lying position of the project area and the screening provided by foreground elements.



6.3. Visual Absorption Capacity

The VAC of a site indicates how much of the project would be visually “absorbed” or “disappear”, into the receiving environment. VAC is defined as follows:

High VAC – Effective screening by topography and vegetation.

Moderate VAC – Partial screening by topography and vegetation.

Low VAC – Little screening by topography or vegetation.

The portion of the project area associated with Alternative 1 to the south and east of Jewish Cemetery 2 has Low VAC, as there are no screening elements between the Cemetery and the proposed location of the road. The portion of the route along the western portion of Forest Drive associated with Alternatives 2 and 3 is considered to have Moderate VAC, as some portions of the route are screened by existing vegetation. The portion of alternative 3 along the eastern portion of Forest Drive is considered to have Low VAC as there is little screening between the existing residential areas and the project area. The portions of the route associated with Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 that ramp up over the Northern Railway line are considered to have Low VAC, as the existing screening elements at the Cemetery and residential apartment block to the east of Jewish Cemetery 1 will not provide significant screening to the proposed height of the ramps and bridge structures. The southern portion of the route that crosses through the Maitland Cemetery is considered to have Moderate VAC due to the existing avenue of mature trees along the route.

6.4. Visual Sensitivity of the Area

The degree of visual impact is dependent on the location of the site within the receiving environment and the sensitivity of its location to development. Visual sensitivity is defined as follows:

High visual sensitivity – Highly visible and potentially sensitive areas in the landscape.

Moderate sensitivity – Moderately visible areas in the landscape.

Low visual sensitivity – Minimally visible areas in the landscape.

The Jewish and Maitland Cemeteries are both considered to be highly visually sensitive areas. The area to the south and east of Jewish Cemetery 2 is considered highly sensitive from a visual perspective, as there is currently no transport infrastructure in this portion of the project area. The portions of the route along Forest Drive associated with Alternatives 2 and 3 are considered to be less visually sensitive, as these areas are associated with an existing route. However, the ramp structures along Forest Drive would be highly visible from the adjacent residential areas and Jewish Cemeteries 1 and 2 and the visual sensitivity of these areas is considered to be High. The portion of the route associated will all three alignment alternatives that crosses into the Maitland Cemetery is considered to be highly sensitive as the proposed roadway will be highly visible in the landscape.

6.5. Visual Sensitivity of the Receptors

The level of visual impact considered acceptable is dependent on the type of receptors.

High sensitivity – Residential areas, nature reserves, heritage resources and scenic routes or trails.

Moderate sensitivity – Sporting or recreational areas, or places of work.

Low sensitivity – Industrial or degraded areas.

Both the Jewish and Maitland Cemeteries are considered to be highly visually sensitive receptors. The proposed project will be most clearly perceivable from close proximity to these areas and would be less visible from areas located at greater distances away. The proposed project would also impact on residential areas located to the east of Jewish Cemeteries 1 and 2 and to the north and south of Forest Drive. The overall visual sensitivity of the receptors that may be affected by the proposed project is therefore considered to be High.



6.6. Visual Intrusion

The visual intrusion that could potentially be caused by the proposed project is related to the level of its compatibility or congruence with the particular qualities or sense of place of the surrounding areas. Visual intrusion relates to the concept of placing appropriate development typologies within their context to maintain landscape integrity and sense of place and is defined as follows:

High visual intrusion – Noticeable change or conflicts with the surroundings.

Moderate visual intrusion – Partially fits into the surroundings, but clearly noticeable.

Low visual intrusion – Minimal change or blends in well with the surroundings.

The proposed project is located in a developed area and large scale roadways and infrastructure are not out of keeping with the general character and sense of place of the area. The existing Forest Drive will be expanded with Alternatives 2 and 3 and this portion of the project would not cause High visual intrusion, as there is already existing road infrastructure in place in this area. The ramping up of the roadway associated with alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would, however, be clearly noticeable due to the height and scale of the bridge structure required to clear the railway line. The ramp structures associated with all three alternatives would therefore cause High visual intrusion.

With appropriate screening, the portion of Alternative 1 to the south and east of the Jewish Cemetery that is located at grade would cause Moderate to High visual intrusion, as the Cemetery is already bounded by transport routes and the construction of a new route is not entirely out of keeping with the surrounding context. The remainder of the portions of the alignment alternatives that are located at grade and involve widening the road surface would cause Low to Moderate visual intrusion.

6.7. Summary Table

Table 6.1: Visual Criteria Summary Table:

Visibility Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 - Low

Bridge structures Low to Moderate visibility.

Visual Exposure High in close proximity to receptors

Low exposure at distances greater than 5km

VAC Portion of alternative 2 and 3 along western portion of Forest Drive and southern portion of Maitland Cemetery–Moderate

Remainder or routes – Low

Visual Sensitivity of the Area High

Visual Sensitivity of Receptors High

Visual Intrusion Ramp Structures – High

Alternative 1 portions at grade – Moderate to High

Remainder of routes at grade – Low to Moderate



7. VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Potential visual impacts have been assessed according to Square One’s Impact Rating Methodology (see Section 7.1). Construction and Operational phase impacts are assessed in Section 7.2, both prior to mitigation and with the implementation of mitigation measures. Proposed visual mitigation measures are discussed in Sections 7.2.2 and 7.3.1 respectively.

7.1. Impact Rating Methodology

The following section outlines the method used for assessing the significance of the visual impacts. For each impact, the extent (spatial scale), magnitude (severity of impact) and duration (time scale) is described. These criteria are then considered to ascertain the significance of the impact, firstly in the case of no mitigation and then with the implementation of mitigation measures. Table 7.2 below indicates the scale used to assess these variables, and defines each of the rating categories.

Table 7.1: Extent, magnitude and duration of impacts:

CRITERIA CATEGORY

DESCRIPTION

Extent or spatial influence of impact

Regional Beyond a 10km radius of the candidate site.

Local Within a 10km radius of the candidate site.

Site specific On site or within 100m of the candidate site.

Magnitude of impact (at the indicated spatial scale)

High Natural and/ or social functions and/ or processes are severely altered

Medium Natural and/ or social functions and/ or processes are notably altered

Low Natural and/ or social functions and/ or processes are slightly altered

Very Low Natural and/ or social functions and/ or processes are negligibly altered

Zero Natural and/ or social functions and/ or processes remain unaltered

Duration of impact

Long-term More than 10 years after construction

Medium-term 3-10 years after construction

Short-term Up to 3 years after construction

Construction period Approximately 2 years

The significance of the impacts is derived by taking into account the temporal and spatial scales and magnitude. The means of arriving at the different significance ratings is described in Table 7.2 below.

Table 7.2: Impact significance:

SIGNIFICANCE RATINGS

LEVEL OF CRITERIA REQUIRED

High High magnitude with a regional extent and long term duration

High magnitude with either a regional extent and medium term duration or a local extent and long term duration

Medium magnitude with a regional extent and long term duration

Medium High magnitude with a local extent and medium term duration

High magnitude with a regional extent and construction period duration or a site specific extent and long term duration

High magnitude with either a local extent and construction period duration or a site specific extent and medium term duration

Medium magnitude with any combination of extent and duration except site specific and construction period or regional and long term



Low magnitude with a regional extent and long term duration

Low High magnitude with a site specific extent and construction period duration

Medium magnitude with a site specific extent and construction period duration

Low magnitude with any combination of extent and duration except site specific and construction period or regional and long term

Very low magnitude with a regional extent and long term duration

Very low Low magnitude with a site specific extent and construction period duration

Very low magnitude with any combination of extent and duration except regional and long term

Neutral Zero magnitude with any combination of extent and duration

The probability of these impacts occurring as well as the confidence in the assessment of the impacts has been determined using the rating system in Table 7.3 below:

Table 7.3: Probability rating:

PROBABILITY RATINGS

CRITERIA

Definite Estimated greater than 95 % chance of the impact occurring.

Probable Estimated 5 to 95 % chance of the impact occurring.

Unlikely Estimated less than 5 % chance of the impact occurring.

The significance of the impacts has also been considered in concert with the probability of that impact occurring as described by the confidence ratings in Table 7.4 below:

Table 7.4: Confidence rating:

CONFIDENCE RATINGS

CRITERIA

Certain Wealth of information on and sound understanding of the environmental factors potentially influencing the impact.

Sure Reasonable amount of useful information on and relatively sound understanding of the environmental factors potentially influencing the impact.

Unsure Limited useful information on and understanding of the environmental factors potentially influencing this impact.

And finally the reversibility of the impact is estimated using the rating system outlined in Table 7.5 below:

Table 7.5: Reversibility rating:

REVERSIBILITY RATINGS

CRITERIA

Irreversible The activity will lead to an impact that is in all practical terms permanent.

Reversible The impact is reversible within 2 years after the cause or stress is removed.

7.2. Visual Impacts

Visual impacts are experienced during two phases of the proposed project’s life-cycle. Construction impacts are expected to occur over a shorter time period, and operational impacts are expected to be long term. Construction impacts are sudden, and usually have a noticeably negative visual impact. Operational visual impacts are initially noticeable, but recede over time as the project becomes integrated within its context. Construction phase impacts are discussed and assessed in Section 7.2.1 and operational phase impacts are discussed in Section 7.2.3.



7.2.1 Construction Phase Impacts

The following visual impacts are expected to be experienced by visual receptors during construction for each of the three project alternatives and are assessed in Table 7.6:

Visual intrusion of construction machinery, site camp, construction hoarding and construction activities;

Removal of existing trees and screening vegetation;

Litter and debris blown on and off site; and

Erosion, dust, visibility of excavations and lack of groundcover vegetation.

The construction site and facilities would be more visible in close proximity to the site as compared to distances further away. Visual impacts are therefore expected to be more pronounced for receptors in the immediate vicinity. The receptors which would be most affected include users of the Cemeteries (Jewish Cemeteries 1 and 2 and the Maitland Cemetery) and the adjacent residential areas (particularly residents to the south and east of Jewish Cemeteries 1 and 2 and the north and south of Forest Drive).

Construction hoarding will be implemented along the boundary with the Jewish Cemetery for Alternative 1. This will have a temporary negative visual impact on the sense of place of the Jewish Cemetery, with construction activities and machinery likely being visible beyond the construction hoarding. The construction phase visual impacts associated with Alternatives 2 along the western portion of Forest Drive are considered to be less pronounced, as the project will involve the widening of an existing road, which is currently screened with fencing and tree planting (although some of the trees to the north of the western portion of Forest Drive may need to be removed).

The construction of the ramp over the Northern Railway and into the Maitland Cemetery (associated with all three project alternatives) is anticipated to have negative visual impacts on the users of this portion of the Maitland Cemetery during the construction phase, due to the extensive scale of the construction infrastructure that will be required. Similarly the construction of the ramping structures associated with alternatives 2 and 3 will have negative impacts on the adjacent receptors. While the ramping structures associated with alternatives 2 and 3 are associated with the existing Forest Drive, the construction of alternative 1 will take place in an area that is currently associated with existing low-growing disturbed vegetation and the Elsieskraal River Canal.

Construction phase impacts are assessed in Table 7.6, prior to and with the implementation of mitigation measures, which are presented in Section 7.2.2. Construction impacts will be limited to the construction phase and will largely be experienced within the local area (in the vicinity of the site) prior to the implementation of mitigation measures. With the implementation of mitigation, the extent and magnitude of the construction phase impacts can be reduced (see Table 7.6).

The intrusion of construction machinery, site camp, construction hoarding and construction activities would be more pronounced for alternatives 1 and 3 due to the proximity of residential areas (for alternative 3) and the current character of the existing environment (for alternative 1). A comparatively smaller portion of the Jewish Cemeteries 1 and 2 will be affected by the construction of the ramp structures for alternative 2 and the impacts associated with this alternative are assessed to be less pronounced.

The removal of existing trees during construction would impact more significantly on alternatives 2 and 3 as some of the existing trees may need to be removed to the north of Forest Drive (adjacent to Jewish Cemetery 1) to accommodate the road alignment. There is currently little screening vegetation associated with alternative 1 and the screening vegetation that exists will not be impacted by the proposed project for this alternative. The impacts are therefore assessed as being less pronounced for alternative 1.

With the implementation of mitigation, the impact of litter and debris blowing off site can be mitigated to very low levels, as the project site is located in an environment that can be relatively easily monitored and controlled. The impact of erosion and dust will be more pronounced with alternative 1 as this area will required larger areas of vegetation clearance compared to alternatives 2 and 3 which are associated with existing roads.



Overall, the construction phase impacts associated with Alternatives 1 and 3 range from Medium to Very Low significance with the implementation of mitigation, while construction phase impacts associated with Alternatives 2 ranges from Low to Very Low with the implementation of mitigation. The construction phase impacts are therefore assessed to be more pronounced for alternatives 1 and 3 than for alternative 2.

7.2.2 Construction Phase Mitigation Measures

7.2.2.1 Essential mitigation measures

Ensure that suitable hoarding is implemented to screen construction activities from the Maitland and Jewish Cemeteries. Hoarding must be dark in colour and free of branding or signage.

Screen the site camp from view using appropriate materials that blend into the surrounding areas.

Locate site camp in an area which is screened from view from the Jewish and Maitland Cemeteries.

Prohibit excessive signage outside the site camp.

Keep site camp lighting to a minimum and prevent the use of flood type lighting as far as possible.

Ensure that the site is kept neat and clean. Collect and dispose of litter appropriately to prevent any potential wind-blown litter on or off the site.

Ensure that site clearing is delayed as long as possible prior to construction in any particular area.

Limit site clearing to within the minimum footprint required for construction.

Retain existing mature trees along Forest Drive and within the Maitland Cemetery. Where it is absolutely necessary that mature trees are removed, these must be replaced with large screening trees or vegetation. Tree avenues must be reinforced with additional planting, where necessary.

If any trees are damaged during construction resulting in the death of the tree, the tree must be replaced with a suitable species that will reach the same height and scale of the tree that has been removed to allow the continuity of the tree avenue.

Ensure that the existing trees that will be retained are fenced off and not damaged during construction. Implement fines, if necessary.

Control erosion immediately to prevent visual scarring of the landscape.

Control dust using the appropriate dust suppression techniques.

Rehabilitate eroded / denuded areas as soon as possible following construction in any particular area.

Schedule the operation of construction vehicles and machinery so that they do not interfere with the normal working operations of the Jewish and Maitland Cemeteries.

Schedule deliveries so that delivery vehicles do not cause an unnecessary nuisance and so that the number of delivery vehicles is limited as far as possible.



Table 7.6: Construction Phase Impacts

Phase Key impacts Project

Alternative Mitigation Extent Magnitude Duration Significance Probability Confidence Reversibility

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Visual intrusion of construction machinery, site camp, construction

hoarding and construction activities

Alternative 1

Without Mitigation

Local area High Construction

period Medium (-) Definite Certain Reversible

With mitigation Site specific High Construction


Alternative 2

Without Mitigation



With mitigation Site specific Medium Construction

period Low (-) Definite Certain Reversible

Alternative 3

Without Mitigation



With mitigation Site specific High Construction


Removal of existing trees and screening

vegetation

Alternative 1

Without Mitigation



With mitigation Site specific Low Construction

period Very Low (-) Probable Certain Reversible

Alternative 2

Without Mitigation




period Low (-) Probable Certain Reversible

Alternative 3

Without Mitigation




period Low (-) Probable Certain Reversible

Litter blown on and off site

Alternative 1

Without Mitigation



With mitigation Site specific Very Low Construction


Alternative 2

Without Mitigation

Local area Medium Construction




Alternative 3 Without

Mitigation Local area Medium

Construction period

Medium (-) Definite Certain Reversible





Erosion, dust, visibility of excavations and lack

of groundcover vegetation

Alternative 1

Without Mitigation



With mitigation Local area Medium Construction


Alternative 2

Without Mitigation



With mitigation Local area Low Construction


Alternative 3

Without Mitigation



With mitigation Local area Low Construction




7.2.3 Operational Phase Impacts

Potential visual impacts during the operational phase relate to a number of factors that must be taken into consideration during the design phase:

Protection of project area’s special features (including heritage resources);

Acknowledgement of the site’s contextual environment;

Detailed design of proposed road link, bridge and ramp structures; and

Detailed design of screening elements, including tree avenues, noise barriers, and fencing.

Detailed design resolution combined with the overall visibility of the project and the compatibility of the project with its context will influence the overall visual impact of the proposed project. The operational phase visual impacts include:

Loss of sense of place of Maitland and Jewish Cemeteries

Visual intrusion on local residents.

Visual intrusion of lighting at night, particularly on local residents.

Operational phase visual impacts are expected to be more pronounced for receptors at the Jewish and Maitland Cemeteries and nearby residential areas. Alternative 1 differs from alternatives 2 and 3 in that it affects an area where there is currently no infrastructural development to the south of Jewish Cemetery 2. Alternative2 will impact on the existing Forest Drive; Jewish Cemeteries 1 and 2 along the western portion of Forest Drive; the residential apartment building to the east of Jewish Cemetery 1 and the Maitland Cemetery. In addition to these areas, alternative 3 will impact on residential areas to the north and south of the eastern portion of Forest Drive.

Operational phase impacts are assessed in Table 7.7, prior to and with the implementation of mitigation measures, which are presented in Section 7.3.1. The proposed project would impact on receptors over the long term during the operation phase and impacts would largely be limited to the local area. With the implementation of mitigation, the extent and magnitude of the operational phase impacts can be reduced (see Table 7.7). Each of the impacts that have been assessed are discussed in more detail below.



Table 7.7: Operational Phase Impacts

Phase Key impacts Project

Alternative Mitigation Extent Magnitude Duration Significance Probability Confidence Reversibility

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Loss of sense of place of Maitland and Jewish

Cemeteries

Alternative 1

Without Mitigation

Local area High Long term High (-) Definite Certain Irreversible

With mitigation Local area Medium Long term Medium (-) Probable Certain Irreversible

Alternative 2

Without Mitigation


With mitigation Local area Low Long term Low (-) Probable Certain Irreversible

Alternative 3

Without Mitigation


With mitigation Local area Low Long term Low (-) Probable Certain Irreversible

Visual intrusion on local residents

Alternative 1

Without Mitigation


With mitigation Site area Medium Long term Medium (-) Probable Certain Irreversible

Alternative 2

Without Mitigation



Alternative 3

Without Mitigation


With mitigation Site area Medium-

High Long term

Medium-High (-)

Probable Certain Irreversible

Visual intrusion of lighting at night,

particularly on local residents.

Alternative 1

Without Mitigation



Alternative 2

Without Mitigation

Local area Medium Long term Medium (-) Definite Certain Irreversible

With mitigation Site specific Low Long term Low (-) Probable Certain Irreversible

Alternative 3

Without Mitigation

Local area Medium Long term Medium (-) Definite Certain Irreversible

With mitigation Site specific Medium Long term Medium (-) Probable Certain Irreversible



7.2.3.1 Loss of sense of place of Maitland and Jewish Cemeteries

The Jewish Cemetery currently looks out onto the Elsieskraal River Canal and surrounding low growing vegetation. This vista will be significantly altered with the implementation of Alternative 1. A barrier wall will need to be constructed between the Cemetery and the roadway, significantly altering the sense of place of this portion of the Cemetery. The wall would need to be sensitive to the context in which it is located and would need to provide visual interest, rather than creating a hard edge barrier. The wall would need to be designed in a sculptural way using appropriate materials and softening devices to provide visual interest. The portion of the ramp to the east of the Jewish Cemetery would also need to be screened with planting to create a softened edge to the Cemetery. Noise barriers would need to be designed in such a way that they provide visual interest, while providing the required noise amelioration.

The portion of Forest Drive which will be widened for alternatives 2 and 3 contains an existing fence and tree avenue. It is important that this tree avenue is retained and enhanced to ensure that the road does not significantly affect the sense of place of the portions of Jewish Cemeteries 1 and 2 that will be affected. It is likely that some trees may need to be removed to the north of Forest Drive to accommodate the additional lanes required. These trees must be replaced with mature specimens that will reach a similar height and scale to the existing tree avenue to ensure that the screening provided by the tree avenue remains intact. The ramping structures may also cause visual intrusion on Jewish Cemeteries 1 and 2 and it is important that these are provided with sufficient screening. Articulated concrete cladding and vegetative screening including additional tree planting is recommended to reduce the visual intrusion of the structure on Jewish Cemeteries 1 and 2.

All three alternatives involve the construction of a ramp structure through the Maitland Cemetery. The ramp structure will be large in scale, exceeding 9m from the ground level in places. It will border closely onto existing grave sites and the sense of place of this portion of the Maitland Cemetery will be significantly altered by the construction of the roadway. The interface of the ramp and the adjacent grave sites is of crucial importance to ensure that the sense of place of this portion of the Cemetery is not severely altered. It is possible that some trees associated with the southern portion of the central pathway through the Maitland Cemetery may be affected by the road alignment. These trees provide an important visual screening function and it is essential that this avenue of trees is retained or replaced (if damaged during construction) to maintain the character of this portion of the Cemetery. Screening elements between the grave sites and the roadway are also of crucial importance here to ensure that visual impacts are minimized as far as possible.

Alternatives 2 and 3 will be constructed on the existing Forest Drive and although the ramp structures would cause visual intrusion without mitigation, the proposed project would not result in a severe change in the sense of place of the affected area with the implementation of mitigation.

The visual impacts will be limited to the local or site specific area and the loss of sense of place of the Jewish and Maitland Cemeteries is rated as having Medium significance with the implementation of mitigation for alternative 1 and Low significance for alternatives 2 and 3.

7.2.3.2 Visual intrusion on local residents

Alternative 3 will pass in close proximity to the residential areas located to the north and south of the eastern portion of Forest Drive. The ramp structures will intrude significantly onto the FOV of residents in this area, due to their size and scale and close proximity to the existing buildings. However, the properties are located adjacent to Forest Drive and are therefore desensitized to the existence of a busy road in close proximity to a certain degree.

Alternative 1 will pass by a larger number of residential units located to the south and east of Jewish Cemetery 1. However, this alternative will be located at a greater distance from these residences when compared to alternative 3. Although there is currently no road to the south of Jewish Cemetery 2, there is an existing road to the east of the Cemetery. There is also more space for the provision of screening in this area and the ramp structures associated with Alternative 1 will not be located in very close proximity to the residences to the east of Jewish Cemetery 2.



All three alternatives will impact similarly on the residential apartment block located immediately to the east of Jewish Cemetery 1. The ramp structures will pass in close proximity to this residential unit and the intrusion onto local residents in this area is anticipated to be high without the implementation of mitigation, although only a single residential block will be affected. Alternative 2 will have the least impact on local residents compared to alternatives 1 and 3, as the only residential area that will be affected is the area immediately to the east of the Jewish Cemetery 1 that will be affected by all other project alternatives.

The visual intrusion on local residents will be limited to the local area and is rated as having Medium-High significance with the implementation of mitigation for alternative 3 and Medium significance for alternatives 1 and 2.

7.2.3.3 Visual intrusion of lighting at night, particularly on local residents

There is existing lighting along Forest Drive and the impact of lighting at night associated with alternatives 2 and 3 would be less pronounced than alternative 1 which is located in an area that is not currently lit at night. It should be noted that lighting in this area may provide additional security which could be of benefit to residents to the south of Jewish Cemetery 2. Lighting located along ramp structures may cause increased visual intrusion to local residents along Forest Drive and it is important that mitigation is put in place to reduce these potential impacts as far as possible.

A larger number of residents will be affected by lighting at night associated with alternatives 1 and 3 as compared to alternative 2. The visual intrusion of lighting at night is therefore rated as being of Medium significance with the implementation of mitigation for alternatives 1 and 3 and Low significance for alternative 2.

7.3. Preferred alternative:

In summary, the operation phase impacts associated with Alternative 1 are all of Medium significance with the implementation of mitigation, while impacts associated with alternative 2 ranges from Medium to Low; and from Medium-High to Low for alternative 3 (see Table 7.8).The key comparison in terms of impacts is associated with the loss of sense of place of Jewish Cemetery 2 which is rated as Medium for alternative 1, compared to visual intrusion on local residents which is rated as Medium-High for alternative 3. The visual intrusion on local residents for alternative 2 is rated as having Medium significance.

Table 7.8 Operational Phase Impact Summary Table

Loss of sense of place of Maitland and Jewish Cemeteries

Visual intrusion on local residents

Visual intrusion of lighting at night

Alternative 1 Medium (-) Medium (-) Medium (-)

Alternative 2 Low (-) Medium (-) Low (-)

Alternative 3 Low (-) Medium-High (-) Medium (-)

Purely from a visual impact assessment perspective, alternative 2 would be selected as the preferred alternative. However, a number of factors need to be taken into consideration, including noise impacts, traffic alignment feasibility and cost considerations. The visual mitigation required for the implementation of alternative 1 would likely be costly, while visual mitigation associated with alternatives 2 and 3 may be less costly. Space requirements for Jewish Cemetery 1 would also need to be taken into consideration, as alignment alternative 1 would take a considerable amount of space away from the Cemetery. There would therefore need to be a trade-off between the visual impacts on local residents associated with alternative 3 compared to the loss of sense of place impacts associated with alternative 1 (Medium) and alternative 3 (Low).

In summary, alternative 2 is identified as the preferred alternative from a visual perspective, while alternative 3 is least preferred from a visual perspective. In terms of visual impacts on heritage resources only, alternatives 2 and 3 are equally preferred compared to alternative 1 as they will have a less significant impact on the sense of place of the Jewish and Maitland Cemeteries.



7.3.1 Operational Phase Mitigation Measures

Retain existing avenues of mature trees along Forest Drive and along the portion of the route that will be affected in the Maitland Cemetery. Where trees must be removed, these must be replaced with mature trees that will grow to sufficient heights to provide sufficient screening. Ensure that mature tree species that have been retained are cared for and maintained. Ensure that existing tree avenues are maintained and replanted with mature specimens, where necessary.

Implement the required visual screening techniques, as outlined in Section 5, particularly as these relate to the implementation of screening vegetation and noise barriers.

Should alternative 1 be implemented, the boundary wall must be designed in collaboration with the Jewish Cemetery to ensure that it is visually appealing and sensitive to context, while providing noise amelioration.

Appoint a registered professional Landscape Architect to oversee the detailed design and installation of the required visual mitigation techniques, including the implementation of safeguarding existing mature screening vegetation and implementing additional screening planting where required.

Make allowance for on-going landscape maintenance to allow site vegetation to mature sufficiently to allow the environment to achieve maximum VAC.

Ensure that the maximum height of ramp structures is reduced as far as possible to reduce visual impacts associated with the ramp structure that will be constructed in the Maitland Cemetery. (The current maximum height about ground level is approximately 9.5m. This height needs to be reduced to the absolute minimum to remain compliant with the required clearance over the railway line).

Ensure that no grave sites or memorial structures are damaged or disturbed within the Maitland or Jewish Cemeteries

Ensure that appropriate screening is implemented between the Maitland Cemetery and the proposed road, including the implementation of appropriate fencing and screening structures.

Ensure that fencing is visually permeable, contextually appropriate and softened with planting to provide visual screening. Use appropriate colours such as dark grey, charcoal and black that are visually recessive.

Make us of natural, contextually appropriate materials that have low reflectivity value and blend with the surroundings and the contextual character of the site.

Ensure that there is no direct lighting onto facades or window openings of existing residential buildings located in close proximity to the project area.

Lighting should be designed appropriately along the following guidelines:

o Avoid neon, spot or up-lighting.

o Screen and filter lights sources as far as possible.

o Shield external lights to cast light only upon the area required to be illuminated.

o Ensure that naked light sources are not visible from beyond the site.

o Ensure that no light is emitted into the sky.



8. CONCLUSION

This VIA has assessed the proposed construction of the Aerodrome Link Road to support the development of the Conradie BLMEP. Three proposed alignment alternatives have been identified. Each of the alignment alternatives will impact on Jewish Cemeteries 1 and 2, the Maitland Cemetery and adjacent residential areas. Due to the location of the project area in a low-lying area with flat topography and the presence of existing foreground screening elements including trees and buildings, the project is expected to impact most significant on receptors within close proximity to the project area (i.e. adjacent areas).

Visual design mitigation measures were investigated and a visual analysis and impact assessment was completed for each of the project alternatives. The visual impacts associated with alternative 2 were identified as being least significant due to the decreased impacts on receptors at the Cemeteries and local residents compared to alternatives 1 and 3. This alternative is identified as the preferred alternative from a visual perspective. Alternative 3 is identified as having more significant impacts on local residents, particularly along Forest Drive, while alternative 1 is identified as having more significant impacts on the sense of place of Jewish Cemetery 2.

The selection of the most feasible project alternative would rest on an analysis of project considerations that do not only relate to visual aspects. Cost considerations, traffic impacts, noise impacts and land and space constraints would also need to be taken into consideration. With the implementation of the advised visual mitigation, each of the project alternatives is considered to be feasible from a visual perspective. However, the visual impacts associated with each of the alignment alternatives are not insignificant and would need to be taken into consideration in the determination of the preferred project alternative. The decision as to which alternative will be selected for implementation will rest on factors beyond purely visual considerations.



9. CONTRIBUTORS

Larissa Heyns PrLArch #20227 (SACLAP), MLArch (UCT), BSc ConsEcol (2005) is a professional Landscape Architect and Environmental Consultant with 7 years of experience. She graduated from UCT's Master of Landscape Architecture Programme with distinction in 2010. Following graduation, she worked as a Landscape Architect for a number of years on a range of projects spanning from master planning to detailed design. She became registered as a professional Landscape Architect in 2013 and subsequently worked as an Environmental Consultant on a number of large scale EIA projects within the Western Cape, Northern Cape, Angola and Guinea. She is currently registered with the Interim Certification Board for Environmental Practitioners, South Africa. Her expertise includes environmental planning and sensitivity analysis, landscape architectural design, VIA, EIAs, and Environmental Management Plans (EMPs).

Mark Saint Pôl PrLArch # 20201 (SACLAP), MLArch (UCT), BTech Env Man (CPUT), NDip Hort (DIT), having studied, trained and worked in South Africa, the United Kingdom and Australia, has 16 years of experience in Horticulture, Environmental Management and Landscape Architecture. He graduated from UCT’s Master of Landscape Architecture Programme with distinction after having received several academic scholarship awards. In addition, he earned the ILASA National Award for Best Thesis Project, as well as the ILASA-Cape Award for overall Academic Excellence. He has contributed to journal articles published both locally and internationally, and has also taught Construction, Plants and Design and Design Studio in the Landscape Architecture programme at UCT. After working within other practices on a range of significant projects, Mark co-founded Square One Landscape Architects in 2011.



10. REFERENCES

Oberholzer, B. 2005: Guideline for involving Visual and Aesthetic Specialists in EIA processes: Edition 1. CSIR Report No ENV-S-C 2005 053 F. Republic of South Africa, Provincial Government of the Western Cape, DEA&DP, Cape Town. Postlethwayt, C and Hart, T. 2016. Heritage Scoping Report Proposed Aerodrome Road, Maitland Prepared by Cindy Postlethwayt, Professional Heritage Practitioner and Tim Hart, Archaeologist. Dated April 2016.

HHO Africa, 2017. Conraide BLMEP Traffic Impact Assessment, Addendum 2 Prepared by HHO Africa for the Western Cape Government, dated March 2017. Reference number 7923

Ignis Project & Finance Solutions (Pty) Ltd, 2016. Land Use Application to City of Cape Town and Development Framework for the Western Cape Government: Department of Transport & Public Works in Respect of the Conradie Better Living Model Exemplar Project (“BLMEP”) (Final Draft). Prepared by Ignis Project & Finance Solutions (Pty) Ltd. Dated 18 July 2016.



11. APPENDIX A – CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PRECEDENT





Documents

Visual Impact Assessment - Western Cape AMENDMENT CC...Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) as part of the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) process being undertaken by Cindy Poslethwayt