Appendix G Specialist Report(s) · Bank Terraces Carl Cronje Drive Tyger Waterfront Bellville, 7550...

Appendix G ‐ Specialist Report(s)

1) Traffic Impact Statement including response to stakeholder issues and concerns, April 2012 (ITS Engineers)

2) Traffic Engineering Opinion and Investigation of Layout Alternatives, December 2014 (ITS Engineers)

3) Conceptual Dorman Way Access Diagram, January 2015 4) Kantey and Templer Traffic Review, October 2011 5) Heritage Assessment, 2005 (Mr. Henry Aikman) 6) Specialist Opinion on Preferred layout Alternative 4, June 2014 (Mr. Henry Aikman)

7) Botanical Assessment, 2008 (Dr Dave MacDonald) 8) Specialist Input on Botanical Aspects of Erf 2224 Hout Bay, May 2010 (Nick Helme Botanical Surveys)

9) Freshwater Assessment, 2008 (Dr. Barbara Gale) 10) Review of Freshwater Assessment ‐ Upper Bokkemanskloof River on Erf 2224, Hout Bay, May 2010

11) Freshwater Specialist Opinion in Response to I&AP Comments, May 2010 (Ms. Toni Belcher)

12) Freshwater Specialist Opinion in Response to I&AP Comments, August 2011 (Ms. Toni Belcher)

13) Freshwater Specialist Opinion on Tributary Buffer, May 2014 (Ms. Toni Belcher)

14) Freshwater Specialist Opinion on Preferred Layout Alternative 4, December 2014 (Ms. Toni Belcher)

15) Revised Visual Assessment including Layout Alternative 2, November 2011 (Megan Anderson of MALA)

16) Visual Specialist Opinion on Preferred Layout Alternative 4 September 2014 (Megan Anderson of MALA)

17) Civil Engineering Services Report, August 2014 (Eckon Engineers)

18) Stormwater Management Plan, September 2014 (Graeme McGill Consulting Engineers)

19) Electrical Services Report (MAC Consulting Engineers)

20) Western Leopard Toad Assessment, 2009 (NCC Environmental Group)

21) Additional Input on Western Leopard Toads in Response to IAP Comments, May 2011 and October 2011 (NCC Environmental Group)

22) Western Leopard Toad Habitat Assessment for Preferred Layout Alternative 4, September 2014 (NCC Environmental Group)

23) Memorandum: Town Planning Response to Concerns Raised by Interested & Affected Parties Participating in the Environmental Authorization Process for the Consolidation of Erven A/8343 & R/2224 Hout Bay, and the Proposed Subdivision of the Consolidated Erf, March 2012 (J Paul van Wyk Urban Economists and Planners)

24) Letter Opinion in Response to Town Planning Considerations Raised by the DEA&DP, April 2014 (J Paul van Wyk Urban Economists and Planners)

Traffic Impact Statement including response to stakeholder issues and concerns, April 2012 (ITS

Engineers)

Traffic Impact Statement

Residential Development on Erf 2224 Oakhurst

Hout Bay, Western Cape

April 2012

5th Floor, Imperial

Bank Terraces

Carl Cronje Drive

Tyger Waterfront

Bellville, 7550

021 914 6211 (Tel)

021 914 7403 (Fax)

e-mail: [email protected]

Residential Development on Erf 2224 Oakhurst (Revision 1) - Hout Bay, Western Cape Project #: ITS 2350 April 2012

ITS Engineers (Pty) Ltd i

Summary Sheet

Report Type Traffic Impact Statement

Title Residential Development on Erf 2224 Oakhurst

Location Hout Bay, Western Cape

Client Oakhurst Estate

Reference Number ITS 2350

Project Team Christoff Krogscheepers

Pieter Arangie

Contact Details Tel: 021 914 6211 & Fax: 021 914 7403

Date April 2012

Report Status Revision 1

File Name: H:\2350 Oakhurst Development, Erf 2224, Hout

Bay\7.Report\2350_Erf2224OakhurstHoutBay_TIS_Revision1_PA_2012-04-24.docx

This traffic impact statement has been prepared in accordance with the National Department of Transport’s ‘Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies’ PR93/635 (1995) by a suitably qualified and registered professional traffic engineer. Details of any of the calculations on which the results in this report are based will be made available on request.


ITS Engineers (Pty) Ltd ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Report - Summary Table This traffic impact statement is reported only in a summary table instead of a lengthy report to assist review and interpretation of the results. This summary table contains all the relevant information that is normally contained in a report. It should be sufficient for review and interpretation of the expected traffic impacts as well as the comprehension of the required measures to mitigate the traffic impact. If any more detail is required please contact the authors.

Appendices

Appendix A: Figures

Appendix B: Tables

Appendix C: Photographs

Appendix D: Traffic Counts

Appendix E: Response to Traffic related EIA comments and Comments from Roads Authorities

List of Figures Figure 1: Locality Map

Figure 2: A (Previous) & B (Preferred) - Site Development Plan

Figure 3: Traffic Conditions

List of Tables Table 1: Proposed Trip Generation Rates

Table 2: Estimated Peak Hour Trips

Abbreviations CM – Critical Movement

DR – Divisional Road

GLA – Gross Leasable Floor Area

LOS – Level of Service

MR – Provincial Main Road

RAP&G – Road Access Policy and Guidelines

SDP – Sight Development Plan

SSD – Shoulder Sight Distance

TIS - Traffic Impact Statement

V/C – Volume to Capacity Ratio


ITS Engineers (Pty) Ltd 1

Traffic Impact Statement

Residential Development on Erf 2224 Oakhurst, Hout Bay, Western Cape

1. Purpose of Statement

In support of a subdivision application.

2. Locality

Erf Number: 2224, Hout Bay

Description: South of Hout Bay Road and to the west of Blue Valley Avenue.

Locality Map: Figure 1 (Appendix A)

3. Land Use

Existing use: The property is currently undeveloped.

Proposed use: Residential (73 Single Units, 8 Group Housing Units and 2 Rural erven). Site Development Plan: Figure 2 (Appendix A).

4. Existing Access Via Blue Valley Avenue

Refer to Section 15 for proposed access.

5. Existing Roadways in Site Vicinity

Hout Bay Road: Single Lane per Direction, 60km/h, no parking, Local Distributor Class 3 Road in Suburban Environment.

Blue Valley Avenue: Single lane per direction, no posted speed, no parking, Minor Access road.

Refer to Locality Map, Figure 1 (Appendix A) and Photos 1 & 2 (Appendix C).

6. Analyses Hours Weekday a.m. (07:30 to 08:30)

Weekday p.m. (16:45 to 17:45)

7. Scenarios Analysed

2008 Existing conditions

2011 Background traffic conditions

2011 Total traffic conditions

8. Study Intersections (existing control)

Hout Bay Main Road/Blue Valley Avenue (Stop on Blue Valley Avenue)

Refer to Figure 3 (Appendix A).

9. Existing Intersection Operations

The Hout Bay Main Road/Blue Valley Avenue intersection currently operates at an acceptable LOS “C”, Del 21.5 sec and V/C 0.19 during the average weekday p.m. peak hour.

Refer to Figure 3 (Appendix A).

10. Future Road Network/Road Planning

A future bypass road is planned which will “cut” through the proposed development. This means that the section of the development to the south of the future bypass road will then have to gain access off the bypass road as it is expected that there will not be an intersection between the bypass road and Blue Valley Avenue. However, it is not clear when this route will be build hence this report addresses the traffic impact in regards to the existing road network.

11. 2011 Background Traffic Conditions

Background Growth Rate: 3 percent per annum (Based on historical counts in the site vicinity)

The Hout Bay Main Road/Blue Valley Avenue intersection will continue to operate at an acceptable level-of-service LOS “D”, Del 27.8 sec and V/C 0.27

during the average weekday p.m. peak hour. Refer to Figure 3 (Appendix A).



12. Trip Generation Rates

Single Residential AM & PM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 1.5 trips/unit.

Cluster Housing AM & PM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 1.1 trips/unit.

Refer to Table 1 (Appendix B).for rates and directional distribution

Reference: South African Trip Generation Rates, DOT 1995.

13. Development Trips

AM Peak Hour Total Trips: 118 Trips (29 In/ 89 out)

PM Peak Hour Total Trips: 118 Trips (89 In/ 29 out)

Refer to Table 2 (Appendix B).

14. Trip Distribution 50% West on Hout Bay Road

50% East on Hout Bay Road

15. Access to Site

Access to the northern section (north of the future bypass road) of the proposed development is proposed via existing side streets off Blue Valley Avenue. In the initial layout alternative for the development, Figure 2A attached in Appendix A, the project planners suggested access to the bulk of the northern section of the proposed development via Ash Street. However, in accordance with our findings, it is recommended that this access should be via Birch Street, as indicated in the preferred layout alternative, Figure 2B attached in Appendix A. The access va Birch Street intersection is recommended since it links to a wider section of Blue Valley Avenue. South of Birch Street, Blue Valley Avenue reduces to a narrow road surface within a 13-metre road reserve, while the northern is wider and within a 16-metre road reserve. The actual space available for turning movements at the intersection of Blue Valley Avenue/Birch Street is also more than at the Ash Lane intersection.

It is recommended that access to the southern section of the proposed development be provided via a temporary access road off Blue Valley Avenue along the proposed alignment/road reserve of the future bypass road.

In the future when the bypass road is constructed, the southern section of the proposed development and the existing properties along Blue Valley Avenue to the south of the future bypass road will gain access to the future bypass road via an access road intersecting the bypass road approximately 300 metres to the west of Blue Valley Avenue. The exact position and alignment of this access road should be confirmed during the design process and are indicated on the SDP.

The existing properties along Blue Valley Avenue will be cut off from the rest of the network once the future bypass is built and they will have to get an alternative access via Ruschia Lane (Photo 7). The alternative access is indicated on the SDP. However, the design of the future access and the existing road network must be integrated during the detail design of the roads of the proposed development.

The available SSD in both directions along Hout Bay Main Road from Blue Valley Avenue is sufficient and are shown in Photos 3 & 4. The available SSD in both directions from Ruschia Lane along Blue Valley Avenue is also sufficient and are shown in Photos 5 & 6 (Appendix C)



16. 2011 Total Traffic Conditions

It is expected that the future bypass road will have an effect on the traffic pattern in the site vicinity. However, due to the uncertainty regarding the time frame for the construction of this road it was not included in this analysis. Furthermore, it is our opinion that the current scenario with all the traffic via Blue Valley Avenue represents a worst-case scenario and should the bypass road be built, the road network in the site vicinity will operate at better levels-of-service.

With the current road network the Hout Bay Main Road/Blue Valley Avenue intersection analysis results are as follow:

LOS “E”

Average delay per vehicle for minor road traffic: 45.7sec

V/C 0.73

The delays for minor road vehicles are still acceptable and hence no mitigation is proposed.

17. NMT

Existing Facilities: There are no walkways/sidewalks along any of the roads in the site vicinity. Pedestrians have to walk in the street or along the gravel shoulder, similar to many other areas in the Cape Town area.

Proposed Facilities: Ideally sidewalks should be provided along the major internal roads, but since there are no other facilities in the immediate surrounding area, these sidewalks will lead nowhere. The internal streets are windy and relatively narrow, hence vehicle speeds will be low which will benefit pedestrian safety.

18. Public Transport

Existing Facilities: There are no dedicated facilities along Hout Bay Main Road and currently the buses stop on the road to pick-up/drop-off passengers.

Proposed Facilities: A bus lay-by should be considered in both directions along Hout Bay Main Road. However, this development cannot be solely responsible for the construction thereof.

19. Conclusion & Recommendations

The existing road network can accommodate the proposed development without any significant improvements to the network provided that the accesses to the development are constructed to the relevant City of Cape Town standards.



REFERENCES • Provincial Administration: Western Cape, Department of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and

Tourism: Transport Branch, Road Access Guidelines and Policies, 2002.

• Department of Transport, Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies, Report No. PR 93/645, Pretoria, 1995.

• Department of Transport, South African Trip Generation Rates, Report No. RR 92/228, Pretoria, 1995.

• Department of Transport, Urban Transport Guidelines, UTG7, Pretoria, 1989

• Department of Transport, Off-Street Parking Indices, N DoT PG 3/85, November 1985

• Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation, 6th Edition. 1997.

• South African Road Traffic Signs Manual, 3rd Edition, Volume 3, 2004.

• Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report No. 209. 2000.

Appendix A

Figures

Appendix B

Tables

Residential Development on Erf 2224 Oakhurst - Hout Bay, Western Cape Project #: ITS 2350 April 2012

ITS Engineers (Pty) Ltd B - 1

Table 1 illustrates the proposed trip generation rates and Table 2 shows the estimated peak hour trips the proposed development could generate.

Table 1: Proposed Trip Generation Rates

Land Use Units Source Size/ Volume

Weekday AM Peak Hour

Rate In Out

Residential unit DoT210 73 1.5 25% 75%

Cluster Housing unit DoT230 8 1.1 25% 75%

Weekday PM Peak

Hour Residential unit DoT210 73 1.5 75% 25%

Cluster Housing unit DoT230 8 1.1 75% 25%

Table 2: Estimated Peak Hour Trips

Land Use Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour

In Out Total In Out Total

Single Residential 2 7 9 7 2 9

Group Housing 27 82 109 82 27 109

Total Trips 29 89 118 89 29 118

Appendix C

Photographs


ITS Engineers (Pty) Ltd C - 1

Photo 1: Hout Bay Main Road – Westbound View Photo 2: Blue Valley Avenue – Southbound View

Photo 3: SSD to the East along Main Road from Blue Valley Ave Photo 4: SSD to the West along Main Rd from Blue Valley Ave


ITS Engineers (Pty) Ltd C - 2

Photo 5: SSD to the South along Blue Valley Ave from Ruschia Lane Photo 6: SSD to the North along Blue Valley Ave from Ruschia Lane

Photo 7: Ruschia Lane – Westbound View Photo 8: Birch Street – Westbound View

Appendix D

Traffic Counts & Surveys

INTERSECTION:PERIOD:DATE: Note:

HourlyTraffic Movements Totals

Start End 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total06:00 06:1506:15 06:3006:30 06:45 27 2 1 45 75 7506:45 07:00 43 1 5 6 66 121 19607:00 07:15 110 3 4 15 2 107 241 43707:15 07:30 160 2 12 15 2 113 304 74107:30 07:45 120 6 10 16 1 165 318 98407:45 08:00 230 7 16 15 4 119 391 125408:00 08:15 160 7 11 7 5 144 334 134708:15 08:30 190 5 13 9 3 131 351 139408:30 08:45 107608:45 09:00 68509:00 09:15 35109:15 09:3009:30 09:4509:45 10:0010:00 10:1510:15 10:3010:30 10:4510:45 11:0011:00 11:1511:15 11:3011:30 11:4511:45 12:0012:00 12:1512:15 12:3012:30 12:4512:45 13:0013:00 13:1513:15 13:3013:30 13:4513:45 14:0014:00 14:1514:15 14:3014:30 14:4514:45 15:0015:00 15:1515:15 15:3015:30 15:45 168 9 7 6 2 150 342 34215:45 16:00 149 6 9 2 8 128 302 64416:00 16:15 178 11 9 4 4 168 374 101816:15 16:30 96 10 6 1 1 164 278 129616:30 16:45 139 17 9 5 10 169 349 130316:45 17:00 146 11 6 7 6 191 367 136817:00 17:15 172 15 7 5 7 238 444 143817:15 17:30 157 8 7 4 7 230 413 157317:30 17:45 155 8 8 5 6 180 362 158617:45 18:00 120 15 4 2 7 161 309 152818:00 18:15 108418:15 18:30 67118:30 18:45 30918:45 19:00

2520 143 143 125 75 2669 5675EST. 24 HR

G:\2350 Oakhurst Development, Erf 2224, Hout Bay\4.Traffic Counts & Surveys\1.Traffic Counts\[2354_Counts Hout Bay Rd Blue Valley Rd_

TOTAL

TRAFFIC COUNT

TIME

25/09/2007

Total Traffic

Houtbay

Hout Bay Main Rd/Blue Valley Rd/

123

13 18

14 17987

16

Hou

t Bay

Mai

n R

d

Blue Valley Rd

11

19

10

12

4 5 615

20

Hout Bay Main Rd

Key Plan

Peak Hour Volumes

38

97

725

0.89

Blue Valley Rd

609

13

572

559

50

47

H

out B

ay M

ain R

d

Hout Bay Main Rd

747

(07:30 - 08:30)PHF :

700

25

AM Peak Hour

Peak Hour Volumes

68

49

672

651

Hout Bay Main Rd

630

42

PHF :

PM Peak Hour 865

21

839

26

Hou

t B

ay M

ain

Rd

(16:45 - 17:45)0.89

28

867

Blue Valley Rd

Appendix E

Response to Traffic related EIA comments

Directors: MC Ntuli (Chairman) JL Coetzee (Managing) Dr P Pretorius Dr JC Krogscheepers

Consultant: Dr SC van As

•

5th Floor Imperial Bank Terraces

Carl Cronje Drive Tyger Waterfront

Bellville 7530

Postnet Suite 127

Private Bag x 7 Tyger Valley

7536

Tel: (021) 914 6211 Fax: (021) 914 7403

e-mail:

[email protected]

homepage: www.itse.co.za

Reg. No.

2001/027205/07

VAT No. 4460198965

•

Offices: Pretoria

Cape Town

Sillito Environmental Consulting PO Box 30134

Tokai 7966

24 April 2012

Our Reference: ITS 2350

Attention: Adrian Sillito

Dear Adrian,

Proposed Development on Erf 2224 & Erf A/8343, Hout Bay

We refer to your request for our comment on traffic related issues raised by interested and affected parties with regard to the proposed development on Erf 2224 & Erf A/8343 in Hout Bay. We also refer to a letter from Messrs. Kantey & Templer dated 27 January 2011 regarding a “Review of the applicants Traffic Impact Statement of Erf 2224”.

We want to express our disappointment in the fact that our work was reviewed by another consultant without any engagement or discussion of the issues as required by the Code of Conduct of the South African Association of Consulting Engineers.

The comments, complaints and appeals from interested and affected parties which relate to access and traffic can be grouped together as follows:

• Road Hierarchy • Roadway Capacity (Functional) • Road Widths • Roadway Capacity • Access to the Site

We have responded to the appeals and comments by firstly drafting a general response and then secondly responding individually to each of the responses received as summarized by you.

Our responses to the issues raised are included in the attached table.

Yours sincerely,

J. Christoff Krogscheepers, Pr. Eng, Ph.D. (UND), MITE

Proposed Development on Erf 2224, Hout Bay Project No. 2350 24 April 2012

ITS Engineers (Pty) Ltd Page 2

Introduction

The text and comments in the following paragraphs are in response to comments and concerns raised by interested and affected parties on the proposed residential development on Erf 2224 & Erf A/8343, Hout Bay.

Road Hierarchy

Blue Valley Avenue currently serves approximately 150 erven. It has no formal classification, but based on its function and the number of erven it is serving it can be classified as either a Local Distributor or a Residential Access Collector. In terms of its current and future forecasted volumes, its functional classification relates more to that of a Residential Access Collector, serving up to 200 dwelling units, with peak hour traffic volumes of less than 600 vehicles per hour. However, as asserted by Messrs Kantey and Templer, this classification can be as high as that of a Local Distributor which would justify even higher volumes along the length of the Avenue.

From any map or an aerial of the study area (See figure above) it is clearly evident that all the stub roads off Blue Valley Avenue leading towards the west were designed to serve the open areas to the west. This was also confirmed by the officials from the City of Cape Town in initial discussions. None of the roads leading off Blue Valley Avenue including Ash Lane and Birch Streets are Cul-de-sacs as repeatedly stated by the objectors and by Messrs. Kantey and Templer. They are not signed as such, they have not been designed as such and they have not been named as such. Most cul-de-sacs in the City are appropriately signed and are designed so that vehicles can turn around at the end of the cul-de-sac. None of the so called ‘cul-de-sacs’ have turn-around facilities.



The planning and development of Erf 2224 & Erf A/8343 was done within the context of the current hierarchy and utilizing public infrastructure that was created for the area.

Roadway Capacity (Functional)

The current and future expected volumes with background growth and with the development are illustrated in the following figure. The horizontal lines on the graph represent what could be termed functional capacities or desirable volumes which could be exceeded in terms of the physical nature of the road, i.e. the actual physical capacity, but which should not be exceeded in terms of the environment of the roadway. These functional capacities are available from most of the national guidelines such as UTG 7 and the Guidelines for the Provision of Engineering Services in Residential Townships.

From this illustration it is evident that:

• The traffic volumes along Blue Valley Avenue are significantly lower than what can be expected along a Residential Access Collector or even an access loop or cul-de-sac.

• These volumes are those measured along the bottom end Blue Valley Avenue where it intersects with Hout Bay Main Road. Further up along Blue Valley Avenue these volumes will be even lower.

• The stub-roads that intersect with Blue Valley Avenue obviously carry significantly fewer vehicles and will all be carrying volumes well within their functional capacity.

• Even adding an extra 22 erven to any of the stub-roads will not make any difference in terms of the functional capacity of any of the stub-roads, specifically also to that of Birch Road.

Claiming that these roads were not designed for the expected increase in traffic volumes is simply incorrect. All the roads in the study area will clearly function within their functional



capacities for which they were planned, designed and built. There will obviously be an increase in traffic volumes and along roads such as Birch Street which is proposed to link through to another 22 erven and the increase will be significant in terms of a percentage increase. However, this will still be within the planned function and capacity of Birch Street.

Road Widths

The current and proposed road widths are within the local and national guidelines. Traditionally, the arguments were made that “wider and straighter” equate to “safer”. This is not the case and this approach is leading to traffic calming request all over the City and costing the tax payer large amounts of money. Not only has the national guidelines been supporting narrower roads, but a recent UK study report in TRL Report 661 or the British Manual for Streets found that speed is directly related to street width and forward visibility as illustrated in the following graph.

From this it is evident that narrower and less forward visibility equals lower speeds, which should improve safety, specifically in built-up areas where it is known that speeds above 40 km/h are more likeley to result in serious pedestrians injuries and fatalties than speeds below 40 km/h. The proposed road widths will all support slower speeds and hence a safer environment. The current road reserve widht of 9.45 metres of most of the stub streets such as Birch Street is more than adequate to accommodate a 5.5 metre road (black top, see illustration below from UTG 7), a sidewalk of 1.8 to 2 metres and possibly also parking on the verge of 2,0 to 2.2 metres. UTG 7 even suggest a roadway widht of as little as 4,5 metres.



The current road reserve width of Birch Street of 9.45 metres is more than sufficient to serve the current erven as well as the proposed additional 22 erven. According to the national guidelines up to 60 erven can be served by an access cul-de-sac or and access way.

Roadway Capacity

It was illustrated in a previous section that all the roadways in the study area will continue to operate within their functional capacities. The traffic impact assessment clearly illustrates that the roadways and intersections will also operate within their actual capacities, specifically also the intersection of Blue Valley Drive and Hout Bay Main Road. It is correct that Hout Bay Main Road is busy roadway and that because of that there will be capacity constraints. However, based on the site observations and based on international best practice it is evident that there are sufficient available gaps in the conflicting traffic to accommodate the current and future traffic.

Access to the Site

Many comments were received related to the access which should not be via Blue Valley Road, but rather via Dorman Way. The site does not abut Dorman Way and the applicant has no right, title or interest in the neighbouring property west of Erf 2224 known as Oakhurst Estate and has no authority to impose any conditions or utilise this property as an access route nor does the owner of the aforesaid neighbouring property have any ownership rights in Erf 2224. Access to the site was planned and is proposed in the context of the historical planning and design of the area which clearly were to provide access to the area via Blue Valley Road and the numerous stub roads that were created for this purpose.

Summary

Access to Erf 2224 & Erf A/8343 was based on the historical planning of the area. Based on best practice, and local, national and international guidelines in terms of road hierarchy and street widths, there is no evidence that the layout as proposed cannot work efficiently and safely.



ISSUE RESPONSE

The unsuitability of Blue Valley Avenue as an access point (too steep; damaged due to groundwater seepage; congested; no commitment to public transport or pedestrian provisions with this proposed access).

Blue Valley Avenue is at most a Local Distributor (Class 4) road with a capacity of between 600 to 1200 passenger car units (pcu) per hour. The expected future traffic volumes along Blue Valley Avenue at the Main Road intersection with the development completed will be approximately 275 vehicles during any hour. This is well below the lower threshold for Local Distributors, which is acceptable. Damage to the existing road surface is a maintenance issue that should be addressed by the City of Cape Town. It is unlikely that taxis will drive up Blue Valley Avenue to drop-off/pick-up passengers. During site visits it was observed that buses and minibus taxis stop along Hout Bay Main Road to drop-off/pick-up passengers. Public transport facilities must be established along Main Road in the vicinity of the intersection of Blue Valley Avenue.

The unsuitability of Birch Lane as an access point (reference made to an attached review by Kantey and Templer of the traffic statement undertaken by the project traffic engineers).

Birch Street is low order street which will function as a low volume access road and sidewalks. None of the other streets in the area have sidewalks and there will be no continuity in the pedestrian network, which is unfortunate. However, the registered road reserve width for Birch Street of 9.45 metres is sufficient for a low volume access road, with a 1.8 to 2m sidewalk along one side. The road will not be busy since it will only serve 22 erven which at most can generate 30 trips per hour, i.e. a vehicle every 2 minutes. A narrow road in a residential environment with a sidewalk is ideally suited for low traffic volumes serving only a few residential units. Birch Street and all the parallel roads were designed and built to connect to the open space to the south west.

Suggested Dorman Way via Main Road as a more suitable access road.

Access to this section of the proposed development is proposed via an existing road network. The road network was specifically designed and built to serve the undeveloped land on which the proposed development is situated. The alternative as proposed via Dorman Way is not feasible from the applicant’s point of view since it goes through land belonging to a different owner while the network was designed and built to service Erf 2224.

Review by Kantey and Templer attached and endorsed: please refer to the summary of the review contained under Mr. and Mrs Cartwright.

The Kantey and Templer review focuses on the Birch Street road reserve width error contained in a comment from ITS. “1. Inconsisrency of information provided”



“inaccurate information provided by the traffic engineers.” The review then insinuates that the initial recommendation in the TIA for access via Birch Street was based on the wrong information. This is not true, the December 2010 comment referring to an 18-metre Birch Street road reserve width is indeed incorrect and was based on measurements from a plan that was not to scale. However, the recommendations and findings in the June 2008 Traffic Impact Statement were based on the correct information. Several site visits were conducted and the different alternatives were evaluated based on the observations during site visits. The relevant cadastral information was obtained from the Surveyor General’s office, which clearly indicates a Birch Street road reserve width of 9.45 metres. The Kantey & Templer review was done without any effort to contact the project team to discuss their proposals. The access streets such as Birch Street are local access routes serving less than 30 dwellings and can be classified as Access Loops based on the guidance provided by UTG 7. These roadways with infrequent heavy vehicle movement can be as narrow as 4.5 metres which can easily fit within the available road reserve and with space for a sidewalk.

Objection received from Ms. Leonie Mervis on the grounds of traffic concerns, indicating that the traffic statement compiled by the project traffic engineers; as well as their responses to earlier concerns raised by I&AP’s around traffic, are unacceptable.

Nothing to comment on. Please highlight what is unacceptable.

Support expressed for the review by Kantey and Templer of the traffic statement produced by the project traffic engineers (please see summary of review under Mr. and Mrs. Cartwright).

The Kantley & Templer review was obviously on assignment of the residents to favour their point of view and to discredit the ITS report. Please refer to the above covering letter addressing the issues.

The intersection at Main Road is dangerous; turning right into Constantia Nek can be difficult, additional traffic will worsen this. The road is too steep and narrow to accommodate the additional traffic.

The traffic impact outlined in the TIS describes this impact and illustrates that the Main Road/Blue Valley Avenue intersection will operate at acceptable levels-of service during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours of an average weekday. The average delay per vehicle waiting at the intersection for a gap will be relatively long, but still within acceptable international and national standards. Blue Valley Avenue can be as much as a Local Distributor (Class 4) road with a capacity of between 600 to 1200 passenger car units (pcu) per hour. The expected future traffic volumes along Blue Vallye Avenue at the Main Road intersection with the development completed will be approximately 275 vehicles during the a.m. peak hour. This is well below the lower threshold for Local Distributors, which is acceptable.

Limitations of the traffic study, such as no investigation of the impacts associated with on-street parking associated with the proposed development; not addressing damage to Blue Valley Avenue from groundwater flows; and faulty assumptions regarding the imminent construction of a future “High Level Road”, the future of which is uncertain at this stage.

All internal and access roads and will be constructed to municipal standards. Damage to the existing road infrastructure is a maintenance issue that should be addressed by the City of Cape Town. The TIA evaluated access to the proposed development with and without the future by-pass road.

Email received objecting to the traffic congestion that will result from the development;

The traffic impact outlined in the TIS illustrates that the road network will be able to accommodate the increase in traffic volumes.

The proposed access from Birch Street needs to be re-addressed due to resident dissatisfaction.

No comment.

“the Bypass Road should be avoided as an access road.” The City of Cape Town’s long-term planning makes provision for access off the Bypass Road to the properties along Blue Valley Road to the south of the future Bypass road. Access to the portion of the proposed development to the south of the future Bypass road will also get access at this intersection. Blue Valley



Road will not have an at-grade intersection with the future Bypass road.

The proposed development access is problematic, does not account for cumulative traffic impacts associated with various development proposals currently being applied for in the area, and needs to be revisited.

The TIA makes provision for a three percent growth in background traffic volumes. No information of other approved developments was available at the time of compiling the TIA.

The road planning for the area should consider upgrades to Main Road such as traffic circles and improving the permeability of local residential roads which are currently being eroded; developers should contribute to such upgrades by means of a development traffic levy.

Studies are currently being done to improve safety at some of the intersections along Main Road. The City of Cape Town requires developers to pay bulk service contributions, of which a large component is for the upgrade and maintenance of the local road infrastructure.

Gated access is not supported as it has proven to create congestion on the residential access roads to such developments.

Noted

The proposed development access is problematic; access via Main Road at the Oakhurst Spar must be considered; the lanes along Blue Valley Avenue should be opened up to allow access to adjacent developments to ensure permeability with surrounding residential areas.

The alternative via Dorman Way is not feasible from the applicant’s point of view since it traverses a neighbouring property over which it has no ownership rights.

The proposed access to the development and associated traffic (noise and air pollution and associated health risks; road safety; privacy; child pedestrian safety; road quality due to ground and storm water; traffic congestion; increased criminal activity).

The future traffic volumes on the road network with proposed development completed will still be within acceptable standards as applied by the local authority. All access roads will be upgraded to municipal standards. The gravel roads are in municipal roads reserves which were designed and built to provide for access to the neighbouring property/ies. The safety of pedestrians and/or children must always be a high priority in all planning and design. The development will result in an increase in traffic along Birch Street which will impact on children playing in the street. Although the expected increase in traffic volumes will be within national and international norms and the design of the cross section should be such to keep vehicle speeds down to a minimum, there will still be an impact on specifically small children that might currently be playing in the street. Older children will still be able to play and move to safety when traffic approaches, but small children will be at risk if unattended. However, this is true for most other residential streets in Cape Town.

Inconvenience and nuisance impacts associated with construction vehicles.

Noted. During the construction phase the construction traffic should be managed and controlled to limit the nuisance impact.

Main Road is a better access point. Access to the proposed development is proposed via the existing street network adjacent and to the east of the proposed development. The proposal to take access via the street network to the west of the proposed development is not an option as the applicant has no right, title or interest in the neighbouring property west of Erf 2224 known as Oakhurst Estate and has no authority to impose any conditions or utilise this property as an access route. From a planning and practical perspective linking the development to the closest public infrastructure with sufficient capacity will be the optimum solution.

The cul-de-sac proposed for site access is inadequate and unsuitable for increased traffic volumes.

Birch Street can be classified as a Class 5c road Access cul-de-sac. The capacity for a Class 5c road is 300 passenger car units (pcu) per hour. With the proposed development Birch Street can probably be reclassified as a Class 5b Residential Access Loop, which also has a capacity of 300 pcu’s. The additional traffic volumes



Proposed Development on Erf 2224, Hout Bay Project No. 2350 9 December 2010 ITS Engineers (Pty) Ltd Page 3 along Birch Street during the typical weekday peak hours will be less than 50 pcu’s, which is well within acceptable standards.

Pedestrian (child) safety will be impacted negatively. The road will be designed to applicable municipal standards with emphasis on a low speed environment to improve safety and accommodate pedestrian activity along the street. The safety of pedestrians and/or children must always be a high priority in all planning and design. The development will result in an increase in traffic along Birch Street which will impact on children playing in the street. Although the expected increase in traffic volumes will be within national and international norms and the design of the cross section should be such to keep vehicle speeds down to a minimum, there will still be an impact on specifically small children that might currently be playing in the street. Older children will still be able to play and move to safety when traffic approaches, but small children will be at risk if unattended. However, this is true for most other residential streets in Cape Town. Security is not seen as an issue.

Crime associated with access through a small cul-de-sac and several other access points as opposed to just a few access points.

No comment

Alternative access routes have not been seriously considered by the traffic engineers. Suggested alternative access roads include Dorman Way and Vineyard Way.

Access to the proposed development is proposed via the existing street network adjacent and to the east of the proposed development. The proposal to take access via the street network to the west of the proposed development is not an option as the applicant has no ownership rights in this property and has no authority to utilse this property as an access route. From a planning and practical perspective linking the development to the closest public infrastructure with sufficient capacity will be the optimum solution. The capacity analyses indicate that the existing street network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional traffic volumes associated with the proposed development.

The intersection at the Oakhurst Spar should be upgraded as part of the development.

This intersection will be upgraded as part of other planned developments along Dorman Way.

Benefits of the proposed alternative access points are listed, such as improved security.

No comment

Concerns raised regarding the response provided by the project traffic engineers to previous traffic concerns raised.

No comment

Reference is made to findings by another traffic engineering firm; Kantey and Templer (please see a summary of the review contained under Mr. and Mrs. Cartwright).


Concern raised that the development is undesirable due to traffic impacts associated with proposed access.

The traffic impact outlined in the TIS illustrates that the road network will be able to accommodate the increase in traffic volumes. The future traffic volumes on the recommended access roads will be within acceptable standards as applied by the local authority.

Comments made and queries and objections raised regarding traffic and access aspects of the development proposal, in response to information provided by ITS Engineers during prior phases of the application process.

No comment

Queries include: what are the municipal standards for roads infrastructure; why is the road past the Oakhurst Spar not being proposed as a development access road;

The municipal standard applied to the recommended Birch Street access road is for a Class 5b (Access Loop) road with a blacktop width of 5.5 metres. Based on the



the calculation of the width of Birch Street; pedestrian safety has not been adequately considered.

Department of Transport’s Geometric design of urban local residential streets, UTG7 an Access Loop can serve up to 120 residential units. With the proposed layout Birch Street will only serve 22 erven in the proposed development, which is acceptable. The proposal to take access via the street network to the west of the proposed development is not an option as the applicant has no right, title or interest in the neighbouring property known as Oakhurst Estate and has no authority to impose conditions or utilise this property as an access route. From a planning and practical perspective linking the development to the closest public infrastructure with sufficient capacity will be the optimum solution. The December 2010 comment referring to an 18-metre Birch Street road reserve width is indeed incorrect and was based on measurements from a plan that was not to scale. However, the recommendations and findings in the June 2008 Traffic Impact Statement were based on the correct information. Several site visits were conducted and the different alternatives were evaluated based on the observations during site visits. The relevant cadastral information was obtained from the Surveyor General’s office, which clearly indicates a Birch Street road reserve width of 9.45 metres. The roads will be designed to applicable municipal standards with emphasis on a low speed environment to improve safety and accommodate pedestrian activity along the streets.

“public transport arrangements which will impact Birch Street; the adequacy of the public participation process; and information errors provided by the traffic engineers.”

The Impact Assessment mentions that provision should be made for public transport facilities along Hout Bay Main Road. No comment on the PPP. The December 2010 comment referring to an 18-metre Birch Street road reserve width is indeed incorrect and was based on measurements from a plan that was not to scale. However, the recommendations and findings in the June 2008 Traffic Impact Statement were based on the correct information.

Correspondence received from Corne Dreyer raising concern regarding the change in information on Birch Street provided by the traffic engineers between October 2010 and January 2011.

The December 2010 comment referring to an 18-metre Birch Street road reserve width is indeed incorrect and was based on measurements from a plan that was not to scale. However, the recommendations and findings in the June 2008 Traffic Impact Statement were based on the correct information.

Email received from Ms. Dreyer stating that the road width (9.4m) will generate an unsafe area for pedestrians, road traffic and residents.

A black top of 5.5 metres is recommended with a mountable kerb along the southern side to allow parallel parking along Birch Street and a 2m sidewalk along the northern side of Birch Street. Birch Street is a low order road and the 9.45 metre road reserve is sufficient to accommodate the additional traffic from this section of the proposed development.

Birch Road is too small to accommodate the additional traffic.

Birch Street is a low order road and the 9.45 metre road reserve is sufficient to accommodate the additional traffic from this section of the proposed development.

The intersection between Birch and Blue Valley road will become dangerous due to the increased traffic, and an alternative access route from Main Road through the existing Clay Café Road should be considered.

This intersection has sufficient spare capacity to accommodate the expected increase in traffic volumes associated with the proposed development. Access to the proposed development is proposed via the existing street network adjacent and to the east of the proposed development. The proposal to take access via the street network to the west of the proposed development is not an option as the applicant has no ownership rights in this property and has no authority to impose any conditions or utilise it as an access route. From a planning and practical perspective linking the development to the closest public infrastructure with sufficient capacity will be the optimum solution. The capacity analyses indicate that



the existing street network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional traffic volumes associated with the proposed development.

Traffic safety issues relating to the steep gradient of Blue Valley Avenue must be addressed.

It is recommended that the Blue Valley Road/Birch Street intersection be upgraded with a raised platform to improve safety at the intersection.

Request received for exact location of firebreak to be indicated on SDP, as well as proposed road access to the firebreak.

No comment

The proposed access road is too steep and narrow, and has structural issues due to water runoff.

All internal and access roads and will be constructed to municipal standards. Damage to the existing road infrastructure is a maintenance issue that should be addressed by the City of Cape Town.

Email received raising concern regarding the impact the development may have on access to the

mountainside for emergency vehicles in the event of a fire; and also reiterating the concerns raised during March 2008 (summarised above).

The proposed development will probably improve emergency vehicles access to the mountainside via the internal street network.

Adequacy of road infrastructure to accommodate the development; pedestrian safety; fire risk as fire engines would no longer be able to access areas of the mountainside where alien vegetation occurs; increased traffic volumes threatening Western Leopard Toads.

The traffic impact outlined in the TIS illustrates that the road network will be able to accommodate the increase in traffic volumes. The proposed development will probably improve emergency vehicles access to the mountainside via the internal street network. No comment on the Leopard Toads.

Alternative access proposed from Dorman Way or from access to Clay Café.

Access to the proposed development is proposed via the existing street network adjacent and to the east of the proposed development. The proposal to take access via the street network to the west of the proposed development is not an option as the applicant has no right, title or interest in the neighbouring property west of Erf 2224 known as Oakhurst Estate and has no authority to impose any conditions or utilise this property as an access route. From a planning and practical perspective linking the development to the closest public infrastructure with sufficient capacity will be the optimum solution.

“and/or of the proposed development access via Birch Street).”


Objection received from Mr. van Staden to Birch Road being an access road to the proposed development as it is a cul-de-sac with no pavements or storm water drains and it is too narrow to accommodate additional traffic.

A black top of 5.5 metres is recommended with a mountable kerb along the southern side to allow parallel parking along Birch Street and a 2m sidewalk along the northern side of Birch Street. Birch Street is a low order road and the 9.45 metre road reserve is sufficient to accommodate the additional traffic from this section of the proposed development. The roads will be designed to applicable municipal standards with emphasis on a low speed environment to improve safety and accommodate pedestrian activity along the streets. It is recommended that the Blue Valley Road/Birch Street intersection be upgraded with a raised platform to improve safety at the intersection.

The width of the access road proposed is too narrow, property values will decrease, safety will be jeopardised, pedestrian traffic is not catered for, the proposed access road is too steep, there are no storm water drains, and the intersection between Birch Road and Blue Valley Road will become dangerous due to increased traffic.

Objection received to the use of any of the Blue Valley Avenue cul-de-sacs, or Blue Valley Avenue itself, as access roads to the development.


Support is expressed for the findings of the review

by Kantey and Templer of the traffic statement compiled by the project traffic engineers (please see a summary of the review under Mr. and Mrs.

Cartwright).




“raising concerns regarding the proposed development access, suggesting Main Road as an alternative

Access to the proposed development is proposed via the existing street network adjacent and to the east of the proposed development. The proposal to take access via the street network to the west of the proposed development is not an option as the applicant has no right, title or interest in the neighbouring property west of Erf 2224 known as Oakhurst Estate and has no authority to impose any conditions or utilise this property as an access route . From a planning and practical perspective linking the development to the closest public infrastructure with sufficient capacity will be the optimum solution.

Concerns with the proposed development access via any of the cul-de-sacs off Blue Valley Avenue, with associated negative pedestrian safety impacts.


Incorrect information contained in the traffic statement, which nullifies roads authority approval of the findings thereof.

The recommendations and findings in the June 2008 Traffic Impact Statement are based on the correct information.

The proposed access does not comply with the standards specified by the City comment on the Draft BAR.

Blue Valley Avenue to the south of Bay Road currently has a 9.5 meter wide road reserve and serves more than 20 properties, which is similar to what is proposed for Birch Street.

The assumption of the development of the High Level Road is problematic.

No comment.

Traffic and pedestrian safety raised as a concern due to steep gradient of Blue Valley Avenue, as well as groundwater seepage negatively affecting the quality of the road: the traffic statement by ITS does not account for these factors.

The roads will be designed to applicable municipal standards with emphasis on a low speed environment to improve safety and accommodate pedestrian activity along the streets. It is recommended that the Blue Valley Road/Birch Street intersection be upgraded with a raised platform to improve safety at the intersection. Damage to the existing road infrastructure is a maintenance issue that should be addressed by the City of Cape Town.

The intersection of Blue Valley Road and Main Road is already unsafe and the proposed development access off Blue Valley Road via the cul-de-sacs will exacerbate this.

The traffic impact outlined in the TIS illustrates that the Main Road/Blue Valley Avenue intersection will operate at acceptable levels-of service during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours of an average weekday.

The traffic statement does not include the requirement for public transport facilities which the City has stipulated.

The Impact Assessment mentions that provision should be made for public transport facilities along Hout Bay Main Road.

Dorman Way is recommended as an access point to the development.

Access to the proposed development is proposed via the existing street network adjacent and to the east of the proposed development. The proposal to take access via the street network to the west of the proposed development is not an option as the applicant has no right, title or interest in the neighbouring property west of Erf 2224 known as Oakhurst Estate and has no authority to impose any conditions or utilise this property as an access route. From a planning and practical perspective linking the development to the closest public infrastructure with sufficient capacity will be the optimum solution.

Access cul-de-sacs (Class 5c, currently usable by residents as an amenity) are under threat of transformation by the proposed development access to access collectors (Class 5a) of Local Distributors (Class 4); the existing “look-and-feel” will be lost.

No comment.

Incorrect information has been provided in the traffic statement by ITS regarding the road width of Birch Street (which width is similar to all other lanes off Blue Valley Avenue); the correct dimensions of the road make it unsuitable for an access road for

The findings and recommendations in the June 2008 Traffic Impact Statement were based on the correct information. The December 2010 comment referring to an 18-metre Birch Street road reserve width is indeed incorrect and was based on measurements from a plan that was not to scale. The municipal standard proposed



the development. for the recommended Birch Street access road is a Class 5b (Access Loop) road with a blacktop width of 5.5 metres. Based on the Department of Transport’s Geometric design of urban local residential streets, UTG7 an Access Loop can serve up to 120 residential units. With the proposed layout Birch Street will only serve 22 erven in the proposed development, which is acceptable.

These cul-de-sacs were never planned as distributor roads.

Birch Street is not planned as distributor road, but as Access Loops, the only link with the larger street network will be the Blue Valley Road intersection.

Dorman Way via Oakhurst Avenue is recommended as a development access road: this is deemed more suitable as it is currentlyan access road to residential and shopping centre developments; also, together with Greenacres Close, these two access points would ensure redistribution of traffic to the development as opposed to just one access point (via Blue Valley Avenue as proposed by ITS).

Access to the proposed development is proposed via the existing street network adjacent and to the east of the proposed development. The proposal to take access via the street network to the west of the proposed development is not an option as the applicant has no ownership rights in this property and has no authority to impose any conditions or utilise this property as an access route. From a planning and practical perspective linking the development to the closest public infrastructure with sufficient capacity will be the optimum solution.

The gradients of these two access roads are also flatter and so more suitable than steep Blue Valley Avenue.

Note is made of a City of Cape Town comment noting concern that the cul-de-sacs will be unable to carry the additional traffic generated by the proposed development.

In the City’s official comment on the Development Proposal no objection was offered to the proposal. The section of Blue Valley Avenue to the south of Bay Road also has a road reserve width of 9.5 metres and currently serves more than 20 properties.

The steep gradient of Blue Valley Avenue and the current groundwater drainage problems along that road make it unsuitable as an access road.

Damage to the existing road infrastructure is a maintenance issue that should be addressed by the City of Cape Town.

Traffic and access (pressure on existing roads, with existing provisions – public transport embayments; signage; off street parking – being inadequate); traffic study doesn’t adequately address future traffic scenario.

The TIA was conducted in the year 2008 and made provision for a three percent per year growth in traffic volumes over a three year period, which is adequate.

“exacerbation of traffic congestion” The traffic impact outlined in the TIS illustrates that the road network will be able to accommodate the increase in traffic volumes.

Birch Road and other Blue Valley side streets are narrow and weren’t designed to be access roads.

The municipal standard proposed for the Birch Street access road is a Class 5b (Access Loop) road with a blacktop width of 5.5 metres. Based on the Department of Transport’s Geometric design of urban local residential streets, UTG7 an Access Loop can serve up to 120 residential units. With the proposed layout Birch Street will only serve 22 erven in the proposed development, which is acceptable.

Traffic congestion at the T-junction (Blue Valley Avenue). The traffic impact outlined in the TIS describes this impact and illustrates that the Main Road/Blue Valley Avenue intersection will operate at acceptable levels-of service during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours of an average weekday. The average delay per vehicle waiting at the intersection for a gap will be relatively long, but still within acceptable international and national standards.

Alternative access road should go through developer’s property.

No comment.

Heavy duty vehicles during construction will be dangerous due to gradient.

Noted. During the construction phase the construction traffic should be managed and controlled to limit the nuisance impact.

The Department of Public Road Works already repairs the crumbling road due to mountain water and traffic.

Damage to the existing road infrastructure is a maintenance issue that should be addressed by the City of Cape Town.

The proposed access road links to the High Level Road The development proposal also illustrates an alternative



which has already been through an EIA process and was declined due to objections.

access proposal without the bypass road.

Objection received to the proposed development access via Blue Valley Road, noting that the existing road infrastructure is inadequate for the proposal;


“and/or of the proposed development access via Birch Street;”

No comment.

Email received objecting to the proposed development access via Birch Street; noting that an

independent traffic study has been commissioned by property owners, with conclusions in contrast to those of the project traffic engineers;


Objection received on the grounds of the proposed development access via Blue Valley Avenue and the associated negative impact on living conditions; noise; crime rate and property values; and the inadequate size of Birch Street as an access road to the development.

Blue Valley Avenue is a Local Distributor (Class 4) road with a capacity of between 600 to 1200 passenger car units (pcu) per hour. The expected future traffic volumes along Blue Vallye Avenue at the Main Road intersection with the development completed will be approximately 275 vehicles during the a.m. peak hour. This is well below the lower threshold for Local Distributors, which is acceptable. Birch Street is a low order road and the 9.45 metre road reserve is sufficient to accommodate the additional traffic from this section of the proposed development.

Objection received to the use of Birch Street as an access road to the proposed development, on the grounds of negative impact on lifestyle, property values, and pedestrian safety, as well as due to crime associated with increased traffic and with construction activities.

The roads will be designed to applicable municipal standards with emphasis on a low speed environment to improve safety and accommodate pedestrian activity along the streets. No comment on crime.

Dorman Way is suggested as an alternative access road. Access to the proposed development is proposed via the existing street network adjacent and to the east of the proposed development. The proposal to take access via the street network to the west of the proposed development is not an option as the applicant has no ownership rights in the neighbouring property west of Erf 2224 known as Oakhurst Estate and has no authority to impose any conditions or utilise this propert as an access route. From a planning and practical perspective linking the development to the closest public infrastructure with sufficient capacity will be the optimum solution.

Objection to Birch Road as an access road reiterated. Birch Street is a low order road and the 9.45 metre road reserve is sufficient to accommodate the additional traffic from this section of the proposed development.

Objection received against the use of Birch Road as an access road to the development, on the grounds of detrimental impact on current lifestyle of residents decrease in property values; and original selection of Birch Street based on incorrect information on the road width.

The findings and recommendations in the June 2008 Traffic Impact Statement were based on the correct information. The December 2010 comment referring to an 18-metre Birch Street road reserve width is indeed incorrect and was based on measurements from a plan that was not to scale. The municipal standard proposed for the recommended Birch Street access road is a Class 5b (Access Loop) road with a blacktop width of 5.5 metres. Based on the Department of Transport’s Geometric design of urban local residential streets, UTG7 an Access Loop can serve up to 120 residential units. With the proposed layout Birch Street will only serve 22 erven in the proposed development, which is acceptable.

Support expressed for the findings and

recommendations contained in a review by

Kantey and Templer of the traffic statement

compiled by the project traffic engineers




(please see summary of the review under Mr.

and Mrs. Cartwright).

The average delay per vehicle waiting at the

intersection is measured on international

standards. Clarity is required on whether it’s

acceptable according to national standards.

All level-of-service (LOS) analyses described in the Traffic Impact Statement were performed in accordance with the procedures stated in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM, 2000), published by the Transportation Research Board. These are the standards applied by International, National and Local Governments. A description of levels-of-service and the criteria by which they are determined are available on request.

The Department of Transport and Public

Works acknowledged the unacceptable level

of service at this intersection and insisted on

an upgrade accordingly. The access road to

the proposal is therefore not desired and an

alternative is required.

The conditions and requirements mentioned by the Road Authorities in their respective comments will be incorporated in the ROD and these conditions will have to be adhered to in the design phase of the project.

A suggestion was made to have the access point via Dorman Way and reasons thereof were provided.

Access to the proposed development is proposed via the existing street network adjacent and to the east of the proposed development. The proposal to take access via the street network to the west of the proposed development is not an option as the applicant has no right, title or interest in the neighbouring property west of Erf 2224 known as Oakhurst Estate and has no authority to impose any conditions or utilise this property as an access route. From a planning and practical perspective linking the development to the closest public infrastructure with sufficient capacity will be the optimum solution. To our knowledge Mr. Dorman is not the developer, hence the unfeasibility response.

Access via Dorman Way was stated as unfeasible in the Traffic Report because it would run through private property. The owner of this private property is Mr Alan Dorman who is seen as the developer. Upgrading would also be less problematic if done near/on developer’s property.

The steep gradient and absence of sidewalks

on the proposed access road (Blue Valley Avenue) is dangerous to pedestrians.

It is recommended that the Blue Valley Road/Birch Street intersection be upgraded with a raised platform to improve safety at the intersection.

Blue Valley Avenue also has short lanes which are inadequate to accommodate additional traffic.


The Department requires that satisfactory transport facilities be provided at the intersection. Some provision must be made for this and the design drawings made available for public comment.

Noted

The ROD regarding the High Level Road has expired; traffic and safety is compromised due to the gradient and water runoff at the proposed access road; there is excessive water runoff on the proposed access road after rain

Noted

States that Birch Road is already poorly maintained; there are no pavements or storm water drains; it’s too narrow to serve as an access road;

The municipal standard proposed for the Birch Street access road is a Class 5b (Access Loop) road with a blacktop width of 5.5 metres. Based on the Department of Transport’s Geometric design of urban local residential streets, UTG7 an Access Loop can serve up to 120 residential units. With the proposed layout Birch Street will only serve 22 erven in the proposed development, which is acceptable.

Unacceptable traffic imposed on Blue Valley Road and the intersection at Main Road: Advantages of an exit via Dorman Road is given, Blue Valley Road is too steep to accommodate the traffic, the high likelihood of fires should allow for two-way access for fire engines, Birch Road is not wide enough, and Ruschia Road cannot be

The traffic impact outlined in the TIS illustrates that the road network will be able to accommodate the increase in traffic volumes. The proposal to take access via the street network to the west of the proposed development is not an option as the applicant has no right, title or interest in the neighbouring propert west of Erf 2224



labelled as temporary access because it relies on the initiation of high level road which requires an EIA

known as Oakhurst Estate and has no authority to impose any conditions or utilise this property as an access route. From a planning and practical perspective linking the development to the closest public infrastructure with sufficient capacity will be the optimum solution. The municipal standard proposed for the Birch Street access road is a Class 5b (Access Loop) road with a blacktop width of 5.5 metres. Based on the Department of Transport’s Geometric design of urban local residential streets, UTG7 an Access Loop can serve up to 120 residential units. With the proposed layout Birch Street will only serve 22 erven in the proposed development, which is acceptable. The City’s future planning indicates Ruschia Lane as the access road for the properties to the south of the proposed future bypass road. Blue Valey Avenue will not have an at-grade intersection with the future bypass road. The TIS recommends interim “temporary” access via a new road along the future bypass road alignment, to intersect with Blue Valley Avenue just to the north of Bay Road.

Residents were not notified of Birch Street being proposed as an access road to the proposed development, objects as it is a cul-de-sac and will be made unsafe

The roads will be designed to applicable municipal standards with emphasis on a low speed environment to improve safety and accommodate pedestrian activity along the streets.

Appendix G Specialist Report(s) · Bank Terraces Carl Cronje Drive Tyger Waterfront Bellville, 7550...

Documents

Transcript of Appendix G Specialist Report(s) · Bank Terraces Carl Cronje Drive Tyger Waterfront Bellville, 7550...