SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK - Knysna · Knysna Municipalitys Spatial Development Framework (SDF),...

ADDENDUM TO

KNYSNA MUNICIPALITY’s

SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK

PREPARED UNDER THE AUSPICES OF

THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT SUPPORT PROGRAMME

August 2010

_______________________________________________________________________________ i Built Environment Support Programme (Round 1): Component 1 – Support to Knysna Municipality Addendum to Knysna’s SDF: Draft 2 August 2010

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Knysna Municipality’s Spatial Development Framework (SDF), prepared by MCA Planners, was approved by Knysna Council in 2007 in terms of the Municipal Systems Act (MSA). In 2009 Knysna Municipality engaged in the Built Environment Support Programme (BESP). The BESP is an initiative of the Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEA&DP), in partnership with the Department of Human Settlements (DHS), in terms of which support is provided to municipalities to improve the credibility of their SDFs and Human Settlement Plans (HSPs). The BESP assists municipalities incorporate the policies of the Provincial Spatial Development Framework (PSDF) into their SDFs and HSPs, and apply these policies. The central themes the BESP promotes are urban integration (i.e. redressing the spatial legacy of Apartheid on the Western Cape’s towns), and sustainable human settlements (i.e. environmentally, socially and economically). The BESP process started with an initial desk-top review of Knysna’s SDF, followed by on-site, in-depth discussions with the municipality on the issues identified in the review, and new planning studies initiated by the municipality since their SDF was approved in 2007. In the absence of a completed and agreed Provincial Spatial Development Framework (PSDF) manual for municipal SDFs – outlining, inter alia, a common “table of contents” – the desk-top and on-site review processes were undertaken in terms of a Credibility Framework, developed early on during the BESP process. The Credibility Framework assisted to ensure that all elements of SDF contents and processes were considered during the review. The BESP’s review of Knysna’s current SDF established that it is underpinned by the principles of growth and equity, integration and sustainability – all of which are consistent with the BESP’s objectives. Its vision for the Knysna municipal area is “creating a community which co-exists within a unique natural, socio-economic and cultural environment that is a model of sustainability”. The SDF is informed by a sound understanding of the development challenges facing Knysna in 2007/8, explores the implications of the municipality following a ‘business as usual’ development scenario, and builds an argument for the municipality to embrace a new approach to spatial development – which it refers to as a ‘smart growth’ approach. The SDF recognises that following this new approach will take time to deliver results, and recommends a strategy of focusing on certain key sectors as opposed to trying to address all the challenges at once. To this end the SDF presents a conceptual framework for managing growth that is made-up of the following spatial structuring elements: a municipal open space system that needs to be protected from urban development pressures; reinforcing the importance of the municipality’s existing principal towns; promoting the development of activity nodes and corridors to integrate human settlements; and delineating urban edges as growth management boundaries. The BESP review came to the conclusion that the version of the SDF approved by Council in 2007 was a credible document at the time. The BESP review also established that subsequent to the SDF’s approval by Council, the municipality has taken forward its urban restructuring and urban conservation initiatives by undertaking detailed studies in this regard. These studies are currently being reviewed by interested and affected parties, and once approved by Council they provide a sound base for enhancing the credibility of Knysna’s 3rd generation SDF.

_______________________________________________________________________________ ii Built Environment Support Programme (Round 1): Component 1 – Support to Knysna Municipality Addendum to Knysna’s SDF: Draft 2 August 2010

Whilst the BESP review established that the current SDF presents a logical argument for the municipality to embrace a new ‘smart growth’ approach, it identified various considerations that should be factored-in to improve its credibility (see Appendix A: Consolidated SDF Gap Analysis and Work Plan). This Addendum to the SDF identifies what additional aspects need to considered in the municipality’s SDF, and it provides details of the additional content needed to close the gaps identified in the review. The municipality intend submitting this Addendum to the SDF to Council for adoption so that it can inform preparation of Knysna’s 3rd generation (2011 -2015) Integrated Development Plan (IDP), SDF and Human Settlement Plan (HSP). The BESP review came to the conclusion that in the quest for credibility it is appropriate to build on and take forward the considerable work that was undertaken in the past in preparation of the Knysna municipal SDF. Accordingly this SDF Addendum report serves as a tool for the conversion of the current SDF into a credible 3rd generation product that warrants statutory approval and allows for the delegation of authority to the municipality. Accordingly the SDF Addendum sets out the steps to be followed in converting the current SDF into a credible new product that can replace the plethora of historic spatial plans that remain in place. The approval process proposed is aligned with the provincial law reform process in that approval in terms of LUPO can be automatically converted into LUPA approval once the new legislation is promulgated. Towards the conclusion of the Knysna SDF BESP process it is recommended that municipal and provincial officials review and comment on the findings and proposals of this report, and reach agreement on the process that will be followed for the preparation and approval of Knysna’s 3rd generation SDF. On this basis the SDF Addendum can then be finalised for sign-off between the parties.

_______________________________________________________________________________ iii Built Environment Support Programme (Round 1): Component 1 – Support to Knysna Municipality Addendum to Knysna’s SDF: Draft 2 August 2010

Contents: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. i

FOREWORD ............................................................................................................................................. 1

Section A – Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1

1.0 Introduction and Background ....................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Knysna Municipality in Context................................................................................................. 1

2.0 Key Developmental Challenges for the Knysna Municipality ....................................................... 4

2.1 Demographic and Socio-economic Profile ................................................................................ 4

2.2 Natural Systems ........................................................................................................................ 4

2.3 Settlement Hierarchy ................................................................................................................ 4

Section B – Concepts ............................................................................................................................... 5

3.0 Possible Development Scenarios .................................................................................................. 5

4.0 Key Municipal Spatial Informants ................................................................................................. 5

5.0 Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................................. 8

Section C – Spatial Development Framework ......................................................................................... 8

6.0 Knysna Municipality Spatial Development Framework ................................................................ 8

6.1 Knysna Municipality .................................................................................................................. 8

6.2 Application of the SDF Concept to Towns ................................................................................ 9

Section D – Policies ............................................................................................................................... 11

7.0 Policies for Development ............................................................................................................ 11

Section E – Implementation .................................................................................................................. 11

8.0 Implementation Framework ....................................................................................................... 11

Section F – Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 12

9.0 Conclusion and Recommendations............................................................................................. 12

APPENDIX A: CONSOLIDATED SDF GAP ANALYSIS & WORK PLAN ........................................................ 13

APPENDIX B: RECORD OF EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ................................................. 20

APPENDIX C: CONTENTS OF MUNICIPAL SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK ................................ 39

APPENDIX D: ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMANTS to KNYSNA’S SDF ........................................................ 40

APPENDIX E: SPATIAL PLANNING CATEGORIES & LAND USE GUIDELINES ........................................... 58

APPENDIX F: BULK INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT ............................................................................ 69

APPENDIX G: GUIDELINES FOR MANAGING CLIMATE CHANGE ........................................................... 88

_______________________________________________________________________________ 1 Built Environment Support Programme (Round 1): Component 1 – Support to Knysna Municipality Addendum to Knysna’s SDF: Draft 2 August 2010

FOREWORD

This Addendum to Knysna’s SDF is structured in the same sequence of Sections and Chapters

presented in the original SDF. The Addendum highlights key findings of the BESP review of the

current SDF, as well as contributions made through the BESP process to improve its credibility by

officials from the municipality and DEA&DP, as well as and the BESP service providers.

Section A – Introduction

1.0 Introduction and Background

1.1 Knysna Municipality in Context

The BESP’s SDF review identified the following procedural and process considerations:

i. Conformity to Prescribed Legal Procedures:

Knysna’s current SDF was adopted by Council in November 2007 as a component of the

municipality’s Integrated Development Plan (i.e. it was approved in terms of the Municipal

Systems Act (MSA)). Whilst the SDF has been approved in terms of the MSA and conforms to

its procedures, the BESP review highlighted the following inconsistencies between the

approved SDF and other historic statutory spatial plans impacting on the Knysna municipal

area that are still in force:

The Knysna-Wilderness-Plettenberg Bay Regional Structure Plan (i.e. the former

Guide Plan prepared and approved in the apartheid era in terms of the Physical

Planning Act), deviates significantly from Knysna’s SDF.

The South Cape Sub-regional Structure Plan for rural areas is inconsistent with the

Western Cape’s Provincial Spatial Development Framework (PSDF), the PSDF’s Rural

Land Use Planning and Management Guidelines, as well as the Knysna SDF.

The Sub-regional Structure Plan for the Humansdorp Coastline, prepared by the

former Cape Provincial Administration, is also still legally in force. This document

also contains proposals that are inconsistent with the Knysna SDF.

The overlap and contradictions between Knysna’s SDF and these historic plans causes uncertainty, complicates the work of the municipality and province, delays the implementation of development projects, and perpetuates apartheid spatial patterns. Component 2 of the BESP is addressing these anomalies through the provincial law reform process. As part of this initiative to introduce a new enabling regulatory environment in the W Cape, provincial legislation (the Land Use Planning Act (LUPA)) is being drafted with a target promulgation date of 1 April 2012.

Pending the introduction of this legislation there is an urgent need to replace the historic spatial plans that are still in place with an integrated and credible spatial plan for the Knysna municipal area. To this end, as part of the BESP process, province and the municipality are collaborating to facilitate the SDF’s statutory approval. Legal opinion has been sought on the possibility of either withdrawing these historic plans in their entirety, or only those parts


that impact on the Knysna municipal area. In this scenario the historic statutory plans will be replaced by a municipal SDF that has been approved as a Section 4(6) plan in terms of the Land Use Planning Ordinance (LUPO). As both Bitou and George municipalities also support the withdrawal of these historic plans, it is preferable that they are withdrawn in their entirety.

DEA&DP and the municipality are due to discuss the implications of the legal review that has been undertaken, and will then decide on the appropriate legislative procedures to follow in replacing the historic spatial plans that are still in place with a new credible municipal SDF. The municipality’s preferred ‘road map’ to a credible SDF is as follows:

a. To submit this Addendum to Knysna Municipality’s Spatial Development Framework to Council for adoption.

b. To use the inputs made by the BESP on improving the credibility of Knysna’s current SDF (as documented in this report) and HSP (as documented in the HSP Addendum report), as points of departure for the preparation of Knysna’s 3rd generation IDP in 2011.

c. To incorporate the BESP inputs into Knysna’s 3rd generation SDF, and align it with the IDP and HSP.

d. To submit this SDF for approval in terms of both the MSA and LUPO (or LUPA once promulgated), thereby allowing for the replacement of the various outdated spatial plans and delegated authority to the municipality.

ii. Involvement of External Statutory Authorities in the SDF Process:

The BESP review noted that Volume 1 of Knysna’s current SDF cross-references to Volume 4

(SDF Process - Record of Consultation and Meetings), but there is no evidence of the

involvement of external statutory authorities in the preparation process. As a result the

municipality’s SDF is not being properly used by national and provincial departments, as well

as other state owned enterprises. This reduces its value as means of facilitating cooperative

governance by spatially aligning the initiatives of different spheres of government within the

municipal area.

To address this shortcoming under the auspices of the BESP in May 2010 DEA&DP convened

a SDF indaba with George and Knysna municipal officials and external statutory

stakeholders. At the indaba the role of municipal SDFs in facilitating cooperative governance

was explained, an overview of George and Knysna’s SDF was presented, and delegates

presented their current programmes and projects in the municipal areas.

Appendix B records the proceedings of the SDF indaba as well as the inputs subsequently

submitted by external statutory authorities on their current initiatives in the Knysna

municipal area. As part of the BESP process the input submitted by MTO Forestry on the

long term urban growth direction reflected in Knysna’s current SDF is being addressed by the

municipality and DEA&DP.

The indaba successfully opened-up channels of communication between the municipality

and statutory authorities, transferred information between parties, and established a

platform for further engagement in the finalisation of the SDF and preparation of the 3rd

generation IDP.


Moving forward the outcomes of the indaba establish a basis for the municipality to engage

with external statutory authorities in the preparation of its 3rd generation IDP and SDF. In

accordance with the Inter Government Relations Framework Act, it is proposed that the

municipality establish a multi-party steering committee as basis for managing collaboration

on the IDP, SDF and HSP processes.

iii. Alignment with the Municipal IDP and other Sector Plans:

The BESP review noted that the 2008 SDF was informed by Knysna’s 2020 visioning initiative

and IDP, but these links are not explicit and need to be clearly stated upfront in the

document. In addition, in its current format the SDF’s linkages to other IDP sector plans (i.e.

Local Economic Development, Human Settlement, Transport, Infrastructure, and Disaster

Management) are also not apparent. With the start of Knysna’s 3rd generation IDP cycle in

2011 the opportunity exists to specify upfront the nature of alignment sought between the

IDP and its sector plans to give effect to the strategic direction taken in the municipality’s 3rd

generation IDP. Whilst the relationship between the IDP and its sector plans should be

clarified in the introductory sections of the SDF, the spatial implications of the alignment

sought should be dealt with in Section B (as part of 4.0 Key Municipal Spatial Informants).

iv. Structuring of the SDF Document:

The BESP review noted that Knysna’s 2008 SDF document is structured differently to the

format proposed in the draft Provincial SDF Manual (2009). Prior to the statutory approval of

the PSDF, there were no clear guidelines on the content and organisation of municipal SDFs

in the province. As a result, most municipal SDFs have been “overburdened” with

information (based on an assumption that it is better to include everything available); have

become voluminous and not easy to follow for many of its intended users. Each municipality

largely followed its own “contents sheet”.

Critically, the difference in focus, scope and contents of SDFs from municipality to

municipality inhibits easy comparison, and most importantly, consistent development and

application of policy across areas of geographic focus in the province (from higher scale

regional planning to local planning).

To overcome the issues of user friendliness and consistency, the Provincial SDF Manual was

commissioned in parallel to the BESP process. The manual is intended to provide a

consistent, province-wide approach and focus to the preparation of SDFs, including

contents, within the overarching policy context provided by the statutory PSDF. The SDF

manual was only substantially completed late during the BESP Round 1 process. The manual

includes a proposed contents sheet for SDFs, attached as Appendix C.


When preparing their 3rd generation SDF for approval in terms of LUPO, the municipality

should structure the document in line with the Provincial SDF Manual.

2.0 Key Developmental Challenges for the Knysna Municipality

2.1 Demographic and Socio-economic Profile

The BESP review noted that although there is no new data available to update the demographic and

socio-economic profile presented in the 2008 SDF, the recent global economic recession has resulted

in a decline in the rate of in-migration to the Knysna municipal area1. Accordingly the SDF’s

projected average population growth rate of 3.7% per annum in the municipal area should be

revised downwards when the new SDF is prepared.

2.2 Natural Systems

Whilst the 2008 SDF recognises Knysna’s natural assets as its greatest strength, since it was prepared

the Garden Route Initiative (GRI) has provided new insights into the significance, importance and

threats to biodiversity in the municipal area. Towards incorporating these insights into the

municipality’s new SDF, Appendix D sets-out key biodiversity informants extracted from the GRI’s

Biodiversity Sector Plan, including the implications of climate change and the S Cape’s current water

crisis.

In addition, the first draft of the Garden Route Environmental Management Framework (EMF) report

was made available by the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism in January 2010. This

project builds on the biodiversity aspects contained in the GRI and incorporates additional

environmental considerations regarding management of topographically and visually sensitive

landscapes. These guidelines, which are relevant to the Knysna municipal area, are also included in

Appendix D.

2.3 Settlement Hierarchy

Whilst the current SDF identifies the Knysna municipal area as having a well functioning hierarchy of

settlements, the BESP review noted that it is not explicit on how the settlements within the

municipal area relate to one another, which settlements will provide the best return on public

investment, nor how specific towns (like Knysna) could be restructured to give poorer communities

greater access to work opportunities and urban amenities.

An overriding feature of the municipality’s settlement system is the primacy of Knysna as the

economic engine of the local economy and the largest population concentration. The SDF’s spatial

strategy is to focus human settlement investments here to reinforce its role as regional service

centre. Human settlement challenges include securing land suitable for development, managing

urban growth to protect its natural assets, urban restructuring, and bulk services augmentation.

The human settlement challenges in Sedgefield, the municipality’s secondary node, include growing

the local economy to reduce its dormitory function, urban restructuring towards the functional

integration of the settlement’s poor and marginalised communities, securing suitable land without

comprising the natural environment, and bulk services augmentation.

1 Information presented by Knysna municipal officials at the BESP Rapid Planning Initiative in January 2010


Rheenendal and Karatara, in contrast, are lower order tourism and retirement settlements that

have a narrow economic base and function as dormitory towns. The SDF identifies Rhenendal and

Karatara as not being sustainable (e.g. they are pockets of low income housing that offer few

economic, social and recreational opportunities to their residents). Human settlement challenges

here relate to local economic development, and addressing the basic housing, facility and services

needs of impoverished households. The SDF’s spatial strategy is to contain their outward growth in

order to safeguard their attraction as tourism destinations, and promote integration within the

towns. Furthermore the strategy here is also to invest public resources in addressing the basic needs

of the poor, those inadequately housed, and those living in vulnerable conditions.

The BESP review of Knysna’s SDF and SHSS endorsed their strategic direction, but called for the

refinement of their strategies to reflect current economic realities. Knysna’s SDF and SHSS were

prepared when the local property development industry was exhibiting strong growth. The global

economic recession has impacted negatively on Knysna’s middle to upper income property market,

necessitating a review of the drivers of local economic growth. To address this shortcoming the

DEA&DP has commissioned a review of the 2004 provincial study into the growth potential of towns

in the W Cape. The outputs of this review will provide valuable insights to Knysna’s 3rd generation

SDF.

In addition the BESP’s review of both the Knysna and George SDFs highlighted the need for a study

into the economic growth prospects of the S Cape that clarified the respective roles and economic

development prospects of George, Knysna and Mossel Bay. The outputs of such a study will provide

valuable insights to their 3rd generation IDPs, SDFs and LED plans.

Section B – Concepts

3.0 Possible Development Scenarios

The BESP review noted that the 2008 SDF explores plausible development scenarios and correctly

concludes on the necessity of the municipality adopting a new approach to managing spatial growth.

As the economic climate has changed significantly since the SDF was compiled, current realities need

to be factored into Knysna’s 3rd generation SDF.

4.0 Key Municipal Spatial Informants

The BESP review identified that the 3rd generation SDF should cover the following additional spatial

informants:

(i) Consistency and conformity to the core objectives of the Western Cape Provincial Spatial

Development Framework (PSDF), which was approved as a statutory provincial plan in 2009.

(ii) Alignment with the IDP and its sector plans.

(iii) Updated data on the status and prospects of the local and regional economy.

(iv) Updated data on critical biodiversity areas


(v) Data on scenic landscapes and visual considerations

(vi) Data on the spatial implications of the availability of bulk infrastructure

(vii) Data on productive agricultural landscapes in the municipal area

(viii) Climate change informants.

(ix) Impact of the proposed N2 bypass.

Details of these spatial informants are explained below.

(i) PSDF Consistency and Conformity: Whilst Knysna’s 2008 SDF is not inconsistent with the

PSDF, it needs to explicitly reflect how it aligns with the PSDF’s core objectives. To this

end the PSDF’s core objectives are tabulated below, and for each objective

recommendations are made on how the SDF should demonstrate alignment.

PSDF Objective Consistency and Conformity of SDF

Settlement pattern aligned with economic potential and the location of environmental resources

Whilst the role and function of the different towns is adequately addressed in the SDF, as identified in Section 2 updated information on the underlying drivers of economic growth and their spatial implications is needed. The findings of the proposed economic studies will provide the basis for addressing this shortcoming. In addition the current S Cape water crisis is also not addressed in the 2008 SDF. As input to Knysna’s 3rd generation SDF, Appendix D provides insights into the conservation of scarce water resources.

Basic human needs programs delivered where required

Adequately addressed in the current SDF and in Knysna’s Sustainable Human Settlement Strategy (SHSS). The BESP’s Addendum to the SHSS provides further detail on where basic needs programs should be delivered.

Channels public investment where highest socio-economic returns can be achieved

Whilst the SDF (Section 8) provides a spatial framework for public investment, greater specificity on community facility requirements (especially for space extensive land uses) is required.

Addresses land reform Whilst this objective is not adequately addressed in the 2008 SDF, it is recognised that the Department of Land Affairs & Rural Development, who have statutory responsibility, have not been proactive in facilitating land reform and engaging with knysna municipality. To address this shortcoming DEA&DP have facilitated their involvement in the SDF process (see Appendix B).

Addresses conservation & strengthening of Knysna’s sense of place, and importance of its natural, cultural and productive landscapes and buildings

This topic is addressed in the 2008 SDF, including reference to the significance of the Western Heads. Since 2008 the municipality has prepared urban conservation guidelines, which provide a basis for strengthening their conservation efforts. In addition data on productive agricultural land is being sought from the Department of Agriculture (see (vi) below.

Addresses urban restructuring in order to undo apartheid’s legacy on human settlements

The need for urban restructuring is stated in the 2008 SDF. Subsequently the municipality undertook a Densification Study (not yet formally adopted) which provides area specific details on implementation of urban restructuring.

Locates urban activities for convenience & promotes public & non-motorised

Adequately addressed in the 2008 SDF and in the SHSS. Further details are provided in the BESP’s SHSS Addendum.


transport

Protects biodiversity and agricultural resources

Whilst the 2008 SDF does confirm to this objective, further details is provided in Section 2.2 of this Addendum and in Appendix D, which includes the GI’s latest Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) Map for Knysna’s municipal area. The CBA map portrays landscape level biodiversity information, which needs to be verified in the field when assessing applications for land use change on specific sites.

Minimises the consumption of scarce resources (i.e. water, land, energy, etc)

Whilst the 2008 SDF meets this objective, Appendix D provides further insight into this objective.

Indicates bioregional Spatial Planning Categories (SPCs)

Whilst the 2008 SDF does incorporate SPCs, these are not consistent with the PSDF and SANBI/DEA&DP programme to mainstream biodiversity into the municipal planning system. Appendix E presents a map that delineates SPCs for the municipal area that are consistent with the PSDF. Appendix E also sets out land use guidelines for the different SPCs, which convey to the municipality and land owners the range of activities that are suitable in different SPCs. The guidelines do not take away the necessity of the municipality applying a performance based approach in adjudicating applications for land use change. It is recommended that the proposed SPCs and their associated land use guidelines replace the Special Planning Areas (SPAs) proposed in the 2008 SDF.

(ii) Alignment with IDP and its Sector Plans: The start of the municipality’s 3rd IDP cycle in

2011 provides the opportunity to specify upfront the nature of alignment sought

between the IDP and its sector plans to give effect to the strategic direction taken in the

municipality’s next IDP. Whilst the relationship between the IDP and its sector plans

should be clarified in the introductory sections of the SDF, the spatial implications of the

alignment sought should be dealt with as part of Key Municipal Spatial Informants.

(iii) Updated data on the status and prospects of the local and regional economy: The

findings of the economic investigations proposed in Section 2.3 above will provide

informants to Knysna’s 3rd generation IDP and SDF.

(iv) Updated data on critical biodiversity areas: See Appendix D for additional informants to

Knysna’s 3rd generation SDF.

(v) Data on scenic landscapes and visual considerations: The Garden Route Environmental

Management Framework has been sourced to extract informants on scenic landscapes

and viewshed considerations (see Appendix D).

(vi) Data on the spatial implications of the availability of bulk infrastructure: The BESP

service provider’s engineers assessment of bulk infrastructure capacity is presented in

Appendix F.


(vii) Data on productive agricultural landscapes in the municipal area: As part of soliciting the

inputs from external statutory authorities (see Appendix B) data on productive

landscapes in the Knysna municipal area has been sought for incorporation into the SDF.

(viii) Climate Change Informants: To inform Knysna’s 3rd generation SDF Appendix G sets out

land use guidelines for managing climate change.

(ix) Impact of the Proposed N2 Bypass: Since the 2008 SDF was approved SANRAL have

undertaken further environmental studies related to the proposed N2 bypass. As the

bypass, if implemented, will significantly impact on the municipal area, it is important

that the municipality engage with SANRAL. Two alternative N2 alignments for the by-

pass are being assessed, none of which currently provides for an interchange to serve

Knysna’s northern areas.

5.0 Conceptual Framework Knysna’s current SDF is underpinned by a sound conceptual framework that needs to be refined in

light of the additional spatial informants identified in Section 4.0. The conceptual framework needs

to be more explicit about how urban restructuring can be achieved through the utilisation of the

SDF’s structuring elements of: a municipal open space system; reinforcing the importance of the

municipality’s existing principal towns; promoting the development of activity nodes and corridors

to integrate human settlements; and delineating urban edges as growth management boundaries.

Section C – Spatial Development Framework

6.0 Knysna Municipality Spatial Development Framework

6.1 Knysna Municipality

6.1.1 Knysna Municipality Open Space System

Whilst the SDF’s proposals for a municipal-wide open space system are sound, they need to be

refined in light of the new information emanating from the Garden Route Initiative (see Appendix D)

and the proposed Spatial Planning Categories and their associated land use guidelines (see Appendix

E).

6.1.2 Knysna Municipal Settlement and Services Framework

The SDF’s presents a logical framework of proposed nodes, routes and urban edges. The spatial

development strategy emerging from the BESP’s review of the SDF encompasses:

Reinforcing the town of Knysna’s as the municipality’s economic hub, concentrating the bulk of public investment in human settlement investment here.

Developing Knysna as a town that retains its unique sense of place and that offers all its residents access to the benefits of urban living:


o Containing the outward sprawl of the urban footprint into natural and productive surrounding landscapes, compacting urban growth and densifying within the urban edge.

o Spatially integrating the Northern Areas into the urban structure by channeling human settlement investment to vacant and under-utilized land, particularly publically owned land, and developing the northern circular route as a local activity spine.

o Continuing with the roll-out of the incremental upgrading of informal settlements program to address the needs of those inadequately housed.

o Developing strategic portions of vacant public land that present new opportunities for the gap and state assisted housing markets.

o Revitalising the CBD as an urban renewal area that accommodates high density residential units targeted at different income groups.

o Synchronising housing, infrastructure and community facility provision in human settlement in an integrated human settlement investment program.

Addressing the basic human settlement needs in all towns and villages, with specific

attention to the development of sustainable livelihoods.

6.1.3 Knysna Economic Development Framework

As recorded in Section 4 above, the economic informants to Knysna’s 2008 SDF are outdated, and

thus this section of the SDF needs to be redrafted. To address this shortcoming DEA&DP have

commissioned an update of the study into the growth potential of Western Cape towns. In addition,

the need for a more in-depth assessment of the S Cape economy and the roles of George, Mossel

Bay and Knysna in this regional economy has emerged from the BESP reviews of George and Knysna.

To inform the revision of its LED plans as well as the 3rd generation SDF, the municipality intend

updating their poverty strategy, industrial land study and rural economic study. DEA&DP’s initiative

to facilitate input into the SDF from external statutory stakeholders will assist in incorporating a rural

development strategy into Knysna’s SDF, with specific attention to the future of the ‘bosdorpies’.

6.2 Application of the SDF Concept to Towns

Section 6.2 of the SDF applies the spatial structuring elements developed in the conceptual

framework to the towns of Knysna, Sedgefield, Rheenendal and Karatara. Whilst these town specific

proposals are sound, they need to be updated in light of the additional informants identified (see

Section 4 above) as well as the following recent initiatives of the municipality:

Compilation of a draft Densification Study

Compilation of Urban Conservation Guidelines

Compilation of a draft Lower Central Enhancement Study

Progress with the implementation of Knysna’s non-motorised transport system

Refinements to the SHSS emanating from the BESP review.

Since the 2008 SDF the municipality has made significant progress in taking forward their strategic

focus on urban restructuring through the following initiatives:

(i) Densification Study


The draft Knysna Municipality Densification Study of May 2008 contains detailed proposals for

densification of the Knysna municipal area. These areas are also adequately mapped in the

document, which could be retained as an independent sector plan. The Knysna Municipality should

ensure that the study’s proposals are incorporated into the following round of the SDF, and

considered when development applications in these areas are adjudicated. In the interim it is

proposed that the public participation and final approval of the study by the Knysna Town Council is

completed. The only aspect that should be considered in addition to the existing document is the

impact of the densification proposals on the provision of services and social infrastructure in the

various neighbourhoods.

Planning for the provision of the required social infrastructure (see Appendix B) is being considered

in both new housing projects as well as the municipality’s densification proposals. Both the

densification proposals as well as the new subsidised housing projects are basically centered around

and in close proximity to the so-called central loop road. This means that residents are generally

close to schools and other social infrastructure land uses such as the municipal offices, libraries, halls

and sports fields. There are new projects where the basic social infrastructure is not available such

as Kruisfontein North and Concordia but in both instances school sites as well as sports fields have

been made available.

The social infrastructure requirements of the densification strategy are addressed and mapped in

the new municipal study, and its findings need to be incorporated into the 3rd generation SDF.

(ii) Urban Conservation Guidelines

Whilst Knysna’s current SDF gives recognition to the town’s historical character and the importance

of conserving heritage assets, the recommendations set-out in the KNYSNA URBAN CONSERVATION

AREA GUIDELINES – FINAL REPORT – SEPTEMBER 2009 should be incorporated into the following

round of the SDF. This document was produced after the current draft of the SDF was formulated,

but its proposed implementation actions should be incorporated into the new SDF to ensure that

this important aspect is elevated to the level and significance of the SDF itself.

(iii) Topographical constraints

Although Knysna has made progress with urban restructuring and integrating the northern areas

with the rest of Knysna, it faces real challenges due to topographical constraints and the abundance

of water bodies within and surrounding towns. There is no doubt that the northern areas are not

linked effectively and functionally with the CBD of Knysna. One of the main reasons is that it is

physically very difficult to implement any further road or even pedestrian linkages due to the very

steep slopes and indigenous forests on these slopes. There is probably one opportunity to create

another link and it is through the Heidevallei project that should be investigated.

Similar problems are evident in Sedgefield where Smutsville is physically removed from the rest of

town by a very high dune. The municipality is trying to negotiate these realities by ensuring that the

access routes are maintained to accommodate the taxi and bus operators move people through this

broken landscape. It also means that the municipality has to invest in more municipal offices and

halls than it normally would, but they are doing this. The new SDF needs to acknowledge these

alternative integration efforts arising from topographical constraints.


Section D – Policies

7.0 Policies for Development

Section 7 of Knysna’s SDF presents a suite of policies that reinforce the proposed conceptual and

development frameworks. These policies deal with:

Urban densification and infill

Sustainable settlements

Urban edges

Economic development and land use implications

Historic towns

Management of the N2 bypass

Open space system

Golf course developments

Whilst the policies proposed are sound, they need to be updated in Knysna’s 3rd generation SDF to

incorporate the new spatial informants identified in Section 4.

Section E – Implementation

8.0 Implementation Framework

Section 8 of Knysna’s SDF addresses implementation by;

identifying action areas where proposals and further land use guidelines are detailed;

proposing catalytic or lead projects within the action areas; and

setting 5 year targets for the SDF.

Since compilation of the SDF over the period 2006 to 2008 the municipality have made significant

progress in implementing the SDF’s recommendations. As input to the SDF Addendum the

municipality will report on recent progress made, and prioritise outstanding actions. In addition, to

improve alignment between the SDF and municipal budget, guidance will be given on where future

public investment should be channelled.

An omission from the 2008 SDF is the provision of measures for monitoring and evaluating progress

with implementation of the SDF. This shortcoming is common to all SDFs reviewed by the BESP.

Measures to ddress this shortcoming will be documented in the BESP’s cross-cutting Implementation

and Monitoring Framework report.

It is proposed that the implementation of the draft Knysna Conservation Area Guidelines be

incorporated into this section of the new SDF. The following details are relevant.


Draft Knysna Urban Conservation Area Guidelines should be presented to the Knysna

Municipal Council for approval and incorporation into the Knysna Zoning Scheme.

The Urban Conservation Area Guidelines and the list of heritage resources should be

submitted to Heritage Western Cape and the South African Heritage Resources Agency for

approval.

Section F – Conclusion

9.0 Conclusion and Recommendations The BESP review has established that Knysna’s current SDF:

is underpinned by the principles of growth and equity, integration and sustainability – all of

which are consistent with the BESP’s objectives

its preparation was based on relevant information available at the time of its compilation,

it identifies key development challenges facing Knysna in 2007/8, and

it explores alternative development scenarios, and builds an argument for the municipality

to embrace a new approach to spatial development.

As such in 2008 the Knysna SDF, approved by Council, has been used by the municipality as its

‘credible’ spatial plan. This Addendum to the SDF has highlighted new informants to Knysna’s SDF

that need to be factored-in to enhance its credibility. The Addendum has identified what additional

aspects need to considered in Knysna’s 3rd generation SDF, provided details of the additional content

needed to close the gaps identified in the review, and highlighted what inputs are outstanding. As

such this Addendum, once finalised, can inform preparation of Knysna’s 3rd generation (2011 -2015)

Integrated Development Plan (IDP), SDF and Human Settlement Plan (HSP).


APPENDIX A: CONSOLIDATED SDF GAP ANALYSIS & WORK PLAN

Credibility Indicator Aspects of Concern Action agreed to Responsibility

1. SDF Procedural & Process Considerations

1a. Endorsed politically

Nov 2007 Knysna SDF approved by Council. The earliest any BESP amendments to approved SDF can be taken to Council is March 2011, when 3rd generation IDP/SDF cycle commences

BESP inputs to Knysna SDF to be taken to Council as an Addendum to approved SDF, with recommendation that its proposals be incorporated in Knysna’s 3rd generation SDF.

Province to consider municipality’s proposal and revert to them.

Municipality DEA&DP

1b. Conforms to prescribed legal procedures

There are various Garden Route statutory spatial plans in place that conform to LUPO or the MSA. But these plans often overlap and some of them are contradictory. This causes uncertainty, complicates the work of the municipality and province, and delays development initiatives. Towards establishing greater certainty, province and the municipality will work together to standardise the statutory basis of Knysna’s SDF

Component 2 of the BESP will address this cross-cutting issue through the efforts of province to establish an enabling regulatory environment. As this will take time to introduce, in the interim BESP Component 1 will:

Check if Knysna’s SDF deviates from the Garden Route Guide Plan significantly.

Check if the S Cape Sub-regional Structure Plan for rural areas is consistent with the PSDF

Seek legal opinion on the possibility of withdrawing the Knysna component of the Garden Route Guide Plan (done i.t.o. Physical Planning Act), and advertising Knysna’s SDF i.t.o. both LUPO and MSA.

Informed by these inputs province and the municipality will decide on the appropriate statutory basis for Knysna’s SDF

Provincial Govt DEA&DP BESP JV DEA&DP

1c. Informed by a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

Whilst a SEA was not in place to inform Knysna’s 2007 SDF, the SDF recognises and responds responsibly to Knysna’s unique natural environment. Province and the municipality share concerns over

Revisions to Knysna’s SDF should incorporate biodiversity informants emanating from the recent Garden Route Initiative (GRI), as well as environmental informants emanating from the 2010 Garden Route EMF.

BESP JV



the limits to Knysna’s growth, but recognise that this issue is best addressed at the regional scale.

2. SDF Institutional Considerations

2a. Supported & used within the municipality

The SDF has been adopted and is being used internally, notwithstanding the fluidity of the municipal operating environment.

Improved support & use of the SDF is dependent on it aligning more effectively with the IDP and other Sector Plans (see 3k & 3l below).

See 3k & 3l

2b. Shared & used by external parties

Although invited to, external statutory authorities did not actively participate in the preparation of the 2007 SDF, and consequently many are not using it.

Facilitate SDF inputs from external statutory authorities over a 2 month period, including Steinhoff & MTO Forestry.

Possible scheduling of S Cape SDF indaba to combine facilitation of inputs to George & Knysna SDFs

DEA&DP DEA&DP

3. SDF Consistency & Conformity Considerations

SDF’s Alignment with the PSDF

3a. Settlement pattern aligned with economic potential and the location of environmental resources

Whilst the role and function of the different towns is adequately addressed in the SDF, the underlying drivers of economic growth and their spatial implications are not identified. The current S Cape water crisis is also not addressed in the 2007 SDF.

Review assumptions underpinning provincial growth potential study.

Possible study into economic potential of S Cape (action also identified in George’s SDF review)

Explore spatial implications of drivers of local economy in SDF

Explore spatial implications of water crisis in SDF

Update Knysna’s Poverty Study, PDPs, Industrial Land Study and Business Area Requirement Study

Provincial Govt Provincial Govt BESP JV BESP JV Municipality

3b.Basic human needs programs delivered where required

No serious concerns identified. n/a n/a

3c. Channels public investment where highest

Whilst the SDF (Section 8) provides a spatial framework for public investment, DEA&DP seek greater specificity on

Identify space extensive community facility requirements (backlogs and future growth) on an area basis at SDF level and site specific requirements

BESP JV



socio-economic returns can be achieved

community facility requirements (especially for space extensive land uses).

at subsequent precinct level plans.

HSP to also give consideration to facility requirements in human settlement investment areas

BESP JV

3d. Addresses land reform

Not adequately addressed in 2007 SDF, but acknowledged that despite municipal efforts Department of Land Affairs & Rural Development (who have statutory responsibility) have not been proactive in facilitating land reform and engaging with local municipalities.

Municipality to inform province of past attempts to involve DLA&RD.

Issue to be taken up with DLA&RD

Facilitate active involvement of DLA&RD in SDF (see actions under 2b above).

Municipality DEA&DP DEA&DP

3e. Addresses conservation & strengthening of Knysna’s sense of place, and importance of its natural, cultural and productive landscapes and buildings?

This topic is addressed in the 2007 SDF, and subsequently Knysna completed their urban conservation guidelines which have been referred to Council for adoption. Concerns are the absence of data on productive agricultural land, and if the W Heads are given sufficient conservation status in the SDF beyond their designation outside the urban edge?

New GRI biodiversity mapping to be included in SDF

Garden Route EMF viewshed protection data to be included in SDF

Incorporate Knysna’s new urban conservation guidelines in SDF

Facilitate input from Department of Agriculture on productive landscapes (see actions under 2b above)

Review conservation status of W Heads in SDF

BESP JV BESP JV BESP JV DEA&DP BESP JV

3f.Addresses urban restructuring in order to undo apartheid’s legacy on human settlements

Whilst need for urban restructuring is covered in 2007 SDF, this imperative needs to be stated more explicitly. DEA&DP concerned that SDF’s Special Planning Areas may open the door for high income development outside the urban edge. Knysna’s new Densification Study (not yet formally adopted) can inform future restructuring initiatives, as can its Land Audit.

Review Special Planning Areas in SDF

Demarcate future spatial growth direction with arrows, rather than as a line

State contextual realities (e.g. topographical) and their implications on urban restructuring, particularly related to Knysna and Sedgefield

Spatially map “densification options” (SDF Table 7.2)

Link urban restructuring with HSP

Consider densifications options in SDF

BESP JV BESP JV BESP JV BESP JV BESP JV BESP JV

3g. Locates urban activities for

No serious concerns raised n/a n/a



convenience & promotes public & non-motorised transport

3h. Protects biodiversity and agricultural resources

See concerns listed under 3e above. Critical Biodiversity Areas Maps of the GI should be included, as this will allow for the incorporation of the PSDF’s Spatial Planning Categories (see 3j below)

Incorporate new critical biodiversity area mapping from GRI into SDF, and highlight need for groundtruthing to verify accuracy of data

Facilitate input from Department of Agriculture

See other related actions listed under 3e & 3j

BESP JV DEA&DP See 3e & 3j

3i.Minimises the consumption of scarce resources (i.e. water, land, energy, etc)

Whilst topic is addressed in 2007 SDF, current Garden Route water crisis was not on the agenda when Knysna’s SDF was compiled. See related concerns listed under 3a above.

Factor spatial implications of water shortages into SDF

Incorporate sustainability as a cross-cutting theme in municipal IDP, SDF, HSP and other sector plans

See actions listed under 3a

BESP JV Municipality BESP JV See 3a

3j. Indicates bioregional Spatial Planning Categories (SPCs)

Whilst 2007 SDF does incorporate SPCs, these are not consistent with the PSDF and SANBI/DEA&DP programme to mainstream biodiversity into the municipal planning system

Using GRI’s CBA maps, delineate and incorporate SANBI/DEA&DP system of SPCs in the SDF with their associated land use guidelines, recognising need for municipality to apply a performance based approach in adjudicating applications for land use change

BESP JV

SDF’s Alignment with the Municipal IDP

3k. Takes strategic direction from municipal IDP

Whilst the 2007 SDF was informed by Knysna’s 2020 visioning initiative and IDP, these links are not explicitly stated in the document. However, a new strategic direction is now emerging in Knysna, with the start of its 3rd generation IDP cycle.

Review municipality’s vision and strategic objectives as foundation for 3rd generation IDP

Outline the strategic spatial implications emerging from the review of Knysna’s 2007 SDF, to inform its 3rd generation IDP, SDF, HSP and other sector plans

Incorporate BESP proposals into 3rd generation plans

Municipality BESP JV Municipality

3l. Aligned with other IDP sector plans

The following alignment concerns with other sector plans have been raised:

Local Economic Development Plan: SDF’s link to LED is poor as LED is not a

See actions identified in 3a above

Address spatial implications of drivers of local

See 3a BESP JV



strategic document. LED lacks insight into drivers of local economy and role of Knysna in the regional space-economy (see concerns under 3a above).

economic growth in SDF, towards improved alignment in 3rd generation LED

Housing Sector Plan: Knysna’s Sustainable Human Settlement Strategy (2008) reflects the municipality’s strategic shift from the building of houses to the development of human settlements. It was informed by, and takes forward, the 2007-2011 IDP as well as the 2007 SDF

Reinforce alignment between SDF and HSP BESP JV

Integrated Transport Plan: Although no formal plan in place, recent progress has been made in rolling-out a non-motorised transport system

Commission integrated transport plan

Incorporate public transport routes in SDF

Incorporate NMT in SDF

Municipality BESP JV BESP JV

Infrastructure Master Plan: No plan in place to inform 2007 SDF, but 2009 Comprehensive Infrastructure Plan highlights significant shortfalls in bulk capacity (see Aurecon’s High Level Infrastructure Review Report).

Incorporate spatial development implications of bulk infrastructure capacity in SDF

Reflect in SDF where future (>5 years) bulk infrastructure investment should be channelled.

Incorporate bulk infrastructure considerations into HSP

See actions listed under 3i

BESP JV BESP JV BESP JV See 3i

Disaster Management Plan: No plan in place to inform 2007 SDF, but subsequently plan produced for Eden District.

Incorporate spatial implications for Knysna of Eden District Disaster Management Plan

BESP JV

4. SDF’s Relevance and appropriateness considerations



4a. Based on relevant and appropriate information

Gaps identified:

Data on the status & prospects of the local and the regional economy is outdated

Latest critical biodiversity area mapping

Bulk infrastructure considerations & mapping

Mapping of productive agricultural landscapes

See actions identified under 3a above

See actions identified under 3e and 3h above

See actions identified under 3i & 3l above

See action identified under 3e & 3h above

See 3a See 3e & 3h See 3i & 3l See 3e & 3h

5. SDF’s Rationale and Content Considerations

5a. Clearly explains the spatial logic underpinning its proposals?

No serious concerns raised n/a n/a

5b. Adequacy of content

Gaps identified:

Climate change implications

Reference to renewable energy (e.g. location of wind / solar farms), and appropriate technology

Impact of the proposed N2 bypass

Rural development & land reform

Future of ‘bos dorpies’

Spatial implications of bulk infrastructure shortfalls

Cemetery requirements

Incorporate findings of Eden Disaster Man. Plan

Incorporate land use planning principles in SDF

Incorporate sustainability principles in SDF & HSP

Assess implications on spatial development

See actions identified under 2b & 3d

See actions identified under 2b & 3d

See actions identified under 3l & 3i

Include technical criteria for meeting land requirements

BESP JV BESP JV BESP JV BESP JV See 2b & 3d See 2b & 3d See 3l & 3i BESP JV

6. SDF’s Implementation Considerations

6a. Sets-out clear implementation

The 2007 SDF does address implementation, proposes catalytic or

Review and prioritise SDF’s lead projects

Specify how Rural land Use Management Guidelines

Municipality Municipality/



measures lead projects, and sets 5 year targets. However, these are not prioritised or linked to the budget. In Section 6 Land Use Management Guidelines are noted but how they will be implemented is not dealt with.

will be applied BESP JV

6b. Provides monitoring and evaluation measures

Not addressed in 2007 SDF Specify SDF’s monitoring & evaluation measures Municipality/ BESP JV

6c. Link between the SDF and the budget

Not explicit in 2007 SDF Provide guidance in SDF on where public investment should be channelled

Municipality/ BESP JV

6d. Link between land use guidelines & zoning scheme

Not explicit in 2007 SDF Assess implications of the SDF’s spatial proposals for the zoning scheme.

Municipality/ BESP JV


APPENDIX B: RECORD OF EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

B.1 RECORD OF SDF INDABA WITH EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS

BUILT ENVIRONMENT SUPPORT PROGRAMME

SUPPORT TO GEORGE & KNYSNA MUNICIPALITIES: CONSULTATION WITH STATUTORY

AUTHORITIES ON THE MUNICIPALITIES SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORKS

14 May 2010 at Die Bult Provincial Training Institute George

1. INTRODUCTION

Chris Rabie (CR) welcomed all present (see Attendance Register attached). He explained that

the consultation session with external statutory stakeholders had been convened by the Built

Environment Support Programme (BESP), a provincial initiative to assist municipalities improve

the credibility of their Spatial Development Frameworks (SDFs) and Human Settlement Plans

(HSPs).

The BESP’s review of George and Knysna’s SDF revealed that because these plans did not

incorporate the programs and projects of other spheres of government, they were not effective

tools to assist alignment of public investments. To address this shortcoming, the consultation

session had been convened to introduce municipal SDF s to national and provincial government

departments, to give them the opportunity to explain their current programmes and projects in

the George and Knysna municipal areas, and to explore arrangements for how best to involve

external stakeholders in the preparation of SDFs in future.

Tania de Waal explained the purpose and contents of Municipal SDFs, highlighting their

importance as tools to:

• coordinate within a municipality, and between neighbouring municipalities, where

public investment will be channelled;

• align public investment both between municipalities, and between municipality’s

and national and provincial government departments and state owned enterprises;

• restructure urban areas that were segregated by Apartheid; and

• promote sustainable urban and rural land use in the municipal area.

2. GEORGE AND KNYSNA SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORKS

Stiaan Carstens (SC) presented an overview of the key themes that the George municipal SDF

promotes, and its links to the municipality’s IDP priorities were highlighted. Poverty is the

overriding development challenge that George faces. Mike Maughan Brown presented an

overview of Knysna’s SDF and highlighted the fact that poverty was also the major challenge the


municipality faces. He explained the SDFs proposals for the main urban centres, and pointed out

key rural development issues highlighting uncertainty regarding the future of remote forestry

villages and ‘bosdorpies’.

3. INPUTS FROM DEPARTMENTS & ORGANISATIONS

3.1 Rural Development and Land Reform

3.1.1 Pre-existing projects:

• The Comprehensive Redevelopment Programme (CDRP) – only one in the Western

Cape (Oudtshoorn)

• Recapitalization Programme

• PLAS – land acquired by the state, funding for infrastructural development.

3.1.2 Existing projects will be forwarded

3.1.3 Q: What is the status of Area Based Plans?

ABPs for the area have been left as unfinished business. They will not be reviewed.

3.1.4 Mike: What criteria were used to identify projects?

CRP projects – identified at the end of a process

PLAAS – dependent on land availability and environmental considerations

3.1.5 Lauren: Can we please get land claims mapped.

3.2 Water Affairs (National) – Johan Visser

3.2.1 A licence has been issued to George Municipality to take water from the Malgas

River (licence will be restricted to surplus flow conditions)

3.2.2. Outeniqua Study has been done and has been presented to George and Knysna

Municipalities – looks at future options related to water

3.2.3 Regular drought meetings happen on a monthly basis with these Municipalities

3.3 Environmental Affairs (National) – Surprise Zwane

3.3.1 An Environmental Management Framework (EMF) has been done. Comment

process is about to start.

3.3.2 Q. How is EMF intended to be used and how does it relate to CBA mapping.

A. EMF to be used as a decision-making tool at Provincial level and to be used as

part of the SDF at Municipal level. The EMF is a platform to incorporate all plans.

Ground and aerial verification had been done. CBA (Critical Biodiversity Area)

mapping had been incorporated into the EMF.

3.4 Forestry (National Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries) – Theo Stehler

3.4.1 At a national level, the mandate is regulation and support. Focus not project

orientated

3.4.2 The land management aspect has been transferred to other Departments


3.4.3 Leasing of land: lease use of state forest land for commercial purpose – Department

must manage the lease agreement

3.4.4 State has 25% share in private company

3.4.5 Oversight over lessees – 70 yr agreement

3.4.6 Exit strategy – the phasing out of commercial forestry for other land uses such as

conservation and agriculture. However, there is now a shortage of land for

commercial forestry and reversals of the exit strategy is now taking place.

3.5 Forestry (Provincial Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries) – Falitenjwa

Forestry Development composed of:

3.5.1 Greening / tree planting

3.5.2 Trees for homes – Information on planned housing projects are required from

Municipalities to provide trees for these developments

3.5.3 Greening plans for municipalities

3.5.4 Raising the forestry profile within the Municipality

3.5.5 Environmental Education

3.5.6 LED – small scale indigenous nurseries in Knysna and a medicinal nursery is

operational in George.

3.5.7 Q: smaller trees distributed are subject to vandalism – request put forward to be

issued with 10-15yr old trees.

A: Since 2007 there has been a move to introduce trees of a minimum height of

1.7m. Requests for trees made to the Department must include a good maintenance

plan.

3.6 MTO - Jan Truter

3.6.1 MTO replaced SAFCOL (although SAFCOL operated within a budget framework of

government, and MTO is a private entity)

3.6.2 Limited state ownership – estimated to be less than 25%

3.6.3 59 000ha areas of forestry land leased

3.6.4 ± 9000 ha farmed on a sustainable basis (trees are harvested and replanting occurs)

3.6.5 50 000ha are for harvesting. However, not the entire area is suitable for forestry

harvesting. Factors influencing areas of suitability:

• Delineation of road reserves

• Cemeteries

• Expansion of urban areas

• Land claims

• Boreholes

• Agriculture

3.6.6 Other land users inside forestry areas e.g. SANPARKS

3.6.7 Reducing planting areas has an impact on the ability of the company to make a

profit


3.6.8 Exit areas: there has been a revision of the exit models, although it is not clear what

will happen in these exit areas. As long as these areas are not used – an economic

opportunity is lost

3.6.9 MTO uses land ito the Forestry Act (section 23), subject to LUPO and Environmental

and Building control regulations

3.6.10 Long term development focus – it takes 20 – 30 years to develop, therefore urban

edges must be clarified

3.6.11 Forestry villages are still functioning. There are no immediate plans to formalise

these areas

3.6.12 Forestry plans are spatially available and will be shared with the Municipalities to

inform their SDFs

3.7 PG Bison – Kobus Venter

3.7.1 Employs just under 1000 ppl

3.7.2 7 500 ha of land , 6000ha under plantation

3.7.3 Saw logs and pulp plant – processed in George

3.7.4 Possibility of use of ‘woody residue’ for biofuels (in 18 months to 2 years)

3.7.5 5 or 6 sawmills have closed down in recent years. If 5% of capacity is taken away –

the saw mill will need to be closed

3.7.6 There is a need for a strong urban edge

3.7.7 The processing facility needs electricity, water, roads, etc. – can’t run a sustainable

business without these

3.7.8 RC: the BESP has identified that there had been insufficient focus on the

preservation of natural 3.7.9 resources outside the urban edge in the Knysna SDF

3.7.9 Department of Water Affairs has to issue a licence to plant a new commercial forest

3.7.10 Forestry has similar worker needs identified within farming and agriculture – need

for schools, clinic, etc. Forestry should ideally piggy back on interventions.

3.8 Agriculture (National) - Daan du Toit

3.8.1 The national department is focused on the drafting of norms and standards.

Coordination of activities occur via MINMEC

3.8.2 Projects/ programmes at a National level include food security, training/ capacity

building, access to markets for emerging agriculture

3.9 Agriculture (Provincial) – Faan Mathee

3.9.1 At a provincial level there are 3 sub-components:

• Farmers development and support (Farmer settlement, food security, extension

and advisory services)

• LandCare

• GIS

3.9.2 The main commodity in the region is dairy and ostriches

3.9.3 Commodity types: Commercial, subsistence and small holding


3.9.4 Commercial projects are identified based on financial viability

3.9.5 Subsistence projects are identified based on its ability to create jobs

3.9.6 More detail on project selection criteria will be forwarded to the PSC.

3.9.7 Current contribution (it was highlighted that these Municipalities were significant

beneficiaries in previous years)

• George: R404 000

• Knysna: R100 000

3.9.8 CR: Possibility of spatially indicating high potential agricultural land/ land reserved

for agricultural purposes – Will fwd request for information to Andre Roux/ Jan Smit

3.9.9 There are instances where agricultural land has been identified as high potential

land but farmers do not have the capacity to farm

3.9.10 Run off in George and Knysna is very quick – perhaps a dam is necessary. Johan

responded that with respect to the Gouritz River the placement of a number of

dams have resulted in sea water encroaching into the river system

3.10 Economic Development and Tourism

3.10.1 LED and SDF alignment will be the focus this year

3.10.2 The Department sees its roles as an enabler of development

3.10.3 Light industry and ICT is promoted for the region

3.10.4 The Provincial Broad Band Strategy is exploring the possibilities of broad band

3.10.5 The Department has a consumer advice office in Knysna within the Red Door

(Another Red Door is located in Mossle Bay)

3.10.6 An Economic Spatial Development Fund has been established. The intention is to

fund public projects, although no locations have been identified as yet.

3.10.7 A joint initiative currently underway with DEA &DPs Information Systems

component – to establish the exact location of government properties in order to

encourage the full/ optimal utilisation of government properties and facilitate

coordination

3.10.8 Experiences during IDP assessments is that often people of the IDP units don’t

understand the spatial implications of the IDP

3.10.9 DEDAT has found that LED people don’t understand SDFs and that LED ppl can’t

distinguish between 3.10.10 LED projects and local social projects with an economic

flavour.

3.10.11 SC: Plea to please assist Municipalities to make the distinction between LED and

welfare projects

3.10.12 Often Municipalities forget about enabling environmental requirements – electricity,

bulk, services, roads, access, etc.

3.11 Department of Transport and Public Works – Gamza Meyer

3.11.1 George: Integrated Transport Plans – found gaps between the mobility strategy and

future development patterns indicated in the George SDF

3.11.2 George Mobility Strategy – Struggling to get the Transport industry on board

3.11.3 Struggling to get political approval of the ITP because of in-fighting between wards


3.11.4 Lessons learnt with the George mobility strategy should be shared with Knysna

3.11.5 Overall departmental strategies

• Moving freight from road to rail

• Safety

• Non-motorised transport

3.11.6 Main focus is to get ITPs integrated in IDPs

3.11.7 The George Hospital upgrade is currently underway

3.12 Department of Local Government – Rene Whiteman

3.12.1 Presented MIG funded projects

3.12.2 A request was made that they should also indicate ongoing projects

3.13 Provincial Treasury – Lionel Hartle

3.13.1 Request was made for a mechanism to support the continuity of this project

3.13.2 The department plays a role In terms of how money is spent and what informs the

resource allocation

3.13.3 Plays an oversight role in terms of Section 22 and 23

3.13.4 When they assess the budget the look at the responsiveness to economic growth

objective of socio-economic needs of communities

3.13.5 Long term strategic planning not necessarily aligned with political accountability

3.13.6 Introduced wards based plans as 3rd generation IDPs. SC commented that the focus

on ward based plans takes away the strategic focus from IDPs

3.14 Cultural Affairs and Sport – Henry Paulse

3.14.1 A sports facilities plan audit for the Western Cape is underway

3.14.2 Presentation highlighted a wide range of sporting initiatives, although largely silent

on cultural activities.

3.14.3 97% of people in Dysselsdorp dependant on social grants

3.15 Department of Health – Alvin Miller

3.15.1 Needs:

• Centrum clinic - shared with other officials. Space inadequate. Need new

building in central George

• Conville clinic - inadequate space

• Touwsranten - inadequate space

• A district hospital is needed by 2020

3.15.2 A new Kwanakatula hospital is planned for Knysna/ Bitou (the Department views

the two Municipalities as one region)

3.15.3 They intend providing housing for government officials at the back of the hospital

3.15.4 The DoH needs to know well in advance of large housing projects planned to make

provision for the communities of these projects accordingly

3.15.5 The DoH rely on the Municipalities to make land available for Hospitals


3.15.6 DoH needs access to land audit of government property – the Dept of Human

Settlements have recently completed. Dept of Human Settlements undertake to

share information. CR undertake to take up issue with the Property Committee of

Dept Public Works

3.15.7 HM highlighted that trade offs are also possible

3.15.8 DoH urged to communicate their needs in terms of land size and location with the

Municipality

3.16 Department of Social Development

3.1.6.1 One of the Department’s programmes relevant to the region is Sustainable

Livelihoods

3.16.2 In terms of Social Relief for Disasters (SRD), farm workers on farms located in George

were supported as victims of disaster (after the water crisis). These farm workers

receive a R1000 from the Department and R300 from the farmer

3.1.6.3 DoSD identified a lack of land available to implement sustainable livelihood projects

3.17 Department of Education

3.17.1 A plea was made to Municipalities to make provision for schools in their settlement

planning

3.17.2 In George there are 22 primary schools, 7 high schools and 1 college

3.17.3 In Knysna there are 24 primary schools and 7 high schools

3.17.4 Issues of overcrowding: e.g. 2 schools in Thembalethu with 1500 learners in each

school

3.17.5 A 10th of the Departmental budget is spent on the transportation of learners to

schools in the Eden/ Central Karoo regions

3.17.6 In another attempt to deal with overcrowding, some primary schools accommodate

Gr 8 & 9 learners as high schools do not have the capacity

3.17.7 A new school will be built in Heidevallei to cater for Knysna and Bitou

3.17.8 Migration of learners from the Eastern Cape – therefore a need exists for an English/

isiXhosa medium school

3.18 SANParks – Maretha Alant

3.18.1 Some of the exit areas coming from MTO are now forming part of the Garden Route

National Park

3.18.2 SANParks do not have money to buy extra land

3.18.3 Have recently developed a document on the commenting role of SANParks

3.18.4 Emergency water augmentation scheme

3.18.5 Have found that development ahs largely decreased, although small scale sub-

divisions are increasing

3.18.6 Knysna Reverse Osmosis Plant at Coerie Park

3.19 Cape Nature – Dr. Wietcshe Roets


3.19.1 We need a catchment perspective if we want sustainable water management

3.19.2 We need to look after estuaries if we want to survive climate change (Has done a

study on the effects of climate change and the impact on floodplains and estuaries

and the implications on setback lines on development – will fwd)

3.1.9.3 We are taking quality water out and putting back poor quality water back in

4. Closure

Mr. Rabie thanked all present and reiterated the following:

4.1 Please include projects already underway – therefore do not exclude ongoing

projects.

4.2 Where possible, please provide us with the criteria used to identify projects and

current initiatives.

4.3 Please provide the data spatially (with maps), where available.

4.4 Departments of Education and Health – please provide more details on the land

requirements of the needs identified.

4.5 If after attending the meeting on Friday, you feel that you are not the best suited

representative of your Department, please assist us to find the person who will be in

a position to add value. You will also have to inform your HoDs and DGs accordingly.

Similarly, if you are vacating your post soon, kindly inform us of your successor.

4.6 If during the course of the engagement on Friday, you have made an undertaking to

source or assimilate information to another participant at the meeting, please

honour your commitment. The list of meeting attendants is attached for your

information and use.

4.7 Please provide your inputs on any possible mechanism to support the continuity of

this project.

4.8 The project steering committee undertakes to follow up with other relevant

Departments who were not available to attend.

4.9 Minutes of the engagement will follow shortly, along with Ms. de Waal’s

presentation on Spatial Development Frameworks.

4.10 We hope that all representatives will honour their commitments and provide

detailed inputs on or before Friday, 28 May 2010 at 16h00.

Please direct all inputs to Ms. Tania de Waal [email protected] or contact her on 021 483 4360 if

you still require clarity.

mailto:[email protected]


B.2 DETAIL INPUTS SUBMITTED BY EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS

B.2.1 EDEN & CENTRAL KAROO EDUCATION DISTRICT

CIRCUIT 4 – KNYSNA/ BITOU MUNICIPALITY

Director (acting Circuit Team manager): Ms Rhoxo (044-8038300)

MOTIVATION FOR A PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL IN KNYSNA

I hereby request the establishment of a Primary school in Secondary school in Knysna. The reasons

are as follows:

GEOGRAPHIC AREA:

Knysna is situated in the Southern Cape which is a renowned tourist destination in the Republic of

South Africa. It is on the Garden Route, about 500 km’s East from Cape Town on the N2 between

George and Plettenberg Bay.

BOUNDARIES:

At present, the Municipal area of Knysna includes the surrounding towns of Buffalo Bay, Sedgefield,

Rheenendal, Brenton, Karatara, Knoetzie and Belvidere.

POPULATION

2001 2007 Growth

Population Size 51 468 65 043 3,9

Population by

racial group

2007 2008 2009

Black 16 423 22 773 5.6

Coloured 22 608 28 806 4.1

Indian/Asian 102 261 17.0

White 12 342 13 203 1.1

OCCUPATIONAL PROFILE (LABOUR FORCE)

The potential economically active population of Knysna Municipality in 2007 was comprised of 45 220 people.

The labour force grew at an annual average rate of 5.1 per cent over the period 2001 to 2007, with the labour force participation rate (LFPR) increasing marginally from 65.4 per cent in 2001 to 67.4 per cent 2007.

Employment grew by 8.4 per cent during the period 2001 to 2007, while the unemployment rate decreased from 28.6 per cent to 14.18 per cent over the same


period.

Over the 2001 to 2007 period, the not economically active population increased by 1 024 people.

EDUCATION

There are 17 schools in the Knysna Local Municipality

SCHOOLS 2008 2009 2010

Primary schools Number of learners Number of learners Number of

learners

Bracken Hill PS 43 68 68

Buffelsnek PS 31 24 22

Chris Nissen PS 721 786 842

Fraaisig PS 925 973 954

Karatara PS 151 162 154

Knysna PS 943 896 566

Redlands PS 83 81 81

Ruigtevlei PS 97 110 116

Sedgefield LS 257 261 256

Sunridge PS 1 311 1 259 1225

Tembelitsha PS 915 958 928

Intermediate

Schools

Hornlee PS 1 220 1 209 1,234

Rheenendal PS 722 744 770

Sedgefield PS 398 418 390

Secondary Schools

Knysna HS 531 540 566

Knysna Sec 1 341 1 403 1470

Percy Mdala HS 1 318 1 460 1,502


Total Learners 11 007 11 352 11 145

LEARNER INFLUX in 2009

Gauteng 35

KZN 15

Mpumalanga 4

Eastern Cape 770

Northern Prov. 4

Free State 7

North West 5

Northern Cape 1

Other 13

Total 854

Most of the learners from other provinces were enrolled in the Xhosa/English schools.

Thembelitsha

Chris Nissen

Percy Mdala

SCHOOL CAPACITY - 2009

Schools in Knysna

1 primary school is beyond the norm in terms of capacity : learners

Sunridge - 1 259

1 Intermediate school is beyond the norm in terms of capacity: learners

Hornlee - 1 209

2 Secondary schools is beyond the norm in terms of capacity: learners

Percy Mdala - 1 460

Knysna Sec - 1403

The other Primary Schools have a large number of learners

Tembelitsha 958


Chris Nissen 786

Knysna PS 896

Fraaisig PS 973

Language of Learning and Teaching (LOLT)

11 Afrikaans medium

1 parallel medium in Knysna (Knysna Primary)

1 English medium (Xhosa) Percy Mdala

2 Xhosa / English medium ( Thembelitsha & Chris Nissen)

LEARNER TRANSPORT

7 Learner transport schemes operating in this area

# learners

Hornlee, Fraaisig, Sunridge &

Knysna Sec

1 140

Buffelsnek, Diepwalle 40

Rheenendal 69

Redlands 55

Thembelitsha 569

Percy Mdala 633

Knysna Sec 146

Total learners transported 2 652

ASPECTS TO CONSIDER:

Growth in population:

The growth in population in 2007 was 3.9 percent. However the estimated percentage recently will

be much higher due to the demand for houses and the new establishments in Heidevallei and

Damsebos.

Compilation of schools in Knysna:


There are 5 Primary schools in Knysna with a total learner number of 6 081. Percy Mdala High

School has a learner number of 1 460 learners and Knysna Secondary has a learner number of 1404

and can not accommodate more secondary school learners.

Learner influx:

In 2009 the learner influx into Knysna Schools from other provinces were 845.

Influx into Knysna schools was as follows:

Percy Mdala Hs - 257

Tembelitsha PS – 233

Chris Nissen PS - 180

Hornlee PS – 134

Fraaisig - 41

Learner capacity:

Two primary schools and two High schools in Knysna are beyond the norm in term of capacity (see

data above)

Schools in Knysna

1 primary school is beyond the norm in terms of capacity : learners

Sunridge - 1 259

1 Intermediate school is beyond the norm in terms of capacity: learners

Hornlee - 1 209

The other Primary Schools have a large number of learners

Tembelitsha 958

Chris Nissen 786

Knysna PS 896

Fraaisig PS 973

2 Secondary schools is beyond the norm in terms of capacity: learners

Percy Mdala - 1 460

Knysna Sec - 1403

Learner transport:


Because of the rural geographical area around Knysna many learners are transported into Knysna to

attend schools. This impacts on the learner numbers in the existing Knysna schools, especially the

Secondary schools which are already filled to their capacity.

War on Poverty Programme:

The following wards have been identified as of the poorest of the poor by the National Government

namely Concordia, White location, Hornlee and Damsebos. Knysna is included in the War on Poverty

programme to alleviate poverty. Eight of the ten schools in Knysna are situated in the identified

wards. A Primary and Secondary school school in Knysna will support the poverty alleviation

programme.

Parent demand:

There is an ongoing demand from parents preferring to send their children to an English school. We

can not adhere to this demand, because we can not accommodate these learners and they have to

apply to Independent schools or attend an Afrikaans school. Parents can not afford the financial

demand of an Independent school.

Literacy and Numeracy results:

The Literacy and Numeracy results show the low performance of learners.

Low performing schools:

GRADE 3

( average from 2004 - 2008

GRADE 6

(average from 2003 – 2007)

Name of school Literacy Numeracy Literacy Numeracy

Chris Nissen 48.2 % 7.2% 9.6% 0 %

Thembelitsha 29.8 % 12.2 % 12.7% 0,8 %

Fraaisig 23.9% 9.1 % 20.8% 1.2 %

Hornlee 44.1% 28.9% 34.9 % 0.0 %

Sunridge 32.4% 11.2 % 33.3% 0.0 %

It is of the utmost importance that a Primary school must be established in Knysna to address future

demand and needs. The Primary schools have very big learner numbers per class. The big classes

impacts on teaching and learning.

Knysna Secondary school and Percy Mdala High school already have 1 403 and 1 460 learners

respectively. The feeder schools of these Secondary schools also have large number of learners. The

increase in learner numbers in Knysna schools in 2009 was 345. There are no secondary schools in


Hoekwil , Sedgefield and surroundings areas , therefore learners from these areas have to attend the

Secondary schools in Knysna. This emphasizes the need for another Secondary School in Knysna.

Erf number:

The erf demarcated for a future schools in Knysna are Heidevallei erf number 255, as well as

Concordia erf number 120

We hope that this request will be favourably considered to deliver quality education to the learners

in Knysna.

B.2.2 DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & TOURISM

Per the request for written submission on current or planned activities, projects, programmes from

our Department underway in the George and Knysna municipal areas, please find attached the

Department’s populated template that advises to the above, along with land use requirements,

spatial location of projects (where applicable), and the 2010/2011 financial allocation of these

projects and/or programmes.

Please note these projects are all underway and the criteria used to identify projects and current

initiatives, are informed by the MEDS, the Department’s 5-Year Strategic Plan, and its Annual

Performance Plans 2010/2011. Unfortunately, the Department is not able to provide the data

spatially, with maps;

Should there be any additional input or clarity required, please do not hesitate to contact me at:

[email protected], or at (021) 483 5708.

mailto:[email protected]


B.2.3 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

Current projects

New clinic in Kwanakuthula (Plettenberg Bay) is being built.

New casualty / outpatients / reception wing for Knysna Provincial hospital is to be built. This will

be done on the current hospital erf.

Land requirements / needs

There is a need for low cost housing for government employees in Knysna. The Knysna Hospital

Board has therefore obtained a principle approval from the Minister of Health: Western Cape to

develop the property at the back of Knysna Provincial Hospital (next to erf 1-01364-000), which is

state land. This is still in a planning phase.

Currently there are no other land requirements.

DW MATTHEE DEPUTY–DIRECTOR: ADMIN


B.2.4 MTO FORESTRY

1. MTO Forestry is a privately owned forestry company. The State holds a 16% share in the

company through SAFCOL.

2. MTO operates on approximately 44 000 ha state forest land situated in the George, Mosselbay

and Knysna municipal areas. The Company’s main processing plants are situated at the George

Sawmill and at Boskor in the Tsitsikamma. MTO’s employee training centre is located at

Concordia, just north of Knysna. MTO’s nursery at Karatara services its plantation operations

throughout the Western and Eastern Cape provinces as well as other privately owned plantation

forestry companies in the region.

3. MTO leases the state forest land on which it operates from government in terms of an assets

sales and lease transaction concluded in April 2005. The transaction affects approximately 128

000 ha state forest land situated in the Western Cape and Eastern Cape Provinces.

4. Not all the land included in the lease transaction is plantable and not all the land areas are being

farmed on a sustainable basis.

5. Only about 4 700 ha out of the 44 000 ha mentioned above, are being used for sustainable

forestry purposes, of which only 3 200 ha are plantations. The sustainable forestry areas are

primarily situated at Kruisfontein near Knysna with the remaining so-called exit state forest land

areas, some 39 300 ha in extent, situated from Jonkersberg near Mosselbay and George in the

west, to Bergplaas, Homtini and Buffelsnek near Knysna in the east.

6. These areas, although sounding very extensive, are not all planted up with plantations. MTO is,

however, responsible for the entire areas’ management, including fynbos and indigenous forest

areas between plantations.

7. MTO therefore has to strike a very delegate balance between what the Company is able to

generate as an income from the afforested areas and the cost of maintaining vast unproductive

areas.

8. Any premature decrease in the afforested areas therefore impacts on MTO’s funding model in

terms of which it entered into an agreement with the State, to the extend that it affects their

economic viability, the Company may well be forced to reassess its position in terms of any

damages it may claim from the State as a result of being forced to cancel the agreement

prematurely.

9. MTO is a private entity in charge of what is often viewed as affordable and available state land.

This is not true: (a) compensating MTO for any loss of income due to handing land back to the

land owner, is expensive; and (b) the land is tied up in a long term lease transaction for

plantation forestry purposes, which makes the land, as the case is for any other privately held

land, unavailable for other uses.


10. It is important for MTO that its land use is taken into consideration and protected during the

delineation of an urban edge around a town, road reserves, power and pipe line reserves,

quarries, dams and boreholes. MTO must be consulted in the determination of these boundary

lines where it affects plantation areas it is responsible for.

11. MTO furthermore requires long term certainty on issues such as urban expansion and

municipality’s infrastructural needs spilling over onto land outside traditional urban areas.

Plantation forestry is subject to 25 – 30 year crop rotations. These timeframes are often also

extended to accommodate changes in market conditions as well as interruptions in an area’s

production due to uncontrolled forest fires. Preparing areas for plantation purposes, planting

and ongoing maintenance until harvesting takes place, is a costly affair, especially when

considering these timeframes. Loosing an entire plantation, or even just a part of it, midway

through the process, therefore has huge financial implications which must be avoided as far as

possible.

12. The implications arising from risks such as fire are a real threat to sustainable forestry

production. Hence MTO’s concerns about land uses that are susceptible to increasing this risk

establishing itself in the vicinity of plantations. Areas with a potential of increased settlement,

should therefore be better controlled in order to avoid unplanned urban growth and

settlements from occurring. Informal settlements bordering on plantations must be addressed

by timeously creating better living conditions in situ, failing that, elsewhere within parameters

which the municipality can manage without the problem spilling over onto neighbouring land

owners and users.

13. Special consideration should in this regard be taken of the implications of proactively identifying

areas for urban expansion in close proximity of plantation forests, and by so doing, encouraging

the market to develop these areas, whether by way of formal or informal processes. A SDF not

only helps to proactively identify opportunities for development, but also defines responsibilities

that will ensure that these developments occur in a sustainable and risk managed manner.

Municipalities therefore cannot escape its responsibility towards neighbouring plantation

owners through privatising its township borders by way of transferring ownership of individual

plots on the border with plantation areas to private owners. By doing so, a multitude of owners

are created as opposed to a single owner prior to the development, especially in the case of new

township developments where the state or municipality acts as the developer. The responsibility

on land owners in terms of the provisions of the National Veld and Forests Fires Act, 1998,

should in this regard be carefully considered and be taken up by the municipality on behalf of

individual land owners situated on the edge of new urban developments, as delineated in the

SDF.

14. The range of land uses that MTO is licensed for in respect of the State forest land, is specified in

section 23 of the National Forest Act, 1998. Some of these uses require, prior to

implementation, approval in terms of other legislation, notably the National Environmental

Management Act, Land Use and Planning Ordinance and National Building Control Regulations.

15. MTO has no plans, at this stage, to use state forest land under its control and situated in the

areas for which George and Knysna municipalities are responsible, for purposes other than what


it has been permitted under license in terms of the Forestry Act. The Company has no plans to

request the land owner’s permission to formalise any of the worker villages or to expand similar

land uses on state forest land that it leases, to increase its use of natural resources such as water

(arterial or surface) or to establish any plantation areas on land not previously used for or

licensed for forestry purposes. MTO will however, reconsider its position where necessary, and

attempt to replace the productive use of land that it looses as a result of non-forestry and other

land use developments that unavoidably limits or diminishes the plantation areas currently to its

disposal.

16. Some 39 300 ha state forest land (affecting the whole of Jonkersberg, Bergplaas, Homtini and

Buffelsnek) is subject to a decision by Cabinet in 2008 to reverse a decision taken in 2001 to

phase out plantation forestry. The Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries is still to

produce an implementation plan that will see to the re-commissioning of already clear-felled

plantation areas and the introduction of sustainable plantation practices on the remaining

plantations. MTO’s agreement with government pertaining to the use of the so called “exit

areas” does not permit the Company to replant these areas, but instead, makes it compulsory

for the Company to clear-fell and to hand it back to the State. The decommissioning process has

been implemented since 2001, resulting in significant areas capable of sustaining plantation

farming, being left unattended. A failure to finalise of a program for the re-commissioning of

these areas will make it eventually prohibitively expensive and impractical from a forestry

investment perspective to bring these areas back into production. Government’s own value

chain assessment showed that if the de-commissioning process is to proceed as initially decided

in 2001, over 10 000 out of the 12 000 work opportunities throughout the timber value chain in

the Western Cape will be lost. It can be assumed that with George and Knysna placed at the

centre of the timber industry in the southern Cape (featuring major processing and value adding

facilities from a range of timber growers and processors – including that of MTO), that the bulk

of the job losses will be experienced among people living in these two municipalities.

17. A failure to optimise all available timber growing areas therefore has a direct bearing on the

local economic development of George and Knysna. MTO therefore, together with other players

in the forestry sector, calls upon the George and Knysna Municipality, together with provincial

and national departments responsible for ensuring a successful SDF and strategy, to urge

government to resolve the situation by expediting the implementation of a re-commissioning

plan and strategy in order to support and sustain the forestry sector in the region to stimulate

local economic development and employment creation through optimal land use.

18. MTO will continue to participate in the process to refine the SDF’s for George and Knysna and

will seek to expand its relationship with the local and provincial authorities towards establishing

lasting partnerships regarding the use of land as a scarce natural resource, to enhance the areas’

regional context and to sustain its identity and sense of place which underpins the

municipalities’ growth and development.

CORPORATE SERVICES MTO FORESTRY

Enq: J A Truter Tel: 082 562 6740


APPENDIX C: CONTENTS OF MUNICIPAL SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT

FRAMEWORK Phase 1: Spatial Perspective

Spatial principles informing the SDF

Principles

Objectives

Status quo assessment

National and regional spatial context

Key demographic and socio-economic trends

Physical development trends

Key issues to address in the plan

Vision

Problems and issues statement

Spatial concept and direction

Proposed spatial structure

Where development should not go

Changes to existing land use

New development areas (growth management strategy including infrastructure)

Core land use management principles Phase 2: Status Quo baseline

Status quo baseline

Growth projections and demand for land

Biodiversity network

Spatial implications of climate change

Infrastructure capacity to support development or land use changes

Location and nature of national and provincial projects

Updated problems and issues statement

Brief for Phase 3: Final Draft SDF Phase 3 and 4: First Draft and Final SDF

Principles and vision

Spatial plan and strategies

Where development should not go; resource protection

Changes to existing development/ structure (restructuring, land use, densification, new linkages, social and economic nodes)

New development areas; growth management strategy including infrastructure (proposals for change to settlements, designation of land for inclusionary and social housing, public investment framework)

Implementation priorities and strategy

Priorities schedule

Phasing

Development pre-conditions (infrastructure capacity and implementation)

Guidelines for land planning and development management

Land use categories and locational criteria derived from policy statements

Processes and criteria for consultation on applications

Demonstrated alignment with legislative requirements


APPENDIX D: ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMANTS2 to KNYSNA’S SDF

1. The Importance of the Garden Route’s Biodiversity The Garden Route falls within the Cape Floristic Region (CFR), which is recognised as one of three internationally acclaimed biodiversity hotspots in South Africa. Biodiversity hotspots are areas of high species diversity, and which are also under serious threat. The Garden Route domain contains numerous endemic plant species, such as the heath, Erica outeniquae, and the grass, Pentameris uniflora, located in the Outeniqua Subalpine Fynbos within the George Municipality. The orchid, Disa procera, is a local endemic of the Hoogekraal Sandplain Fynbos , whilst the grass, Pentaschistis barbata ssp. orientalis, and the orchid, Satyrium princeps, are local rarities in the Garden Route. The Brenton-Blue Butterfly occurs exclusively in the coastal fynbos at Brenton-on-Sea, while the Knysna Spiny Reed Frog is endemic to the Knysna area. The forests of the Garden Route are of national importance. They represent the most extensive system of tall, natural forests in South Africa, and have a high diversity of plant species per unit area (DWAF, 2007). Known as the Southern Cape Forests, they are extraordinarily rich in plant species. In fact, South African temperate forests are between 3 and 7 times richer in tree species than other temperate forested areas in the Southern Hemisphere, even though they occupy a relatively small area. Although they are climatically classified as warm temperate forests, they function more like tropical forests, which may explain their relatively high diversity. The Garden Route contains some of South Africa’s most important estuaries, such as the Knysna Estuary, which is ranked number 1 in terms of its conservation value. It contains the second largest salt marsh area in the country, which is rare as it only occurs in estuaries that are permanently open to the sea. It is also home to the Wilderness Lakes (Rondevlei, Langvlei, Island Lake and the Serpentine) , which form an area listed as a Ramsar Site of international importance and Swartvlei, which is ranked number 6 in the country.

2. Terrestrial Ecosystems Ecosystems comprise living organisms and their relationships and interactions, as well as their non-living environment (e.g. soils). Furthermore, ecosystems can operate at different scales. Terrestrial ecosystems include living organisms and the substrate or land on which they occur. A useful way of categorising them is according to vegetation type (e.g. forest, grassland, shrubland) and then further classifying them according to their specific habitat, for example the Outeniqua Plateau Forest or the Wilderness Forest-Thicket in the Garden Route. Protecting vegetation types also protects other biodiversity features, such as mammals, birds, insects and other organisms that are associated with specific vegetation types. By protecting the habitat, we therefore protect the range of species that occur there. The single biggest cause of biodiversity loss in the Garden Route is loss of natural habitat (e.g. by urban development, agriculture and plantation forestry). Infestation by invasive alien species is a second major cause. Other land-uses such as grazing of natural veld and harvesting of wild plants and animals can be sustainable if managed appropriately so that biodiversity is not compromised. As natural habitat is lost, ecosystem functioning becomes increasingly compromised. This can eventually lead to collapse, with the consequent loss of ecosystem services. In most cases, ecosystem service delivery is irreplaceable or too expensive to substitute. For example, it is simply

2 Extracted from Garden Route Biodiversity Sector Plan Handbook (2010) and draft Garden Route

Environmental Management Framework (2010)


not feasible to build man-made structures that can deliver the clean and reliable water supplies provided by healthy, fynbos -covered mountain catchments. Even small, degraded or alien plant invaded patches of natural habitat may play an important role in the ecological functioning of the broader landscape or support the last remaining population of a particular species, and should nevertheless, be regarded as being of importance for biodiversity. Human survival is entirely dependent on the delivery of ecosystem services. The maintenance of these ecosystems and their supporting ‘ecological infrastructure’ is a key socio-economic imperative. Degradation or destruction of the natural environment can lead to high socio-economic costs. Although this is not an exhaustive list, the following services are delivered by terrestrial ecosystems:

buffers against natural hazards such as fire and floods

Regulation of water supply

Forage for grazing livestock and wild animals

Provision of food, fibre, medicinal and cosmetic plants

Provision of cleaner air

Improved resilience against climate change by storage (above - and below-ground) of excess carbon released as carbon dioxide through burning fossil fuels i.e. carbon storage

Support of the horticultural and wildflower industries

Provision of natural spaces for recreation and tourism

Contribution to natural and cultural heritage The sustainable use and management of the natural environment is vital, not only for the sake of biodiversity, but for social and economic survival. Ill-considered development resulting in the destruction of natural landscapes will reduce the tourism potential of an area. Instead, wise and well-informed land-use planning and management will enhance the region's capacity for tourism.

3. Aquatic Ecosystems An aquatic ecosystem (natural water features) comprises the living organisms and the non-living components in the surrounding water system. Aquatic ecosystems described here include wetlands (or vleis), estuaries, lagoons, lakes and rivers. They are grouped together in this section to emphasize that they are usually inter-related systems and activities which impact on one part will have consequences elsewhere. For example, whatever happens in the upper reaches of a river in the mountains will impact the lower reaches of the river where the estuary links with the sea.

South Africa is a water-scarce country, and our aquatic ecosystems are under severe pressure as a result of many competing demands on our limited water resources. All indications are that South Africa will reach its limits of potentially accessible water supplies between 2020 and 2030. It is crucial that efficient water use is encouraged, for example through demand control g, recycling, re-use and rainwater harvesting.

a) Wetlands Wetlands, commonly known as vleis, occur where water covers the soil permanently or periodically, at or near the surface. These waterlogged soils determine the types of organisms which can grow in this habitat, such as specially adapted plants , termed hydrophytes. Wetlands are found in many forms, including peat bogs or mountain seeps or alongside stream banks , or as salt marshes associated with estuaries. More than half of South Africa’s wetlands have already been destroyed (for example by urban expansion or cultivation), with severe consequences for water quality, consistency of water supply and flood control. Significant economic costs are incurred where there are inadequate buffers, resulting in flooding. High expenditure is required for controlling invasive weed species,


mosquitoes, sedimentation, eutrophication (nutrient enrichment) and the rehabilitation of degraded areas Estuaries are also a type of wetland. According to the National Wetland Inventory Classification System, estuaries are defined as “…partially enclosed ecosystems that are permanently or periodically connected to the ocean, which are influenced by tidal fluctuations and within which ocean water is at least occasionally diluted by fresh water derived from surface or subsurface land drainage.” Estuaries occur where river water and seawater mix in the lower sections of a river causing the pH, salinity, and water level to vary depending on the river and the ocean that feeds the estuary. They can concentrate materials such as pollutants and sediments. They are impacted by activities far upstream, such as abstraction, and as far as the mountains where their rivers originate. They are also affected by activities out at sea.

Important estuaries in the Knysna Municipality include the Knysna and Goukamma Estuary, and the Swartvlei Lake in Sedgefield. The largest estuary on South Africa's south coast is the Knysna Estuary, which is highly diverse and accounts for 43% of South Africa’s estuarine plant and animal species (Allanson, 2000). The Swartvlei Lake is the deepest of the estuaries and is often stratified into different densities owing to tidal water exchange and river inflow. It is one of the few clear water systems in South Africa with high plant diversity. Both estuaries are home to the rare Knysna seahorse (Hippocampus capensis), which is listed in the IUCN Red Data Book as Endangered, and which is endemic to South Africa. Groenvlei is another unique system representing the only closed drainage basin (endorheic) with water levels approximately 3m above sea-level. It is a freshwater coastal lake, lying to the east of Sedgefield, and separated from the ocean and entirely dependent on groundwater. It contains some relic estuarine species, such as the estuarine roundherring. The Knysna Estuary is ranked number 1 in South Africa in terms of its conservation value, while the Swartvlei Lake is ranked number 6. A key wetland, Vankerelsvlei, is extremely unusual in having a n Aspargnum (peat-forming) wetland that is in good condition.

Wetlands, together with an associated buffer of natural vegetation, perform a number of valuable functions, especially in relation to - water quality (filtering and purifying water, trapping sediment, protecting shorelines and controlling erosion [which minimises excessive sedimentation downstream ], recharging aquifers), water quantity (reducing peak floods and storing flood waters, supporting stream base flow during the dry season, groundwater discharge/recharge), and wildlife habitat (providing habitat for amphibians, birds, fish and mammals for all or portions of their life cycles). It is clear that development in wetlands and within floodlines have contributed to flood damage in the Garden Route. Recently, massive damage to property occurred in Wilderness, Sedgefield, along the Knysna Estuary and the Keurbooms Estuary. Agricultural and other human activities in the river catchments have led to pollution events in the Swartvlei and Wilderness Lakes systems. The Knysna Estuary, for example, is impacted by sewage pollution, and upstream developments of the Keurbooms have led to a reduction in flood events, resulting in saltwater intrusion and sedimentation.

b) Rivers

South Africa is a water-scarce country, and aquatic ecosystems are under severe pressure as a result of many competing demands on limited water resources. All indications are that between 2020 and 2030, South Africa will reach its limit of potentially accessible water


supplies. The natural water resources along the Outeniqua Coastal Area (Mossel Bay to Plettenberg Bay) are under enormous pressure owing to development and the spread of water-thirsty alien plants. Frequent water shortages are experienced during peak holiday season. Along the Outeniqua coast climate change predictions suggest generally slightly reduced rainfall12, with increased rainfall variability, fewer but more intense rainfall events and increased temperatures and evaporation are predicted. These effects could work together to increase flooding, but could also reduce low flow in rivers (Eden SOER, 2008 and Midgley, 2005). Intense rainfall events and increased run-off may reduce groundwater recharge and water availability for human use (Gouritz State of Rivers Report, 2007). Rivers are central to human welfare and economic development. They provide water for agricultural, industrial and domestic use, flood attenuation and regulation; food and medicinal plants; transport and/or purification of biodegradable wastes; tourism, recreational and cultural use and enhanced property values. The well-being of a river ecosystem is largely dependent on the health of the adjacent natural vegetation or “riparian habitat”. This vegetation filters pollutants, helps maintain natural water temperatures, contributes organic matter (‘food’) in support of aquatic life (fish, insects etc), and acts as a buffer to adjacent land -use. The roots of the riparian plants also reduce the effects of floods, by binding river banks and thus preventing erosion. Furthermore, bank storage is increased by slowing run off during floods. For these reasons, it is essential that new land-use activity should be separated from a river by a buffer area. Rivers in the Knysna Municipality include the Höekraal, Karatara, Goukamma, Homtini and Knysna. The Höekraal and Karatara Rivers drain into the Swartvlei Lake, an important wetland. These two rivers are critical to maintaining the ecological functioning of this system. The lower reaches of the Goukamma flow through the Goukamma Nature Reserve, entering the sea to the west of Buffelsbaai, while the Knysna River enters the Knysna Estuary. The upper reaches of the Goukamma and Homtini are relatively healthy, and those of the Knysna River have extensive beds of the endemic reed Palmiet (Prionium serratum ) as well as important invertebrates (insects, etc). The Brackenhill River, a tributary of the Noetsie River, is important as a habitat for the Cape Gallaxius (Galaxias zebratus), a key fish species.

c) Catchments A catchment is the area (a geographical region) where water from rain (or snow) becomes concentrated and drains downhill into a river or lake. The term includes all land surface, streams, rivers, and lakes between the source and where the water enters the ocean. It follows, therefore, for the management of an aquatic ecosystem, the entire catchment must be managed as the management unit. Catchments may include entire mountain ranges of major river systems and are essential for maintaining key hydrological (river) processes, involving both surface and ground water. The extent and condition of natural vegetation in a catchment, especially wetlands, has a direct impact on the health of a river. Activities in the higher catchments and also in the upper river reaches (e.g. water abstraction, agriculture, plantation forestry and alien vegetation) negatively affect areas lower in the catchments, as well as those areas downstream. Where catchments have lost natural plant cover and where rivers have been straightened or cut off from adjacent wetlands, the impacts are far-reaching. Flood flows are intensified, the natural ability of the floodplain to absorb flood water is reduced, erosion is


increased and downstream areas experience increased sedimentation. This emphasises the importance of sound management of river catchments in ensuring water flows. A good cover of intact pristine fynbos on high mountain slopes which receive the highest rainfall will ensure the delivery of reliable water supplies. The safeguarding of aquatic ecosystems depends on co-operation and collaboration at the local level between landowners and those agencies whose decisions and actions impact directly on these ecosystems, including SANParks, CapeNature, the Agricultural and Forestry Departments of DAFF, Department of Water and Environmental Affairs, and Catchment Management Agencies. The rivers of the George, Knysna and Bitou Municipalities rise in the Outeniqua Mountains, a steeply rising mountain range lying inland of the relatively narrow coastal plain. There are currently five water supply schemes in the Knysna municipal area that supply Knysna, Brenton-on-Sea, Belvedere, Buffels Bay, Sedgefield, Karatara and Rheenendale. The raw water sources are weirs on the Knysna and Gouna Rivers, the Glebe Dam, the Akkerkloof off -channel storage Dam, the Bigai Springs and the Belvedere Boreholes. The water supply to Sedgefield is drawn from a run-of-river offtake, located immediately upstream of the town on the Karatara River, while Rheenendal is supplied by a scheme on the Homtini River, a tributary of the Goukamma River. Buffels Bay draws from an offtake about 13 km inland from the mouth of the Goukamma River and Karatara is supplied from the Karatara River. There is a proposal to upgrade the water supply to Sedgefield by abstracting water from the Hoekraal River, whereas desalinization is occurring at the beach by pumping water from the sea. Key catchments of biodiversity importance include, for example the Knysna catchment (including Gouna) that has a diversity of habitats (big pools, vleis etc), which is very rare. The Goukamma/Homtini upper catchment is in a fairly healthy condition, having some pristine forest gorges and few impacts on its headwaters.

d) Coastal and Marine Ecosystems The coast of the Garden Route is characterised by a rocky shoreline interspersed with bays, sandy beaches, dunes, rivers, estuaries and lakes. It experiences strong wave action owing to its exposure to the south-westerly ocean swells. A relatively shallow bank extends almost 250 km out to sea, known as the Agulhas Bank. As part of the continental shelf, this bank is of key biological importance, influenced by warm water plumes from the Agulhas current, as well as cold, nutrient-rich ‘bottom’ water upwelling in places. As a consequence, sea temperatures and productivity on the Agulhas Bank are intermediate between those of the west and east coast marine systems. It is the centre of the South African fishing industry. The area supports a variety of marine mammals, seabirds, deep water and open ocean fish, as well as shellfish. Well-located, marine protected areas can play a substantial role in ensuring sustainable use of marine resources. They serve in protecting habitats, breeding stocks and nursery grounds which in turn, assist in replenishing fish resources in adjacent, exploited areas. Key priority areas or Special Habitats for extension of the existing Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are proposed to provide better protection of inter-tidal habitats, areas of high reef fish abundance, coastal dunes, and sub-tidal geology types. Those within the Knysna municipal area are:

extension of the Goukamma Nature Reserve, a formal Protected Area (spans both the George and Knysna municipal areas).

The area extending from just east of Buffels Bay to Brenton -on-Sea

A marine extension of the Knysna Heads (Knysna Municipality).


The area from Noetsie to Toegrooiberg, east of Kranshoek (Knysna and Bitou Municipalities).

These ecosystems deliver a range of services, including sources of food, opportunities for fishing (subsistence, recreational and commercial); resources for the pharmaceutical and cosmetic industries (e.g. algae/seaweed), and for mining (sand and heavy minerals), as well as scenic beauty for the recreational and tourism industry. Human activities that currently impact on coastal and marine ecosystems in the Garden Route include insensitive development or over-development of the coastline, over-exploitation of resources (e.g. recreational and commercial fishing), pollution (both non-point and point source), and sand mining. These activities can result in the depleti on of resources and destroy natural scenery which impacts on tourism. Coastal dunes help prevent the erosion of our beaches by supplying sand and; in so doing protect the coastal zone. Dunes naturally move but due to stabilization by coastal development and alien plants (e.g. rooikrans), the erosion or ‘disappearance’ of our beaches is taking place. Beach erosion threatens the stability of natural ecosystems and coastal development. With global warming and the ensuing rise in sea level, it is likely that beach erosion will intensify. This has significant financial repercussions as society attempts to protect coastal development against rising sea levels and storm damage.

4. Ecological Process Areas

Biodiversity encompasses not only all living things, but also the series of actions and interactions that sustain them, termed ecological processesg (e.g. pollination, seed dispersal, nutrient cycling, fire in fynbos ecosystems). The physical “spaces” where these actions and interactions take place are known as ecological process areas. In the case of evolutionary processes, these seem far removed from our everyday lives. We perhaps forget that new species are evolving all the time. With impending climate change, it is even more important that those areas where species generate are safeguarded. For example, in areas where different soil types meet, this juxtaposition enables certain plant species to become adapted to different soils, and new plant species are able to generate. These processes are not obvious to everybody, but scientists are able to identify and locate critical examples which are often associated with landscape features. Amongst the largest ecological process areas are landscape corridors comprising large tracts of natural habitat, such as major river systems or mountain ranges. They serve as landscape-scale "highways", allowing plant and animal species to migrate along them in response to any changes in climate. These highways run along river courses from the high inland mountains, across the lower coastal plain and to the coast, or else along mountain ranges in an east-west gradient. Smaller ecological process areas include, for example the natural buffer area of an isolated wetland. A landscape corridor may cover a variety of habitats such as pristine fynbos vegetation, or disturbed and/or degraded habitats or special habitats or even the alternate narrow strips of natural vegetation growing between cultivated crops such as honeybush (tea). If such degraded, disturbed or agricultural lands are identified as components of a landscape corridor, no further hardening of the surface should be allowed as this poses threats to the functioning of the corridor.


The objective of sustainability is to ensure the persistence of critical ecological processes along a number of gradients and for these to interlink where possible. For example, a river corridor following the gradient from inland mountains to the sea serves to link areas of different soil types, as well as coastal corridors spanning an east-west gradient. Such a network of corridors provides the best design in enabling biodiversity migrations. These landscape corridors, which often extend beyond local municipal and provincial boundaries, also serve to protect the source of rivers to ensure water yield from mountain catchments and support rare or threatened species. They deliver invaluable ecosystem services that are too costly or impossible to produce artificially, functioning at scales impossible for humans to replicate. In the face of escalating water needs and global climate change, it is vital that landscape corridors are safeguarded against the loss of intact habitat and that the natural landscape is not fragmented into disconnected portions. Landscape corridors in the Garden Route are interlinked with formal Protected Areas that are managed by SANParks, CapeNature, or the Department of Water and Environmental Affairs (DWEA), and many of which are located in the mountainous areas. These key landscapes corridors are either CBAs or ESAs (see Appendix B). a. Coastal corridor The Garden Route’s coastal corridor is a band (a minimum of 1 km wide outside of urban areas) which broadly accommodates the coastal zone and dynamic/mobile ecosystems, as well as intact coastal vegetation where it occurs. It incorporates shifting sand dunes, river mouths, estuaries, lagoons and is important in enabling the persistence of ecological and evolutionary processes. It was identified in the Western Cape Spatial Development Framework (2005) and spans municipal boundaries. b. River corridors Rivers and their associated riparian or riverbank habitats provide the core for many large-scale (landscape level) ecological corridors, linking the coastline to inland mountains, as well as upland to lowland habitats. The river corridors are along the major perennial rivers in the Garden Route. c. Upland-lowland Corridor An upland-lowland corridor links upland and lowland habitats outside of the river corridors. Only one such corridor occurs within the Garden Route and it is located near the border of the Knysna and Bitou municipalities, running from Noetsie River to Harkeville, just east of Kranshoek. It encompasses numerous small perennial and non-perennial rivers and streams, a formal protected area and forestry plantations, while linking the coastal area to the Outeniqua Mountain Range. Ecological or landscape corridors provide valuable ecosystem services that are often impossible or very costly to replicate or offset. They support the long-term persistence of plant and animal species and their ecological processes (e.g. fire, pollination, seed dispersal) and enable migration of species which is of increasing importance with the threat of global climate change. Landscape corridors, including mountain catchments, absorb rainfall over immense areas, and act as vast sponges storing the water and then releasing it slowly through the dry season. In this way, corridors serve to protect the source of rivers and ensure water yield from mountain catchments. The quality and quantity of water supplies


are maintained, providing for human consumption and ensuring the survival of downstream estuaries, wetlands (vleis) and streams, which in turn deliver other ecosystem services. Corridors contribute to the protection and preservation of Critical Biodiversity Areas , or support rare or threatened species. Their scenic value contributes significantly towards tourism and recreation, and provides a region's ‘sense of place’. Developing within frontal dune systems or within close proximity to the high water mark of the sea can have significant negative impacts for society. Sand bank erosion is a major problem requiring costly measures to prevent property damage. This is especially important given the predicted sea level rise as climate change takes effect. The attached Critical Biodiversity Area map3 for the Knysna municipal area spatially depicts the biodiversity patterns and processes outlines above.

3 See Garden Route Biodiversity Sector Plan (2010) for an explanation of the contents and compilation of the

Critical Biodiversity Area map


5. Management Provisions for Topographically Sensitive Areas

Feature: Topographically Sensitive Areas

Objective Management Guidelines / Provision / Advice Key Policy

Reference

Steep slopes Erosion/soil /ridgeline conservation

Development on steep slopes (i.e. steeper than 1:4) will be strongly discouraged as such areas are

subject to erosion and instability. Slope steepness will be evaluated for the area of the site where

development is being proposed and not for the site as a whole. As a general principle,

a. Development should be located on lower-lying or gently sloping portions of a site.

b. Development on the crest of a mountain, hill or ridge will be strongly discouraged.

c. Development in an area, which has been declared a mountain catchment area in terms of the

Mountain Catchment Areas Act, Act 63 of 1970 will be strongly discouraged

d. Development in locations on mountains, hills or ridges that serve as a source of water (e.g. spring,

seep, river or stream source) will be strongly discouraged

DEADP WC mnt &

Ridgeline Guideline

Wave cut Rocky Platforms In the West Coast and Namaqualand regions, avoid all rocky outcrops and coastal dunes (this has

important implications for quarrying and mining). Ideally, natural corridors should be kept intact

along north-south as well as coast-inland gradients.

Ecosystem

Guidelines For EIA,

WC

Soil / Dune conservation Dune system's risks and vulnerabilities.

Stabilisation of naturally dynamic dune systems and sediment corridors due to infestation by rooikrans Acacia cyclops or for the purposes of property and other development has a significant impact on the integrity of coastal processes.


Resort and housing developments on primary dune systems (including hummock, primary dunes dune slack and secondary dunes) are destroying highly sensitive dune systems in certain areas. Examples of this type of development pressure can be found at Wilderness, Keurboomstrand, Hartenbos, St Francis Bay, Dana Bay and Victoria Bay. Linked to

development is the disturbance of natural dune vegetation cover due to trampling,

driving or earth-moving operations. This result s in erosion and degradation of primary and

foredunes, and mobilisation of driftsand. Infrastructure that impedes longshoredrift and

inshore sediment dynamics.

Altered erosion patterns can result from the hardening of adjacent shorelines (land reclamation) and the construct ion of breakwaters and groynes. There is an increasing risk of coastal erosion associated with rising sea levels (and particularly when there is a combination of spring high tides, storm surges and inadequate development setback lines and degraded primary / foredunes).

Soil / Dune conservation No-go activities for dune systems.

No development should be allowed in sand movement corridors, frontal dunes or dynamic dune systems. Developments should be placed inland of secondary dunes.

Mobile dunes must not be stabilised. Strict control should be maintained over the use of Offroad Vehicles (ORVs) on beaches. There must be a strictly enforced ban (that includes management vehicles) against driving in dune systems and above the high water mark on beaches.

Access to the beach must be controlled via designated access points.

Provision should be made for rehabilitation of mined-out areas when mining ceases, and of historically mined areas.

Development guidelines for Dune areas: Infrastructure must be positioned to avoid damage from coastal processes and, where possible, to avoid the need for physical defences against potential damage resulting from coastal processes.

No permanent infrastructure should be installed on sandy beaches and in dynamic or mobile dune systems. Development setback lines must be rigorously applied, taking into account the need to protect development from coastal processes by: absorption of the impacts of severe storm sequences:


o allowing for shoreline movement; o allowing for global sea level rise; allowing for the fluctuation of natural coastal processes; o and any combination of the above.

Development setbacks must also take into account biodiversity and ecosystem requirements (especially in Dune Thicket systems), landscape, seascape, visual amenity, indigenous and cultural heritage, public access, recreation, and safety to lives and property (consult the guideline on Dune Thicket and Dune Fynbos p.32).

Avoid the removal and fragmentation of indigenous vegetation in the frontal dune area. Maintain a buffer of contiguous indigenous vegetation between the inland boundary of the youngest fixed dune trough and the seaward boundary of the development (the exact setback will depend on the biophysical characteristics and requirements of the area, and the type and scale of development) .

There must be rigorous adherence to the precautionary principle when constructing fixed infrastructure below the high water mark. Driving on sandy beaches above the high water mark or in dune systems must be prohibited.

The ban on driving should also be maintained at popular bathing beaches, on beaches that support important shorebird breeding, feeding or roosting sites, and in the coast al zone of coast al protected areas except on proclaimed roads.

Avoid developments that may impede seasonal cycles of sediment deposition (summer) and erosion (winter).

Maintain and restore, if invaded by rooikrans, unimpeded sand mobility corridors (including headland bypass and climbing-falling dunes).

Indigenous vegetation structure and successional dynamics (including that of primary and foredunes, and in dune slacks) must be maintained.

A functional corridor of indigenous vegetation must be retained along the coast to link inland trending river systems.

This is crucial for the migration and dispersal of plants and fauna. Decomposition processes at the high water mark and on the back beach should be maintained by confining the removal of drift kelp and other organic material to popular bathing beaches.

Minimise disturbance of shore birds by people and dogs at important breeding, feeding and roosting sites.

Soil conservation work means any work which is constructed on land for-


a) the prevention of erosion or the conservation of land which is subject to erosion; b) the conservation or improvement of the vegetation or the surface of the soil; c) the drainage of superfluous surface or subterranean water; d) the conservation or reclamation of any water source; or e) the prevention of the silting of dams and the pollution of water, but not a work which is

constructed on land in the course of prospecting or mining activities; Maintenance of soil conservation works and maintenance of certain states of affairs

(1)(a) A soil conservation work shall, except where otherwise provided in this Act or a scheme, be

maintained by every land user of the land concerned and his successor in title at his own expense

in a manner which, in the opinion of the executive officer, will ensure the continued efficiency

thereof

High Mountains The key reasons for controlling development in these areas are:

Mountains, hills and ridges provide catchment areas for valuable surface water resources.

Mountains, hills and ridges are often characterized by unique and sensitive ecosystems.

Mountains, hills and ridges are of aesthetic/scenic value.

Remote mountainous areas provide a “wilderness” experience which is important for the well being of people. They may also be of religious, spiritual or cultural value to people.

These areas have a high scenic value and attract tourists and recreational users. This provides opportunities for passive and active recreational developments.

Rich mineral resources can occur in these areas and can be suitable for other economic activities such as forestry and agriculture.

These areas provide suitable locations for infrastructure developments such as dams, cable cars and communication towers.

Properties in these areas are generally of high value which makes them desirable for residential development.

The Department’s approach to controlling development on mountains, hills and ridges is underpinned by determining:


Which areas can development be considered or where should it be avoided?

Where development can be considered, what type and form of development can be considered in the respective areas of a mountain, hill or ridge?

The determination of appropriate development on mountains, hills and ridges will be guided by:

The demarcated urban edge (where this has been determined); or

The identification of a development line (where no urban edge has been determined); in combination with

The environmental sensitivity (based on biophysical, cultural and social characteristics) of the mountain, hill or ridge.

The following environmental characteristics will serve as key indicators of environmental sensitivity

by the Directorate

a. Development on steep slopes (i.e. steeper than 1:4) will be strongly discouraged as such areas are

subject to erosion and instability. Slope steepness will be evaluated for the area of the site where

development is being proposed and not for the site as a whole. As a general principle, development

should be located on lower-lying or gently sloping portions of a site.

b. Development on the crest of a mountain, hill or ridge will be strongly discouraged.

c. Development in an area, which has been declared a mountain catchment area in terms of the

Mountain Catchment Areas Act, Act 63 of 1970 will be strongly discouraged.

d. Development in locations on mountains, hills or ridges that serve as a source of water (e.g. spring,

seep, river or stream source) will be strongly discouraged.

e. Development in areas where sensitive fauna or flora occurs such as Red Data plant or animal

species will be strongly discouraged.

f. Development in areas that are of cultural importance will be strongly discouraged. This includes


burial sites, sites used as places of worship, burial sites and archaeological sites.

Slopes Steep Slopes

Steep slope is a major factor in the correct siting of structure and roads. Steep slopes are problematic in being unstable and susceptible to erosion.

Additional constraints occur with limited access, foundation and disposal of septic tank effluent. These limitations are costly to implement with a higher risk of failure, and increased disturbance of the development site.

Development on steep and very steep slopes are not desirable or supported.

Activities on slopes steeper than 1:4 or in any areas identified as geotechnically unsuitable or unstable must be avoided.

Steep slopes are important, since even gentle gradients will require preparation by meansof terracing, and the resultant earthworks may add significantly to the impact especially where slopes exceed 15%.

Developments on steep slopes are likely to result in excessive visual scarring due to the cut and fill slopes associated with the creation of building platforms, infrastructure and access requirements.

Where activities on steep or very steep slopes have been proved to be essential, extensive studies should be undertaken and strict conditions laid down regarding: o Engineering requirements, o Mitigating measures to minimise visual impact, o Measure to rehabilitate exposed slopes, o Control measures to minimise disturbance during construction, o Limiting disturbance due to access, o Stabilisation of areas after disturbance.

Control should be exercised on activities related to developments adjacent to steep slopes to ensure that: o A vegetated buffer strip is maintained at the toe and head of the slope. The

width of the buffer strip will be determined by the extent of the slope, nature of the vegetation and the type of development, o Measures are taken to address possible access requirements across the slope.

Coastal

Management

Guidelines


Unstable natural slopes:

Areas illustrating ‘slide topography’, and areas of cover sands on steep slopes manifest in the form of slumps, scars, hummocky ground below scarps, leaning trees or displaced fences will indicate the possibility of slope movement. This will severe situation will require a comprehensive environmental impact assessment.

Other risk areas include highly jointed rock slopes, high rainfall areas, areas subject to seismic activity where deep residual or transported soils of intermediate texture are found on moderate slopes.

6. Management Provisions for Visually Sensitive Areas

Feature: Visually Sensitive Areas

Objective Management Guidelines / Provision / Advice Key Policy

Reference

Legislative provisions Current South African environmental legislation governing the EIA process, which may include

consideration of visual impacts if this is identified as a key issue of concern, is the National

Environmental Management Act (NEMA) (Act No. 107 of 1998) and the EIA regulations in terms of the

Environment Conservation Act (Act No. 73 of 1989).

The regulations governing the EIA process are currently being revised and will be replaced by

regulations promulgated in terms of the NEMA. The Protected Areas Act (NEMA) (Act 57 of 2003,

Section 17) is also intended to protect natural landscapes.

The National Heritage Resources Act (Act No. 25 of 1999) and the associated provincial regulations

provides legislative protection for listed or proclaimed sites, such as urban conservation areas, nature

reserves and proclaimed scenic routes. Visual pollution is controlled, to a limited extent, by the

Advertising on Roads and Ribbons Act (Act No. 21 of 1940), which deals mainly with signage on public

DEADP WC

Guidelines


roads.

Visual and aesthetic resources are also protected by local authorities, such as the City of Cape Town,

where policies and by-laws relating to urban edge lines, scenic drives, special areas, signage,

communication masts, etc. have been formulated

Impacting development

activities

High intensity type projects including large-scale infrastructure;

A change in land use from the prevailing use;

A use that is in conflict with an adopted plan or vision for the area;

A significant change to the fabric and character of the area;

A significant change to the townscape or streetscape;

Possible visual intrusion in the landscape;

Obstruction of views of others in the area.

Development categories for

visual control

Category 1 development: e.g. nature reserves, nature-related recreation, camping, picnicking, trails

and minimal visitor facilities.

Category 2 development: e.g. low-key recreation / resort / residential type development, small-scale

agriculture / nurseries, narrow roads and small-scale infrastructure.

Category 3 development: e.g. low density resort / residential type development, golf or polo estates,

low to medium-scale infrastructure.

Category 4 development: e.g. medium density residential development, sports facilities, small-scale

commercial facilities / office parks, one-stop petrol stations, light industry, medium-scale

infrastructure.

Category 5 development: e.g. high density township / residential development, retail and office

complexes, industrial facilities, refineries, treatment plants, power stations, wind energy farms,

power lines, freeways, toll roads, large scale infrastructure generally. Large-scale development of

agricultural land and commercial tree plantations. Quarrying and mining activities with related


processing plants.

Protect areas with

significant visual qualities

Areas with protection status, such as national parks or nature reserves;

Areas with proclaimed heritage sites or scenic routes;

Areas with intact wilderness qualities, or pristine ecosystems;

Areas with intact or outstanding rural or townscape qualities;

Areas with a recognized special character or sense of place;

Areas lying outside a defined urban edge line;

Areas with sites of cultural or religious significance;

Areas of important tourism or recreation value;

Areas with important vistas or scenic corridors Areas with visually prominent ridgelines or skylines.

DEADP WC Visual

Guideline

Areas of scenic beauty,

scenic routes and special

features

Proposed activities / developments within areas of outstanding natural beauty, scenic drives and

panoramic views must be sensitive to the natural beauty. The layout, buildings, density, landscape

treatment and infrastructure should:

Be visually unobtrusive,

Utilise materials and colours that originate from or blend into the surrounding landscape,

Be grouped in clusters with open spaces between clusters,

Not interfere with the skyline, landmarks, major views and vistas,

Respond to the historical, architectural and landscape style of surrounding layout and buildings,

Incorporate existing man-made or natural landmarks and movement patterns.

Coastal

Management

Guidelines

Development within visually

sensitive areas

Any development within a visually sensitive area must be planned to ensure that earthworks do not have any detrimental impacts on wetlands and flood areas,

In road cuttings this will require the services of a competent professional to ensure structurally sound, aesthetically acceptable and environmentally sensitive landscaping. The landscaping should take factors such as vegetation, soil colour, recoverability, slope and elevation into account.

Coastal

Management

Guidelines


APPENDIX E: SPATIAL PLANNING CATEGORIES & LAND USE GUIDELINES


GUIDELINES FOR CORE SPCs

DEFINITION OF CORE

SPC

PURPOSE OF CORE SPC POSSIBLE LAND USE & ACTIVITIES IN THE CORE SPC CORE SPC

DELINEATION

GUIDELINES What kinds of activities? Where to locate? Appropriate Form & Scale

Core 1 Areas

Core 1 Areas are those parts

of the rural landscape

required to meet biodiversity

patterns or ecological

processes (i.e. critical

biodiversity areas). These

include habitats classified as

highly irreplaceable, critically

endangered, or endangered

terrestrial (land), aquatic

(rivers, wetlands & estuaries)

and marine habitats.

These also include areas

currently not yet exhibiting

high levels of biodiversity loss,

but which should be protected

and restored in order to

ensure biodiversity pattern

and ecological process

targets/thresholds can be met

in the most efficient way

possible.

Also includes essential

(i) Designate which parts of the rural landscape are of highest conservation importance, and if they are currently protected or not.

(ii) Informs expansion of the protected area network.

(iii) Delineates areas that must be maintained in, or restored to, a natural state in order to sustain biodiversity patterns and processes and the functionality of eco-system services.

(iv) Identify areas of land that could serve as biodiversity offset receiving areas.

(v) In combination with Core 2 Areas, they spatially define the ‘core’ of the rural landscape’s ecological network.

Essentially ‘no-go’ areas from a

development perspective.

Accordingly they should, as far as

possible, remain undisturbed by

human impact.

Conservation management

activities such as alien clearing,

research and environmental

education should be encouraged.

Subject to stringent controls the

following biodiversity-compatible

land uses (i.e. those of very low

impact) may be accommodated in

Core areas:

o Non-consumptive low impact eco-tourism activities such as recreation and tourism (e.g. hiking trails, bird and game watching, and visitor overnight accommodation).

o Harvesting of natural resources

No development is permissible in

proclaimed Wilderness Areas.

Wherever possible, structures

associated with activities in Core

Areas should preferably be

located in neighbouring Buffer

areas.

Fine-scale environmentally

sensitivity mapping should inform

the placement of essential

buildings or structures in Core

areas (e.g. as per SANParks CDF

planning process).

Where structures associated with

biodiversity-compatible activities

are located in Core areas, these

should preferably be located on

currently disturbed footprints.

Where buildings and structures in

Core Areas are justifiable, “touch the

earth lightly” construction principles

should be applied to ensure that

development is in harmony with the

character of the surrounding

landscape and to ensure the

maintenance of its natural qualities.

The receiving environment and

aesthetic qualities of an area must be

the determinant of the scale and

form of development.

Good management practices, with

small low density footprints,

appropriate technology and design

concepts (e.g. Enviro-loos, temporary

structures, green architecture and

use of natural resources).

Temporary structures to be

preferred (e.g. wooden structures,

(i) Include all formal Protected Areas.

(ii) Include all land designated as Critical Biodiversity Areas (public or private) that should be protected and eventually incorporated into the Protected Areas network.

(iii) Where possible incentivise incorporation using the following designations:

- Private Land; Stewardship Agreements or as a Protected Environment or Nature Reserve i.t.o. NEMA or the Protected Areas Act.

- Municipal Land; Nature Reserve i.t.o. NEMA or Protected Areas Act.

- Forest Nature Reserves through the National Forest Act and Wilderness Areas i.t.o. of the Wilderness Act.

- Title deed restrictions where land has been designated under the Stewardship Program or declared a Nature



DEFINITION OF CORE

SPC


DELINEATION


biological corridors vital to

sustain their functionality.

Two components of the rural

landscape make up Core 1

Areas:

(i) All areas with formal conservation status (i.t.o. the Protected Areas Act), namely: national parks; provincial nature reserves; designated mountain catchment areas (i.t.o. the Mountain Catchments Areas Act); forestry reserves; wilderness areas; and marine reserves (i.t.o. the Marine Living Resources Act).

(ii) Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA), as identified through a systematic conservation planning process, that have no formal conservation status. These may comprise terrestrial or aquatic habitats, remnants or features that must be conserved to meet national biodiversity pattern or process thresholds.

(e.g. wild flowers for medicinal, culinary or commercial use), subject to EMP demonstrating the sustainability of harvesting.

Where Core areas are identified on

land that has no formal

conservation status (e.g. private

farm), no further loss of natural

habitat should occur.

Given the often high visual or

aesthetic value of these landscapes,

no large-scale eco-tourism

developments to be permitted.

Land consolidation should be

encourages and sub-division

prohibited.

Restrict development in Mountain

Catchment Areas in order to

maintain their high water yielding

and water quality function (e.g.

plantations or activities resulting

in increased sediment inputs to

aquatic systems).

tents, and/or tree canopy structures,

with units carefully dispersed or

clustered to achieve least impact.

Raised boardwalks preferred or

alternatively porous materials and

design concepts.

Stringent management programs for

resource harvesting informed by

determination of carrying capacity

and a management plan to ensure

appropriate harvesting techniques

and volumes.

Reserve or Protected Environment



DEFINITION OF CORE

SPC


DELINEATION


Core 2 Areas

This category includes:

(i) Areas currently not yet exhibiting high levels of biodiversity loss, but which should be protected and restored in order to ensure biodiversity pattern and ecological process targets can be met in the most efficient way possible.

(ii) Ecological Support Areas (ESA) to Critical Biodiversity Areas (i.e. river reaches within priority CBA sub-catchments which prevent degradation of CBA’s).

(iii) CBA aquatic Buffer areas including CBA catchment areas.

(iv) Coastline and coastal processes.

(v) River and ecological corridors (those not classified essential as per Core 1 definition).

(vi) Mountain Catchment Areas.

Manage to restore and

sustain eco-system

functioning, especially

ecological processes (i.e.

rivers and seep clusters and

their respective buffers) in

support of wetlands and

rivers in Critical Biodiversity

Areas.

Biodiversity – compatible and low

impact conservation land uses as

per Core 1 Areas, but allowing for a

limited increase in scale of

development in less sensitive areas

(provided ecological processes not

disrupted). To be informed by

environmental sensitivity mapping,

transformation thresholds and

cumulative impacts. Biodiversity

offsets may be necessary in this

case.

Where existing agricultural

activities (e.g. livestock) occur in

Core 1 or Core 2 Areas, it needs to

be subject to:

- Lower impact practices - Lower than standard stocking

rates - Resting cycles (i.e. rotational

grazing) - Wetland & river bank protection

to avoid over-grazing, trampling and destabilization

- Avoiding areas containing red data species

- Limiting “value-adding” to nature-based tourism.

As for Core 1 Areas

As for Core 1 Areas

(i) Delineation and inclusion of Critical Ecological Support Areas (i.e. river reaches and their buffers and significant seep clusters in support of CBA rivers and wetlands).

(ii) Coastline outside the urban edge, together with coastal processes to be included.



DEFINITION OF CORE

SPC


DELINEATION


Incentivise consolidation of the

conservation estate by:

- Introducing limited low density rural housing development rights

- Financial incentives (i.t.o. the Property Rates Act)

- Other incentives (e.g. resource economic approaches)

No further extensions of intensive

or extensive agriculture


GUIDELINES FOR BUFFER SPCs

DEFINITION OF BUFFER

SPC

PURPOSE OF BUFFER

SPC

POSSIBLE LAND USE & ACTIVITIES IN THE BUFFER SPC BUFFER SPC

DELINEATION


Buffer 1 Areas

Bufer 1 SPC comprises large

intact portions and remnants

of natural or near natural

vegetation not designated as

CBA or ESA, especially in

proximity/adjacent to CBAs

and/or ESA:

(i) To restore & maintain ecological processes.

(ii) To retain landscape scale biodiversity corridors

(iii) To strengthen the conservation and extensive agricultural economies through;

- incentivising the consolidation and maintenance of extensive agricultural units; and

- broadening the agricultural economic base through farm diversification of use and revenue generation (e.g. farm tourism)

(iv) To buffer Ecological Support Areas (including CBA Buffer Areas) which support Critical Biodiversity Areas.

(v) To enhance biodiversity through innovative agricultural practices (e.g. veld management) and rehabilitation of previously disturbed agricultural land.

(vi) To buffer against the impacts of climate change.

(i) Conservation activities as per Core 1 and 2 Areas including sustainable consumptive or non-consumptive uses.

(ii) Biodiversity compatible land uses as informed by transformation thresholds, including: - Low density Rural

Residential Development - Resort and holiday

accommodation - Tourist and recreational

facilities - Additional dwelling units

(iii) Development (e.g. structures) in support of both tourism and biodiversity conservation in Core Areas preferably be located in Buffer 1 and 2 if logistically feasible.

(iv) Extensive agriculture comprising extensive game and livestock farming, subject to the following: - Lower impact practices be

favoured (e.g. indigenous game farming as opposed to domestic livestock production)

- Lower than standard stocking rates be employed

- Resting cycles (i.e.

(i) Development to target existing farm precincts and disturbed areas, with the employment of existing structures and footprints to accommodate development.

(ii) Extensive developments (e.g. caravan and camping sites) be restricted to sites of limited visual exposure and sites not prominent in the landscape.

(iii) Consolidation and maintenance of Buffer Area land units should be promoted, especially when in private ownership, through encouraging voluntary stewardship together with incentives (e.g. alienable property rights and opportunities in terms of the Property Rates Act).

(i) Development to reinforce farm precinct and reflect similar vernacular in terms of scale, form and design.

(ii) In the absence of existing farmsteads, development to reflect compact and unobtrusive nodes, conforming to local vernacular in terms of scale, form and design.

(iii) Development design (e.g. resort) to embrace the spatial form, movement patterns, building design and conservation and ecology of the area through: - Maintaining the

dominance of the natural and agricultural landscapes

- Maintaining and enhancing natural continuities of green spaces, riverine corridors and movement

- Maintaining dominant landscape features and their continuity (e.g. ridge lines, valleys)

- Protecting conservation-worthy places and heritage areas (e.g. farmsteads)

(i) All land designated as Large intact portions/r remnants of natural or near natural vegetation not designated as CBA or ESA, especially in proximity/adjacent to CBAs and/or ESA including: - rivers and wetlands

(together with their buffers)

- vulnerable and least threatened vegetation types

- significant water yield areas, and

- significant groundwater recharge and discharge areas

(ii) Corridors (river, vegetation, habitat) necessary to promote and sustain ecological processes.




SPC

PURPOSE OF BUFFER

SPC


DELINEATION


rotational grazing) be employed

- Buffer areas be protected from over-grazing and trampling in order to avoid wetland shoreline and river bank erosion and destabilization

- Avoidance of areas containing red data species

- Strictly limited “value-adding” through intensified tourism (e.g. resort or recreational facilities) or consumptive uses (e.g. hunting)

(v) Extension of extensive agriculture may be accommodated if accompanied with biodiversity offsets, with receiving areas for such offsets being on-site or in other Core 1 areas.

Buffer 2 Areas

This category includes areas

designated as Other Natural

Areas, located in an extensive

and/or intensive agriculture

matrix (i.e. livestock

production) as the dominant

land use

(i) Manage for sustainable development of current land use in the area.

(ii) Protect existing agricultural activity (i.e. livestock production) to ensure food security, contribution to the regional economy, maintenance and

(i) Activities and uses directly relating to the primary agricultural enterprise

(ii) Farm buildings & activities associated with the primary agricultural activity, including a homestead, agricultural buildings and worker accommodation

(iii) Additional dwelling units,

(i) Location of primary agricultural activities (e.g. livestock production) to be informed by the exclusion of steep slopes, wetlands, floodplains of rivers and streams (and associated buffers), as well as areas of remnant vegetation

(ii) Development in support of primary cultivation (e.g.

(i) Development of the primary agricultural enterprise (e.g. livestock production) to comply with existing guidelines for extensive agriculture, including:

- Carrying capacity; - veld management and soil

erosion control; & - agricultural setback on

wetlands, rivers and streams

All other natural areas that

are located in an agricultural

matrix, including:

- Existing extensive agricultural areas

- All areas considered suitable for current and future extensive




SPC

PURPOSE OF BUFFER

SPC


DELINEATION


management of rural areas and contributing and to the working agricultural and cultural landscape.

(iii) Facilitate agricultural diversification and non-agricultural opportunities (e.g. game farming, tourist facilities) and “value-adding” to the primary product (e.g. cheese-making).

(iv) Accommodate space extensive and nuisance urban uses, and extensive agricultural uses (e.g. waste water treatment plants, piggeries, mushroom growing plants, etc.).

(v) Enhance biodiversity through innovative agricultural practices (e.g. veld management).

(vi) Minimize fragmentation of remaining natural habitats and corridors.

(vii) Reverse lost biodiversity in order to reinstate buffer zones and corridors.

(viii) Rehabilitate degraded areas (e.g. agricultural, mining).

including: - units approved under the

agricultural-land policy equating to 1 additional non-alienable dwelling unit per 10ha to a maximum of 5 per agricultural unit

- units permissible in terms of Rural Residential Development

(iv) Additional land uses to facilitate

diversification and “value

adding” including:

- Small-scale holiday accommodation (farmstay, B&B, guesthouse, boutique hotel,);

- restaurant, lifestyle retail, venue facility;

- farmstall & farmstore; - home occupation - local product processing

(e.g. cheese-making) - tourist & recreational

facilities (e.g. hiking trail, 4x4 routes)

(iv) No fragmentation of farm cadastral unit, with spot zoning and consent uses employed to accommodate non-agricultural uses

(v) On-farm settlement of farmworkers, using existing housing stock or upgraded hostels

(vi) Buffer 2 Areas within the

product handling and processing) to be located within or peripheral to the farmstead precinct or as distinct clusters at farm outposts.

(iii) Development associated with farm diversification or “value adding” should:

- not result in excessive expansion and encroachment of building development and land use into the farm area; and

- not be located in visually exposed areas given the extensive landscape of extensive farming areas

(iv) Development (i.e. farm diversification or “value-adding”) to be located within or peripheral to the farmstead precinct or outposts and should be accommodated in re-used, converted or replaced farm buildings (i.e. existing footprint) or to target disturbed areas

(v) Location of additional development to be informed by existing farm road access and existing on-line services network

(vi) Buffer 2 areas within the “fringe” of urban settlements to be determined through an integrated urban fringe study to determine their extent and

as per CARA regulations. (ii) Building development to reflect

the style, scale, form and the significance of the farmstead precinct or farm outpost, their buildings and setting

(iii) In the absence of existing farmsteads or outposts, development to reflect compact and unobtrusive nodes, conforming to local vernacular in terms of scale, form and design.

(iv) Development design (e.g. resort) to maintain and enhance the dominance of the agricultural landscape, continuation of green spaces, riverine corridors, and dominant landscape features (e.g. ridge lines)

agricultural activities as identified in the LandCare/Area-Wide Planning Programme

- All areas of endangered vegetation that are not included in a CBA or ESA,, including remnants

Corridors (river, and

biodiversity), wetlands

natural habitats




SPC

PURPOSE OF BUFFER

SPC


DELINEATION


“fringe” of urban settlements to accommodate the following uses not suited to location within the urban edge:

- space extensive requirements (e.g. regional sports & recreation facilities, tourist facilities)

- nuisance and buffer requirements (e.g. waste water treatment plants, cemeteries, solid waste disposal sites, airports, feedlots, quarries and mines, truck stops)

suitability for accommodating space extensive and nuisance agricultural and urban uses.

GUIDELINES FOR INTENSIVE AGRICULTURE SPCs

DEFINITION PURPOSE OF INTENSIVE

AGRICULTURE SPC

POSSIBLE LAND USE & ACTIVITIES IN INTENSIVE AGRICULTURE SPC SPC DELINEATION

GUIDELINES

What kinds of activities? Where to locate? Appropriate Form &

Scale

The Intensive

Agriculture SPC

comprises a

consolidation of the

existing and potential

intensive agricultural

footprint (i.e.

homogeneous farming

(i) Consolidating & protecting existing & potential agricultural landscapes.

(ii) Facilitating sustainable agricultural development, land and agrarian reform, and food security.

(i) Activities and uses directly related to the primary agricultural enterprise.

(ii) Farm buildings and associated structures (e.g. homestead, barns, farm worker accommodation, etc).

(i) The location of agricultural activities will be dictated by local on-farm agro-climatic conditions (e.g. soils, slope, etc.), but wetlands, floodplains & important vegetation remnants should be kept in a natural state.

(i) Farming to be undertaken in accordance with existing guidelines regarding slope, setbacks around wetlands and streams, etc (as per CARA Regs).

The SPC should be

delineated to consolidate

farming landscapes.

Land suitable for intensive

agriculture should be


areas made up of

cultivated land and

production support

areas).

The Intensive

Agriculture SPC

includes:

(i) Irrigated crop cultivation (annual & perennial)

(ii) Dry land crop cultivation including tillage of non-irrigated crops (annual & perennial)

(iii) Timber plantations

(iii) Additional dwelling units approved under the policy of 1 additional non-alienable dwelling unit per 10ha, up to a maximum of 5 per farm

(iv) Ancillary rural activities of appropriate scale that do not detract from farming production, that diversify farm income, and add value to locally produced products, e.g: - small-scale rural holiday accommodation

(e.g. farmstay, B&B, guesthouse, boutique hotel);

- restaurant, rural lifestyle retail; function venue facility;

- farmstall and farmstore; - home occupation (farm product

processing); - local product processing (e.g. winery, olive

pressing); and - rural recreational facilities (e.g. riding

school)

(v) Ancillary on-farm activities in an Intensive Agriculture SPC will be impacted on by surrounding farming activities (e.g. dust generation, spray drift, etc), and these impacts are not grounds for restricting farming production.

(vi) Large scale resorts, and tourist and recreation facilities should not be accommodated within Intensive Agriculture SPCs as they detract from the functionality and integrity of productive landscapes.

(vii) Intensive-feed farming should not be accommodated in Intensive Agriculture SPCs due to their operational impacts (e.g. odour and traffic).

(viii) Nurseries in Intensive Agriculture SPCs should limit propagation to local crop types

(ii) Ancillary activities should be located within or peripheral to the farmstead precinct (preferably in re-used or replaced farm buildings and disturbed areas), not on good or moderate soils, and linked to existing farm road access and the services network.

(ii) Facilities for ancillary on-farm activities should be in scale with and reinforce the farmstead precinct, enhance the historic built fabric and respect conservation-worthy places.

(iii) Landscaping should complement existing planting patterns.

(iv) Fragmentation of farm cadastral unit should be prevented, and consent uses and spot zoning employed for managing ancillary on-farm activities.

(v) Consolidation of cadastral units should be promoted, especially where farms have conservation-worthy natural remnants (see Appendix A for Conservation Stewardship Options).

included, such as:

Existing intensive agricultural superblocks,

areas of High Potential and Unique Agricultural Land (HPUAL),

areas in between of lower agricultural potential that are not Core or Buffer SPCs,

areas identified in the Land Care/ Area-Wide Planning Programs,

areas having irrigation rights or future irrigation potential, and

land suitable for small-scale farming in close proximity to settlements.


GUIDELINES FOR SETTLEMENT SPCs

DEFINITION PURPOSE OF SETTLEMENT

SPC

POSSIBLE LAND USE & ACTIVITIES IN SETTLEMENT SPC SPC DELINEATION

GUIDELINES

What kinds of activities? Where to locate? Appropriate Form &

Scale

This category includes

all existing cities, large

and smaller towns,

villages and hamlets,

and all forms of new

human settlements.

To develop & manage existing

and new settlements on a

sustainable basis.

Where-ever possible existing

settlements should be used to

accommodate non-agricultural

rural development activities and

facilities. This is for reasons of:

- local economic development;

- consolidating, integrating and reinforcing settlement structure;

- improving service delivery;

- strengthening rural-urban linkages;

- promoting socio-economic development;

- increasing thresholds for service delivery and social facilities

In line with the principles of the

Provincial Growth and

Development Strategy, new

settlements in the rural

landscape should only be

established in essential

circumstances (e.g. power

station)

(i) Agricultural activities of excessive scale and non-agricultural activities not suited for location in the Intensive Agricultural and Buffer 1 and 2 Areas to be located within settlements or their “fringe areas”. These activities include: - Off-farm residential development and

farm worker accommodation (e.g. in “agricultural suburbs”)

- Agricultural industry (e.g. wine bottling plant) and regional product processing (e.g. fruit cannery)

- Institutions (e.g. jail or rehabilitation centre)

- Agricultural colleges and schools - Large-scale tourist accommodation (e.g.

hotel) and facilities (e.g. waterpark) - Service trades - Footloose business, including farming co-

operatives, agricultural requisites and filling stations

(ii) New settlements should be restricted to: - Servicing of geographically isolated

farming areas; - servicing rural resource exploitation (e.g.

mine); - proclaiming the urban component of

existing Act 9 and church settlements (e.g. Wupperthal, Genadendal), and

- servicing significant infrastructural developments (e.g. new power plant) situated in an isolated location.

Non-agricultural related land uses

and activities associated with rural

development initiatives should,

where-ever possible, be located in

existing settlements. Preference

should be given to settlements

along dominant routes and

accessible to bulk services

corridors. The SDF and its urban

edge component should define

areas suitable for the expansion of

existing settlements. Visual impact

considerations should be taken

into account, especially within

settlement gateways.

Where new settlements need to

be established, consideration

needs to be given to:

- Environnemental impact (e.g. waste management)

- Visual impact, especially on the rural landscape

- Historical settlement patterns and form

- Natural landscape and topographical form as design informants

New buildings and

structures should conform

with the massing, form,

height and material use in

existing settlements.

When accommodating

development in existing

settlements the following

principles should be

adhered to:

- Retain the compact form of smaller settlements;

- maintain and enhance public spaces;

- reinforce the close relationship of settlements to the regional route structure;

- integrate new development into the settlement structure; and

- respect socio-historical and cultural places.

(i) All settlements as delineated by their interim and/or medium-term urban edges.

(ii) Urban “fringe areas” as denoted within Buffer 2 Area immediately peripheral to urban edges.

(iii) Use CBA and HPUAL mapping to inform delineation.


APPENDIX F: BULK INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT

HIGH LEVEL INFRASTRUCTURE REVIEW REPORT

KNYSNA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY

DRAFT 2

Submission Date: 02/03/2010

1. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this document is to provide a “High Level Situation Assessment” of the infrastructure and the transportation components for each of the

towns in the Knysna Local Municipality (LM), which will serve as input into the compilation of the Municipality’s SDF’s and HSP’s. The current report is one

of the deliverables in the “Desk-top analysis” stage and will further be used to inform the Desktop and On-site Reviews as follows:


Assessment of current bulk infrastructure assets versus the existing need and future requirements

Red-flag critical infrastructure problems

Identifying gaps in the current SDF’s and HSP’s with regards to infrastructure and transportation

The document will focus on the following key areas related to the existing infrastructure and transportation systems:

High level demand/or/load balance of the current bulk supply versus current demand/or/load

Adress how the Municipality aims to strategically cater for future demands or loads (if information is available)

Identify problem areas associated with infrastructure and transportation, specifically highlighting critical areas that will hinder any future development

Identify any future schemes proposed in the IDP or any other strategic studies

Infrastructure will be limited to water, wastewater, electricity and solid waste disposal, and is focussed specifically on the bulk component which is the

more significant constraint that could pose a threat to future development or growth in each of the urban towns. This report will also aim to provide

feedback on the transportation components, addressing traffic and public transportation specifically. The towns to be addressed within this report for

Knysna LM, as well as the existing population and anticipated population growth rate are presented below:


Town 2001

Census

2005

WSDP 2007 CS

WMP

(2007)

Table 3.2

Preferred

Growth

Rate

(p.a)

Additional

Seasonal

Visitors

Base 2007

Population

Future

Population

(2027) due to

developments

only

Future

Population

(2027)

based on

current

population

figures

Proposed

Future

Population

(2027)

Knysna

45,113

40,853

44,445

33,995 2.00%

15,000

50,805 31944

75,493

107,437

Sedgefield

4,132

10,614

16,730

13,530 1.25%

5,000

13,530 1260

17,346

18,606

Buffalo Bay

126

1,592

660 0.75%

2,000

660 0

766

766

Karatara

4,449

588

700 0.25%

-

700 3788

736

4,524

Rheenendal

1,907

7,934

3,425 0.50%

5,000

3,425 1400

3,784

5,184

Summary

55,727

51,467

71,289

52,310 4.2%

27,000

69,120

38,392

98,125

136,517

The Spatial Development Framework (November 2007) listed the proposed future developments in terms of development opportunities, which is reflected

in the above table as “Additional population due to future developments”. It has been assumed that the proposed future development will be rolled out

over a 20 year period, up until 2007. The additional population due to the future developments was calculated by assuming four people per household. It is

further noted that the proposed future population for 2027 comprises of the sum of the following two components:


The existing population project to 2027 assuming the preferred growth rate listed in the table above; and

The population as a result of the future developments listed in the Spatial Development Framework.

2. INFRASTRUCTURE

2.1 Water

The IDP has indicated growth in the municipal area as a result of economic activities, tourism and immigration in the Municipality, resulting in a significant

increase in the demand for water (potable and non-potable). According to the 2009 Comprehensive Infrastructure Plan (CIP), there is an existing water

backlog of 9 032 units. This backlog is in term linked to the housing backlog. The WSDP on the other hand indicates that all consumers within the

Municipality’s urban areas have access to the basic level of water supply, with limited backlogs within the rural areas which are currently being addressed.

2.1.1 Source

This Bulk Water Supply situation for each town has been tabulated below in the form of a water balance, which is a simple calculation of the annual water

available (source) at a particular “assurance of supply”, in comparison with the annual water demand. The information below has been extracted from the

Water Services Development Plan (WSDP) and Water Master Plan (WMP):


Town

2007 2027

Comment

Yield

Supply

(Ml/yr)

Water

Demand

(Ml/yr)

Unit

Water

Demand

(l/psn/day)

Surplus/or/

Shortfall

(Ml/yr)

2027

Water

Demand

(Ml/yr)

2027

Surplus/or/

Shortfall

based on

current

yield

(Ml/yr)

Knysna 4794 3,425 184.70 39.97% 7,243 -33.81%

• The 2007 water demand and yield were

abstracted from the WSDP.

• Knysna is supplied with water from the

Knysna River, Gouna River, Glebe Dam and

Bigai Springs. The licensed abstraction or

safe yield from these springs is unknown.

The Knysna WTW is supplied by gravity from

the Knysna Balancing Dam. The treated

water from the WTW is pumped into

various distribution reservoirs which

eventually feed into the internal reticulation

network.

Sedgefield 916 792 160.38 15.65% 1,089 -15.90%

• Sedgefield is supplied with raw surface

water from the Karatara River and is also

supplemented by four boreholes in the

area.

• The raw water is pumped to the Ruigtevlei


WTW located close to the off-take point.

Both the pump station and the WTW have a

capacity of 0.91 million m³/a.

•Water Supply is a major problem and until

secured and assured, the Council is not able

to approve water supplies for any new

developments in Sedgefield.

Buffalo Bay 41 41 169.70 0.29% 47 -13.63%

• Buffalo Bay is supplied with raw surface water from the Goukamma River. The water supply is supplemented by boreholes, of which the yield is unknown.

• Information available in the WSDP

indicates that the inclusion of the Summer

Requirements usually triples the Annual

Water Demand.

Karatara 81 81 317.14 -0.04% 524 -84.53%

• Karatara obtains raw surface water from the Karatara River. The existing water supply system has no seasonal storage and the assurance of supply is therefore entirely dependent on the availability of low flows in the river.



Requirements usually double the Annual

Water Demand.


Rheenendal 95 88 70.36 8.00% 133 -28.65%

• Rheenendal’s primary source of water is

the Homtini River and boreholes in the area.

• The 2006/07 WMP, however, states that

the only available water source for

Rheenendal is groundwater extracted from

boreholes. The amount of groundwater

abstracted is not available.



Requirements usually double the Annual

Water Demand.

The following is also noted with regards to the above tabulated information:

The license abstraction from the boreholes in Knysna, Buffalo Bay and Rheenendal must be confirmed.

The existing Karatara water supply system has no seasonal storage and the assurance of supply is therefore entirely dependent on the availability of low flows in the river.

Most of the towns in the Municipality are critical in terms of water resource availability to cater for future demands. Most of the experience exceptionally high summer peak demands due to their popularity as tourist destination, resulting in water shortages during these peak summer periods. It is recommended that the Municipality investigate additional sources of water as a matter of urgency.

Currently, the water supply situation in this area is critical as a result of drought conditions in the area. The assured yield of the existing water source is insufficient to meet the present and projected future water requirements and the water source need to be augmented urgently. There are currently numerous emergency water resources schemes being planned, and some being implemented.

Potential sources for this Local Municipality may include:

Increase abstraction rate from Knysna River to 300 l/s, by increasing pumping capacity at Charlesford Pump station.

Increase infrastructure capacity of existing abstraction works for Gouna River and Gelebe Dam.


The current limitation in the supply of water to Sedgefield is largely due to the lack of off-channel storage. It may be an option to abstract seasonal high flows from the Karatara River into an off-channel storage dam. This option will require further investigation.

There is an ongoing feasibility study of a raw water supply to Sedgefield, namely an off channel storage dam on the Hoëkraal River on the farm Swartriver. This project will also incorporate the upgrading of the Sedgefield water treatment works.

Previous studies have identified numerous off-channel dams in the Municipal area. A new on-channel dam in the upper Knysna River A new off-channel dam on the Knysna River, Gouna, Grootkops or Goukamma Rivers.

A new off-channel dam could be constructed in the valley just north of the Eastford pump station. This dam would be filled by pumping surplus water from the Knysna River at Charlesford during the wet months.

Emergency re-use scheme from Knysna waste water treatment works (WWTW), to be relayed to the Akkerkloof Dam.

Rising of the Akkerkloof Dam.

Sharing the costs of constructing the Goukamma River on-channel Dam with George. A less cost effective option would be the Wadrif off-channel Dam, shared with Bitou.

Groundwater development

Desalination at Knysna and Sedgefield

2.1.2 Bulk water

This Bulk Water Infrastructure situation for each town has been tabulated below in the form of the treatment works capacity utilised, which is a simple

calculation of the existing works capacity, in comparison with the annual water demand. The information below has been extracted from the Water

Services Development Plan (WSDP) and Water Master Plan (WMP):


Bulk Water Supply

Town

Existing WTW

capacity (Ml/d)

2007 WTW

capacity

required (Ml/d)

2007 Utilised

Capacity

(%)

2027 WTW

capacity required

(Ml/d)

2027 Utilised

Capacity

(%) Comment

Knysna 22 9.4 43% 19.8 90%

• WTW is the water

supply constraint. This

was upgraded in 2007

from a capacity of

11Ml/day to 22Ml/day.

There are currently no

backlogs and new water

connections are

addressed with the roll

out of housing projects.

• The WTW will have

10% capacity available

for development after

2028 assuming the WTW

only supplies the towns

listed within this table.

Sedgefield 2.5 2.2 87% 3.0 119%

• The WTW will have no

capacity available for

development after 2028

assuming the WTW only

supplies Sedgefield.


Buffalo Bay 1 0.1 11% 0.1 13%

• The WTW will have

87% capacity available

for development after

2028 assuming the WTW

only supplies Buffalo Bay.

Karatara 1 0.2 22% 1.4 143%

• The WTW has currently

efficient capacity

available, but in 2028 a

shortfall of 43% will be

experienced. • The

existing water treatment

works on the Karatara

River is at risk during

flooding.

Rheenendal

1 0.2 24% 1.4 143%

• The WTW has currently

efficient capacity

available, but in 2028 a

shortfall of 43% will be

experienced.

The following is also noted with regards to the above tabulated information:

The existing Sedgefield water treatment works on the Karatara River is at risk during flooding. Flood relief funds have been secured to relocate the treatment works and planning is proceeding for this project.

The 2007 IDP recommended that the Rheenendal treatment works must be upgraded, specifically the chlorinator.


The WTW capacity in 2027 is greater than 100% for some towns, implying the existing WTW capacity cannot cater for the future water requirements.

2.1.3 Internal Water Reticulation

A brief review was conducted of the Water Master Plan (WMP) which focuses on the internal water reticulation network. This section will only aim to

summarise critical constraints that may impact on future development and further identifies towns that require urgent upgrades to their reticulation

network, in order to improve the current capacity to cater for future development areas. The review has shown that the critical towns that require urgent

upgrades in the internal infrastructure include:

Water pipe breakages in Knysna mainly occur due to the age of the network. A continuous programme is carried out to upgrade and replace the water pipes as funds become available. In Knysna, some zones have insufficient reservoir storage capacity and require additional storage.

There are low static and residual water pressures in Bosdorp (Knysna), Karatara and Sedgefield.

In Sedgefield the main town zone has insufficient reservoir storage although the total storage is sufficient for the entire town.

Rheenendal requires the construction of an additional 0.6 ML internal reservoir.

It is should be noted that the Eden District Municipality and the Knysna LM must compile and implement a Water Conservation and Demand Strategy plan.

The various elements of this plan includes combating water losses that involves both meter maintenance and replacement, pump stations and reservoir

upgrading, water quality monitoring and education and public information programmes as well as proper management of ground and surface water.

2.2 Wastewater

According to the 2009 CIP, there is an existing sanitation backlog of 9 032 units. This backlog is in term linked to the housing backlog.


The WSDP indicates that the bucket system has effectively been eradicated in 2008, and the remainder of people with unventilated pit latrines currently

being address through the roll-out of housing projects. The information below has been extracted from the CIP, Sewer Master Plan, Outeniqua Coast Water

Situation study or the WSDP and presents a load balance between the current Wastewater treatment capacity and the actual sewage inflows to the works:

Wastewater Capacity

Town

Current

WWTW

Capacity

(Ml/yr)

2007

Sewage

Yield

(Ml/yr)

% WWTW

Capacity in

Use (2007)

2027

Sewage

Yield

(Ml/yr)

% WWTW

Capacity in

Use (2027) Comment

Knysna 2584 2,400 92.88% 6,519 252.25%

• There is a project underway to extend the

existing activated sludge plant capacity to

7.6 Ml/d to cater for flows until 2013. Thereafter,

the works will most likely have to be upgraded for

an additional capacity of 2 Ml/d, which is

expected to cater for the town's wastewater load

until 2016. Thereafter, a second nutrient removal

activated sludge plant of similar capacity to the

existing plant will have to be constructed, to cater

for the town’s needs until 2020.

Sedgefield 292 514 175.95% 980 335.71%

• The Groenvlei WWTW is a Sequential Batch

Reactor (Prentec packaged plant).

• The 2008 Sewer MP indicates that the WWTW

capacity is 0.8 Ml/day, which is slightly less than


the 1 Ml/day capacity provided by the CIP. For

purposes of this report, the Sewer MP has been

assumed for this table.

• The current capacity of the plant is exceeded.

Buffalo Bay 0 19 N/appl. 43 N/appl. • The town is serviced completely by septic tanks.

Karatara 73 35 47.97% 471 645.62%

• The Outeniqua Coast Water Situation study

indicates that the WWTW capacity is 0.2 Ml/day,

which is slightly less than the 0.25 Ml/day capacity

provided by the Sewer MP and 1 Ml/day provided

by the CIP. For purposes of this report, the

Outeniqua Coast Water Situation study has been

assumed for this table.

• The current capacity of the plant is exceeded

Rheenendal 292 32 10.92% 120 41.04%

• The Outeniqua Coast Water Situation study

reflects a capacity of 0.11 million m3/a (0.3 Ml/d)

for the Petro WWTW and a capacity of 0.18

million m3/a (0.5 Ml/d) for the Beacon WWTW,

which add to a total of 0.8 Ml/d treatment

capacity. Other sources note that the WWTW is a

1Ml/day activated sludge plant, which eventually

discharges treated effluent into the Homtini River.

This information must be confirmed with the LM.


The various sources (Outeniqua Coast Water Situation study, Sewer MP, WSDP and CIP) reflect different capacities for all the waste water treatment works

(WWTW) in the towns. The capacities of the WWTWs must be confirmed with the Municipality. The WWTW capacity in 2027 is greater than 100% for most

cases, implying an overload at the works, meaning the capacity of the existing works will have to be upgraded to cater for future developments.

Currently, there are some problems with regards to wastewater treatment capacity for certain of these towns. This appears to be the case specifically for

Knysna, Sedgefield and Karatara, an issue that will hinder future private development specifically. The upgrade of the Knysna WWTW is currently underway,

but the Sedgefield and Karatara WWTW’s must be addressed urgently.

2.3 Electrical Supply (Bulk and Reticulation)

The electrical supply comprises of two main aspects, namely the bulk supply and the local reticulation networks. Limited information has been sourced to

date on the electrical information, which makes it difficult to comment on the impact of future development as a result backlogs in the electrical

infrastructure.

The IDP objective with regards to electrical supply is to extend services to the poor and further ensure that the capacity of the existing electricity

infrastructure is enhanced in order absorb the rapid growth of the greater Knysna. Further information on the electrical supply has been abstracted from

the IDP, namely the IDP strategies regarding electricity as follows:

Design and Implementation of an Electricity Master Plan

The municipality must seek to extend electrical services to the poor.

Ageing infrastructure is problematic in the near future.

Ageing infrastructure must be rehabilitated before it has deteriorated beyond recovery.


2.4 Solid waste disposal

The section focuses around the current capacity of the solid waste disposal site, and its capacity to accommodate future developments. The waste

generation per town presented in the table below has been calculated by making specific assumptions for domestic and industrial waste generation.

Town

2007

Population

Industrial

area (m2)

Domestic

Waste

generation

based on CoCT

2008 values

(ton/d)

Industrial

waste

generation

(ton/d)

Total waste

generation

based

(ton/d)

Disposal (Landfill site) Surplus /

Shortfall

capacity

Name

Existing

Capacity

Knysna 50805 1265667 52.1 104 156 None N/av. N/av.

Sedgefield 13530 17333 13.9 1 15.3 None N/av. N/av.

Buffalo Bay 660 0 0.7 0 1 None N/av. N/av.

Karatara 700 9333 0.7 1 1 None N/av. N/av.

Rheenendal 3425 0 3.5 0 4 None N/av. N/av.

Total 70.8 106.6 177.5

The following assumptions have been made regarding the domestic and industrial waste generation calculations:

Domestic waste generation: The population per town comprises an equal split between high-to-medium income and low income households.


The solid waste generation per person for high-to-medium income and low income class is assumed to be 1.55 kg/d and 0.5 kg/d respectively.

Industrial waste generation: The unit water demand for industries is assumed to be 0.3 kl/100m2, which has been used to determine the proposed industrial building area.

The industrial water demand per day (kl/d) has been derived form the 2005 WMP. Industrial land-use is assumed to be 25% dry industry and 75% wet industry. The solid waste generation per m2 for dry and wet industries is assumed to be 0.15 kg/d and 0.06 kg/d respectively.

The 2006 Integrated Waste Management plan (IWMP) is still being sourced and it is not possible to provide comments of substance at this stage. For now

the IDP identifies the need for an effective and efficient waste management service plan, and further aim to strategise the following:

Solid waste is disposed off at the PetroSA Landfill site, which operates as a “Bail by Rail” system. There is no information available regarding the existing capacity of the landfill site.

Monitoring is required to determine the impacts of the creosote that is leaching from the soil on Thesen's Island into the Knysna Estuary.

Ensure development and implementation of a waste disposal strategy for Knysna Municipality

The provision of a waste disposal site, bulk transfer site and user friendly waste disposal facilities must be ensured

The alternative strategies for waste disposal must be investigated

Effective waste minimization strategies must be devised

Encourage and implement waste avoidance strategies

The only factor that could hinder future development in the Municipality is the lack of landfill space. There is insufficient information to conclude whether

there is spare capacity at the landfill to accommodate future development.

3. TRAFFIC PLANNING AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

There is no master plan available for traffic planning and public transportation. As a result, further guidance and clarification will have to be sourced from

the Municipality.


The road infrastructure in the Knysna area mainly consists of National Roads, Provincial Roads and District Roads. In general these roads are in a relatively

good condition and are regularly maintained and if necessary upgraded by the relevant road authorities. Traffic problems in the municipality can be

summarised as according to the IDP as follows:

The Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) of the N2 passing through the Knysna area is approximately 10,000 to 12,500 vehicles per day, making the N2 by far the most important road in the area. At present there are no alternative routes for the N2 through Knysna, resulting in all the through traffic passing through Knysna, mainly on Main Street and Water front Drive, causing congestion throughout the year.

TR2/10 from the White Bridge into Knysna is very narrow and a bottle neck in peak season. A by-pass which is intended to relieve traffic congestion in the town has been under consideration for some time.

TR59/1 has an Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) of approximately 1,000 vehicles per day and provides traffic with access to the Uniondale and Langkloof areas. Due to its condition and its alignment it is not a viable alternative to TR1/1 for access for traffic from the central parts of South Africa.

There is a backlog of 48km in surfacing of gravel roads which is estimated to cost R56 million in the Greater Knysna area.

A lack of Public Transportation in the smaller centres is a major problem in the Western Cape, but numerous initiatives are currently underway. Knysna

Local Municipality must develop a fully integrated transport system to ensure that economic and social needs are addressed and, thus, increase mobility.

Potential projects listed in the IDP include:

Prepare/review an integrated Public Transport Plan with implementation strategy and programme

Prepare/review an Integrated Transport Plan

Development and Implementation of a roads master plan

Develop a fully integrated transport system to ensure that economic and social needs are addressed

The planning and implementation of taxi lay-byes

Render an efficient and effective traffic service

Ensure proper management of traffic services

4. CONCLUSION

The above findings can be summarised as follows:


Currently, the water supply situation in this area is critical as a result of drought conditions in the area. The assured yield of the existing water source is insufficient to meet the present and projected future water requirements and the water source need to be augmented urgently.

The existing Sedgefield WTW on the Karatara River is at risk during flooding. Flood relief funds have been secured to relocate the treatment works and planning is proceeding for this project.

The towns of Knysna, Sedgefield and Karatara have serious WWTW capacity problems and are currently being placed under tremendous pressure by growth in the area and the high peak flows during the holiday periods. The upgrade of the Knysna WWTW is currently underway, but the Sedgefield and Karatara WWTW must be addressed urgently.

There is limited information available to comment on the electrical supply, which makes it difficult to comment on the impact of development as a result backlogs in the electrical infrastructure.

There is no information currently available to comment on Solid Waste Management System. The applicable Solid Waste Management Plan is currently being sourced.

There is no master plan available for traffic planning and public transportation. As a result, further guidance and clarification will have to be sourced from the LM.

5. REFERENCES

Comprehensive Infrastructure Plan - Cycle 1, Eden District Municipality, Prepared by Department and Provincial Government March 2009

Knysna Bulk Water Supply Augmentation: Treated Sewage Effluent Reuse, Report No: 5039 / 402314, Aurecon, October 2009

Knysna Bulk Water Supply Augmentation: Possible Regional Schemes, Report No: 4985 / 402314, Aurecon, August 2009

Water Services Development Plan, Knysna Municipality, 2008/09

Screening of Options Report for the Knysna Bulk Water Supply Study, Ninham Shand, March 2008

Sewer Master Plan, Knysna Municipality, December 2008

Water Demand Management Strategy, Knysna Municipality, March 2008, CES Engineers

Outeniqua Coast Water Situation Study, Main Report Volume 1, BKS and UWP Consulting, December 2007

Spatial Development Framework, Knysna Municipality, November 2007, MCA Planners

Report on the Knysna Wastewater Treatment Works, Report No. 4165A/401087, Ninham Shand and Clinkscales Maughan-Brown, October 2007

Knysna Bulk Water Supply Augmentation, Report No: 4303 / 400941, Ninham Shand, May 2007


Integrated Development Plan, Knysna Municipality, June 2007

Water Master Plan, Knysna Municipality, CES, December 2007

Internal Strategic Perspective, Version 1, Ninham Shand, March 2004


APPENDIX G: GUIDELINES FOR MANAGING CLIMATE CHANGE4

Climate change is one of the biggest challenges facing humankind5. Even if we achieve significant reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases, global climate change is inevitable. It poses significant threats to the basic provisions of life: water, health, food production and the environment, with the poorest communities likely to be the hardest hit. The ‘business as usual’ approach to climate change will cost as much as between 5 and 20% of global Gross Domestic Product every year. Climatologists predict a 50% reduction in rain-fed agricultural yield in some African countries by the 2020s (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007).Scientific predictions of future climate change suggest that the Western Cape could experience more drought periods. Coupled with increased evaporation and temperatures, this will negatively impact water supply. Regional predictions suggest a drying trend from west to east, with a weakening of winter rainfall, possibly slightly more summer rainfall (mainly in the eastern regions associated with the mountains), a shift to more irregular rainfall of possibly greater intensity, and rising temperatures everywhere. It is likely that the greatest impacts will be on water supply. Economic growth in most of the Wes tern Cape Province is already limited by water shortages (Midgley, 2005). This highlights the importance of protecting our water resources from over-abstraction,degradation and the spread of invasive alien plants (which use more water than indigenous plants). The Critical Biodiversity Areas map (see Appendix B) identifies the mountain catchments areas that are critical in this regard as they are the primary source of our water supply. For example; a fynbos mountain catchment can lose up to 68% of its water yield due to a dense cover of invasive alien shrubs or trees. In the face of climate change we cannot afford these losses. By protecting biodiversity we protect ourselves against climate change. The increase in temperatures anticipated with climate change may result in increased fire frequencies. Invasive alien plants are often highly flammable and with their large volumes, are likely to fuel more frequent fires. The combination of more frequent and more intense fires will have a devastating impact on the region. To aver t this, an integrated alien and fire management plan is essential to ensure both the removal of invasive alien plants as well as controlled burns. These interventions will result in an increased water supply, optimum regeneration of our veld, and a reduction in erosion and sediment deposition during times of severe rain. The Garden Route is especially vulnerable to two of climate change’s most severe impacts, i.e. sea level rise and freshwater flooding. To prevent flooding of vulnerable coastal properties such as those between Mossel Bay and Nature’s Valley, natural defenses in the form of primary dune systems, estuarine mudflats and sand dunes must be protected from further conversion through urban development or agricultural practices. Ensuring that development is setback from the coast and from freshwater systems has the potential to maintain both the economic and ecological functioning of marine and other aquatic ecosystems and to mitigate against the impacts of climate change.

4 Extracted from Garden Route Biodiversity Sector Plan 2010

5 ‘A climate change strategy and action plan for the Western Cape’ has been developed by the Department of

Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Western Cape (DEA&DP, 2007); and in preparation is a report ‘A guideline for incorporating climate change adaptation and mitigation measures in Environmental and Spatial Development Planning and the development & environmental authorisation processes’


To ensure resilience against the impacts of climate change, landscape corridors need to be kept intact to functionas ecological process areas. These corridors enable the migration of plants, animals and birds and hence to persist despite changing climatic conditions. Examples of corridors are river valleys extending from inland mountains to the sea, along parts of the escarpment (the step where the inland plateau drops to the coastal plain) and also along the coast . At the local level, one of the most effective ways to mitigate against climate change is to safeguard Critical Biodiversity Areas and Ecological Support Areas. As a strategy against the impacts of climate change, the CBA map has identified a network of important biodiversity areas linking the inland mountains to the coast, as well as along the coast. Accompanying guidelines assist in integrating climate change into land-use planning and decision making. Crucial management guidelines include:

maintaining intact riparian (river bank) vegetation to avoid flooding and to protect water resources;

restricting building to above the 1:100 year flood-line or higher where necessary;

establishing a coastal set back line (i.e. a set distance inland from the coast) to avoid flooding;

protecting major landscape corridors with biodiversity-compatible land-uses to allow for species migration (persistence) and carbon storage;

protecting water resources;

appropriate fire management to reduce fire damage and maintain biodiversity;

removal of alien invasive plants to yield more water and reduce fire damage; and

restoring and maintaining biodiversity for carbon storage to reduce the impacts of rising temperatures due to global warming.

These guidelines also assist with Disaster Management, using preventative rather than costly reactive measures. Decision-makers and planners can reduce the effects of global climate change by integrating the CBA map and guidelines into land-use planning and decision making, and by adhering to wise management guidelines.

SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK - Knysna · Knysna Municipalitys Spatial Development Framework (SDF),...

Documents

Transcript of SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK - Knysna · Knysna Municipalitys Spatial Development Framework (SDF),...