OCA Objection submitted to Amy Hill at SRK

Jean Paul van der Mescht

Dear Obs Residents,

I am sharing with you the final outcome of Heritage Western Cape IACOM (Impact Assessment Committee) comment on the Heritage Impact Assessment conducted by the River Club’s consultants.
View Final Comment Here

They have totally rejected the report as meeting the requirements for an HIA in terms of Section 38 of the National Heritage Resources Act.

This confirms and is consistent with the OCA’s long-standing objections regarding the way the LLPT have been cavalier in their handling of the application and, in this case, the heritage aspects.

 Although the date for having objections included in the final report to be submitted to the Provincial Department of Environmental Affairs and Planning (DEADP) is now passed (14th Feb), it is still possible for stakeholders to express their opinions by (a) indicating support for the OCA objection ( DOWNLOAD OCA OBJECTION HERE ) and/or (b) making your own submission on the application. You are welcome to utilise the Program document that we have attached here: ( DOWNLOAD PRO FORMA HERE ) You can do by sending your comments to Ms Amy Hill at [email protected] preferably before the 26th Feb.

In short, the HWC IACOM comment says the following:

  1. The HWC IAC was unanimous in concluding that the Heritage Impact Assessment and supplementary reports “do not comply with provisions of Section 38(3)” of the National Heritage Resources Act.
  2. The reasons why IACOM came to this conclusion are as follows:
    • While the HIA acknowledged the historical significance of the site, it failed to map the relevant heritage resources of the site, specifically the intangible heritage significances. It relied on what they call “ecological rather than cultural values” because it argues that the “river itself is the only tangible visual element which survives as a resources which warrants protection. IACOM says this “negates in its entirely the exceedingly high historic and symbolic significance of the site identified in all previous studies, and submitted continuously through the process by the relevant I&APs.” In other words, we kept saying it was wrong to simply reduce heritage to the River and HWC IACOM has resoundingly agreed with us. They have also agreed with us that the HIA has downplayed the open, low-lying, green, riverine character of the whole site.  While important, the river is not the only heritage resource to be mapped and identified.
    • HWC IACOM have also agreed with us that just because 20th century activities have disturbed the site, it cannot be taken to mean that the site has been degraded in terms of its heritage value. As they say, the disturbance of the soil and use as an infill “ does not take away the meaning of the site as a historic frontier or point of containment, conflict and  contact, or its significance to the region.”
    • Assessment of the significance of the heritage resources is inadequate. The HIA failed to take account of the three criteria contained in the NHRA (considered to have cultural significance ot the community; could yield information about heritage; is important for a particular aesthetic valued by a cultural group.). In particular, the HIA and First Nations Report did not unpack the significance of the deep and sacred linkage to the site through lineage and collective memory. The HIA “undervalue the significance of the Heritage Resources generally”, a point the OCA has been making repeatedly.
    • HWC IACOM also took issue with the HIA regarding the existing River Club building as having no heritage significance.
    • IACOM also pointed out that the River Club should have been graded as part of a comprehensive consideration of the whole TRUP site. They reminded DEADP that individual landowners were advised to wait, and that if they chose to proceed with an HIA for their own development, “to ignore existing studies and bigger TRUP picture could be at their own peril.”
    • They conclude this section as follows: “It would appear that the assessment of significance has been tailored to arrive at mitigation for the development rather than an assessment of significant that would assist in informing an appropriate development.”
      This is consistent with what the OCA has been saying – the HIA must independently try to provide indicators for any future development rather than try to get the HIA to rationalise the development proposed by the Developer.
    • HWC notes that the report ‘wholly downplays the irreversible impacts of transforming a green lung at the heart of the TRUP into a mega project’ and “these irreversible impacts are hardly interrogated at all.’
    • Consistent with our view that the HIA has been stubbornly ignoring the impact of scale and size of the proposed buildings, the HIA recognises clearly that the built form of the proposed develop will affect significant heritage resources present. As they state “this HIA practically gives the development carte blanche in terms of heights and massing.” IACOM criticises the HIA because It fails to critically engage with the proposed heights or their impacts on heritage resources.
    • IACOM points out the HIA failed to assess the development’s impact on the site’s open green qualities. Instead of considering ways to recover both significance and sense of place, the HIA dismisses the open space by saying its current use is a golf course. “The statement that the sense of place has already been transformed iteratively over the past 80 years does not make it acceptable to destroy what remains.”
      Again, this is a point OCA has been making repeatedly and which the HIA consultant has chosen to ignore.
    • IACOM notes the inadequacy of the Visual Impact Assessment (VIA). The VIA acknowledges that the visual impacts will be sizeable (‘intrusive’ and cause ‘a loss of a sense of place’), but then simply dismisses these by saying that ‘judgement of visual impacts depends on receptor perceptions.’ This mimics the HIA itself which dismisses objections to the Visual Impacts as ‘differences of opinions.’
    • IACOM note that HWC previously recognised the site as being of Provincial if not national significance. The HIA ignores this and ignores the fact that River Club must be considered in the context of the whole of TRUP.
    • IACOM takes issue with the HIA pretending that the new draft LSDF for TRUP would ‘override heritage considerations, or indeed mean that a mega project is appropriate…’. They point out that a LSDF would support developed in ‘Urban Inner Core’ areas in principle, but it is not a given that any development will be supported. A framework is just that – a framework, not an entitlement to build what you want. And they confirm that the current Table Bay SDP is actually the current framework which speaks to preserving the qualities of the site. They criticise the HIA for giving preference to proposed policies that are still in the consultation phase.
    • They dismiss the economic viability argument as “unconvincing and inadequate.” The fact that the development will pay for the Berkeley Road extension “should in no way be used as mitigation to argue for sustainable and economic benefits” but, rather, “the heritage significance of the site should be the primary informant”.
    • The engagement with First Nations groupings raised many issues which IACOM were not satisfied about, including the failure to include certain First Nation grouping, lack of clarity on the impartiality of the consultant, the methodology raised concerns (no ethical consent for interviews), overlap and confusion between what the consultant was doing for DTPW and for the River Club. They concluded that the engagement of I&APs did not comply with section 38(3) of the NHRA.
    • IACOM really slammed the HIA for failing to consider alternatives meaningfully, a concern we have been raising repeatedly. The HIA stuck to what the Developer said was economically feasible but should have properly assessed lower density developments and the No Go option properly, which was not done. They concluded that “the reports demonstrate insufficient exploration and interrogation of a range of alternatives” and so is not compliant with the Act.
    • Lastly, because the HIA fails to identify heritage resources adequately (i.e. it focuses on the river and ignores the flood plain and sense of place), it is inadequate in addressing mitigation.
  3. The conclusions:
    • The River Club is an integral part of TRUP
    • HWC believes TRUP is of Provincial if not national significance
    • The River Club site is recognised as a sacred place and the open largely undeveloped floodplain is a tangible reminder of intangible heritage
    • The history of the site is immensely important, being a place of conflict, the first colonial settlement and the place where indigenous people were first truly dispossessed of their land.
    • “It is a place where almost all of the stage of South Africa’s development history and policies are … embedded deep … it is a place which speaks to who we are now, from where we have come, not just as a City, or a province but as a nation.”
    • The HIA reduced this incredible significance to a set of ecological values, “… to post-rationalize a wholly intrusive development model, rather than inform appropriate development.”
    • The memorial/museum was noted to inadequate because it is designed to create meaning rather that enhance existing significances on the site.
    • “The bulk and mass of the development proposal does not respond to the site as a living heritage.”

In sum, HWC IACOM say no to the HIA – it does not meet the requirements of the law.

I can barely restrain myself at this point – it is vindication of what we have been arguing for years now and to hear it said loud and clear is wonderful news.

It is time that someone started speaking Truth to Power and we have seen the IACOM for HWC willing to speak the truth.

Please do submit your objections to the BAR –  by the 26th, (as explained before, the official deadline for inclusion in the BAR to be submitted was the 14th Feb, but SRK will forward delayed comments to DEADP without any analysis or response)

Thanks
Leslie