COMMENTS AND RESPONSE REPORT

14/2/4/2/2/B5/14/0006/21: S24G Secret Falls Tulbagh

Comments and Response Report January 2021

COMMENTS AND RESPONSE REPORT

INTRODUCTION

This Comments and Responses Report records the issues and concerns, questions and

suggestions raised by Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs) during the public participation

process.

COMMENTS AND ISSUES RAISED

Six written submissions were received during the public participation process (see Box 1). All

submissions are presented and responded to in Table 1.

Box 1: I&APs that submitted written correspondence during the public participation process Organs of State

• Cape Nature – Alana Duffell-Canham

Private Landowners

• Maxim Mc Laughlin

• Peter Viljoen

• Charne Le Roux and Lance de Willers

• Mirna Rabe

• Charl Herbst



Table 1: Issues and responses Trail

No. Name Method Comment Response 1. Cape Nature Response Form

Emailed 6/12/2020

The site has been mapped as both terrestrial and aquatic Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA) and is adjacent to a formal protected area. The developments have occurred within Endangered Breede Shale Fynbos in a pristine condition. We therefore agree with the botanical specialist’s impact rating of high negative prior to mitigation even if the impacts on vegetation are fairly localised.

This comment is noted.

The aquatic CBAs have been determined due to inter alia the presence of wetlands (Channelled Valley Bottom and Southwest Shale Fynbos seep wetland types) and for watercourse and water source protection.


The development that has occurred so far includes 2 cottages, an office building, a campsite and foundations for another 2 cottages and extension of a road. The botanical specialist determined that the buildings were unlikely to have caused loss of Species of Conservation Concern (SCC) based on the surrounding habitat. However, the road may well have caused loss of SCC as threatened species were found near the road side. It is essential that the disturbance footprints of all the buildings and infrastructure are in no way expanded during construction or during maintenance activities.


CapeNature is of the opinion that decommissioning of the existing infrastructure is not required but no additional loss of vegetation should occur. If additional facilities such as hiking trails are required in the future these must be ground-truthed by a botanical specialist obtain the relevant authorisation.


The campsite is currently grassed with kikuyu. Kikuyu is a highly invasive grass, especially near watercourses and wetlands. The spread of this grass must be controlled so that it does not spread outside of the campsite area or close to any water courses.

The EMPr has been updated to address the management of Kikuyu at the campsite area.

Active rehabilitation will be required in order to reduce the impacts to an acceptable level. Please include a rehabilitation plan with the next phase of the impact assessment which includes a programme for rehabilitation post-construction and long-term maintenance for the operational phase. The rehabilitation plan should include methodology for seeding, planting, alien clearing and repair of erosion on the roads and where water has been impounded.

Rehabilitation plan has been included in the EMPr.



The freshwater specialist report includes fairly detailed mitigation measures which should also be included in the rehabilitation plan.

Freshwater specialist mitigation measures have been included in the EMPr.

A photographic record should be kept at all rehabilitation sites where photos are taken before, during and after rehabilitation is complete.

This comment has been worked into the EMPr.

2. Maxim Mc Laughlin

Response Form Emailed 6/12/2020

It is argued that the use of the words “Tourism Facility” in the so called “Project Title” is incorrect. In terms of the applicable Zoning Scheme the definition of “Tourist Facilities” means : “amenities for tourists such as lecture rooms, restaurants, gift shops and restrooms permitted by the council as a consent use but does not include overnight accommodation”. The activities and developments currently taking place on Portion 7 fall under the definition of “Holiday Accommodation” in terms of the applicable Zoning Scheme. This activity is not even permitted under the listed Consent Uses for Agricultural Zone 1. “Holiday Accommodation” is permitted as a Primary Use in terms of “Resort Zone 1” as set out in the applicable zoning regulations. Accordingly, it is argued that the listed activities taking place Portion 7 require a rezoning application. This point also addresses the question further down on Page 7 “Is a rezoning application required” which should be answered in the affirmative. It also addresses the question regarding application for consent use which is not applicable.

Use of property - Consent uses are: additional dwelling unit, home occupation, guest-house, bed and breakfast establishment, tourist facilities, farm stall, farm shop, aqua-culture, intensive animal farming, intensive horticulture, plant nursery, riding school, 4x4 trail, commercial kennel, commercial antenna. From my current understanding of the activities on Secret Falls suggest that a Consent Use application is required. Local and/or district Municipality will have to determine the applicability of the current zoning related to the activities. This application will be submitted to the local and district municipality for comment.

It is the writers contention that the Applicant Profile is incorrect. The applicant is a juristic person. Portion 7 of Farm 377 Die Ster, Winterhoek, Tulbagh is registered in the name of “The Secret Falls Trust” (Trust Deed No. 1626/2012) (Title Deed No. T51820/2013) represented for the time being by the Trustees of the Secret Falls Trust. In terms of the “Application History” section, the “period of validity” should be entered in terms of the 2019 Municipal approvals.


On completion of the fourth cottage, the facilities would comprise 4 x 2 bedroom cottages. 1 x accommodation “pod” (which has incorrectly being described as a “site office”) and a camp site for 10 stands. The new cottages approved by the Municipality also comprise a Mezzanine Floor which can be utilized as a third double bedroom (the plans indicate same with the display of sleeping “hammocks”.

The current use of the facilities is not in question, this application undertook to investigate the associated environmental impacts as stipulated in terms of Regulation 41(2) (a) of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations published in Government Notice R326 in Government Gazette No 40772 of 07 April 2017, under Section 24 (5) of the National Environmental Management Act 1998 (Act No 107 of 1998).

The extended farm tracks cross over two perennial mountain streams which are both water course servitudes in favour of the Remainder Farm 377.

Response from Nick Steytler Freshwater Specialist: “I have read through the comments highlighted in yellow and these centre around the hydrological impact of the tourism facility. Please realise that my study was primarily a freshwater ecological



The continued reference to “non-perennial” streams is totally incorrect. There are indeed some water courses that flow off the mountain during (mostly winter) rainstorms but it is assumed that streams witnessed during the site inspection are all perennial in nature and provide the main water source for farm irrigation and domestic activities on the adjoining farm below (Remainder). It must be noted that that the Remainder (of Farm 377 Die Ster) does not have large capacity storage dams but relies on the continued replenishment of two small “stilling dams” from perennial mountain streams to irrigate throughout the summer months. The bron are described locally as “Drinkwaterskloof”, “Wolkbreekkloof” (“Secret Falls”) and “Bobbejansboskloof”. If the so-called streams were “non-perennial”, how would the “Secret Falls” facility provide water to the camping and cottage facilities during the summer months?? It is recognized that Portion 7 does have an existing borehole / spring situated above the original (2011) cottages. The writer is advised by the previous owner that this water source can run dry in the summer months and is not sufficient for the camp site or other additional developments on site. Portion 7 was sub-divided from the Remainder and sold as a “lifestyle” farm without any existing water rights. The septic tanks installed are all situated above the water supply for the Remainder and pose a contamination risk due to the high-density use of the facilities – especially the campsite.

assessment and without records or estimates of water abstraction or year-round hydrological studies to confirm perenniality of watercourses I have relied on the NGI Rivers database which indicates that all streams are non-perennial. The comments make some good points and it may well be the case that some drainage lines are indeed perennial. If the perenniality of the streams is being affected by abstraction as the comments suggest (i.e. that due to abstraction some previously perennial streams now flow seasonally then the impact on flow regime would be high and this would also translate into greater levels of biota loss. All evidence in this regard is anecdotal and in EIAs we do not have the opportunity to study hydrology year-round so we have to find a way around this. There are two options:

1. Estimates of abstraction are calculated and a hydrologist undertakes a low-flow season assessment of hydrology (best time would be in February 2021) and given that the facility is not being used currently should be able to determine which streams are perennial and also estimate flow volumes. This could then be used to assess the impact on flow regime and when I have this info I can amend my report.

2. Approach this unquantified impact through monitoring assuming the facility is permitted to continue. A key recommendation of your report would be that water abstraction and consumption is accurately monitored and that flow meters are installed in the drainage lines upstream of the abstraction points and immediately downstream of abstraction points to monitor the impact on flow. Crucial to this would be a "curtailment “plan i.e. what must happen if impacts were found to be significant. Accordingly the Monitoring Plan would need to identify levels of acceptability (i.e. what levels would require curtailment of abstraction activities). This is all quite technical and really needs specialist input.

Please let me know what your thoughts are before I progress any further. These issues are exactly what a WULA would address and as I mentioned before my study would not suffice to meet the WULA requirements because I have presented no records of water abstraction and actual stream hydrology. Regards.



Nick”.

With reference to the NHRA, if the NID was submitted on the basis that the “streams were non-perennial”, than this should be brought to the attention of HWC which body may now require an HIA in view of the fact that the information provided as to the nature of the streams is in our view incorrect (this takes into account the literal understanding of the term “perennial” and “nonperennial”).

Section 38 of the National Heritage Resources Act, 1999 was triggered as a result of activity (c) any development or other activity which will change the character of a site (i) exceeding 5 000 m2 in extent. The impact of the development on the non-perennial stream will be considered under the NEMA and National Water Act, 1998 (Act No. 36 of 1998) & General Authorization / Water Use License.

Our understanding is that the landowner has “abstraction rights” only in terms of the National Water Act of 1998 (NWA) in as much as; - “any person may take water for use on the basis of which that person is the owner or occupier, for (i) reasonable domestic use, (ii) small horticulture for non-commercial purposes, and (iii) the supply of water to animals (excluding feedlots i.e. drinking water in troughs) grazing on that land within the carrying capacity of that land, from any water resource situated on that land or forming a boundary thereof provided that the use is not excessive; is not in proportion to the capacity of the water resource and the needs of other users. The relevant points here being “for non - commercial purposes” and “to the capacity of the water resource and the needs of other users”. The use of the property for “holiday accommodation” is commercial and the needs of other users is not being considered. The Remainder of Farm 377 Die Ster enjoys a servitude right in respect of two springs situated on Portion 7 and such servitude states very clearly in the Title Deeds to both properties that “the owner of Portion 7 shall not in any way, directly or indirectly interfere with the flow of water to and / or from these two springs”. These springs are fed by Wolkbreekkloof bron referred to earlier and Eenboomsrug.

The application only reads to the section 24G of the National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998) for the regularisation of the unlawful commencement or continuation of the listed activities. The application will be submitted to the Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning. The report did not address the current water-use and volumes abstracted from the streams. This issue will need to be addressed with the Department of Water and Sanitation.

The “holiday accommodation” facility is in conflict with the surrounding agri-businesses due to:

• the increased abstraction of water by such facility during the critical dry summer months,

• the ground pollution (effluent) above our water abstraction points,

• erosion of the mountain, fire risk on the mountain and

• dust clouds in the dry summer months.


Note the open fires at the campsite and no alternative escape route should a fire come from the North or the West. In such circumstances, the campers

The risk of open fires has been addressed in the EMPr.



will most likely be trapped by smoke and extreme heat. Will the families of the deceased sue the Municipality (or Western Cape Government) for allowing the camp site to continue without suitable H&S compliance and licenses?? Does “Secret Falls” even carry adequate fire risk cover – especially for fire spread? Its only a matter of time before some campers set fire to the mountain – not realising the conditions in the Winterhoek with the strong winds that come up in the late afternoon!!

The scarring of the mountain is particularly noticeable from the West facing slopes of the Witzenberg Mountains (Misgund area).The partially constructed (2019) cottage has been constructed close to the Remainders’ Western boundary and appears to be within 32 meters of a perennial water source (watercourse servitude). The construction of this cottage would seem to be purposefully close to the Remainders’ homestead. It was unnecessary to erect such structure within such near proximity to the neighbouring farms’ buildings. This has a detrimental impact on the sense of place and will cause considerable noise pollution – in some ways due to the activity of people arriving and staying at the said cottage causing the neighboring dogs to bark continuously. As stated, the cottage is in close view and sound of the Remainders’ homestead.

This comment is noted, we did not assess the impact of noise pollution in this application.

In terms of the development that has taken place to date on Portion 7, the campsite has notable impact on the environment and poses the biggest threat from fire, excessive water use and pollution from effluent discharge as well as light pollution. If all 10 camp sites are occupied with families then that could be as many as 30 or 40 people on the mountain. This is especially noticeable during the summer and autumn holiday periods. It is a big impact on the ecology.

The associated botanical impacts and impacts on the riparian habitats have been assessed in the specialist reports. The EMPr will address potential erosion issues that may occur as a result of overuse of the road as well as the management of invasive alien plants.

Depending on terrain, soil conditions and cultivar, its costs between R250, 000 and R350, 000 per hectare to plant orchards and on average ± R100, 000 per annum to maintain and farm each hectare. The agri-business sector (from production to supply and services) in Tulbagh and surrounds is both labour and capital intensive and a major driver of the local economy. Whilst tourism is recognized as a high priority income sector and creator of jobs, one cannot underestimate the importance of maintaining and supporting farming activity as a main economic driver and such, support must include the effective management and use of water. Abstraction above everyone else from the primary source on the mountain for a frivolous “holiday accommodation” development (which has thus far

To follow is a letter from the CEO of Tulbagh Tourism & Tulbagh Wine Route. Witzenberg Municipality Ceres 6835 2 February 2021 To whom it may concern Dear Sir / Madam



ignored all environmental and planning protocols) should just not be allowed. It is a nebulous argument that the “Secret Falls” operation contributes to the local economy based on its contribution to the tourism sector in Tulbagh. The operators live in Cape Town and are not resident on the property. Income received is not spent locally. The facility currently employs only one-person part time and realistically, most patrons purchase their supplies in Cape Town before they drive the hour and a half to Tulbagh on a late Friday afternoon. As Portion 7 utilises a servitude road over the writer’s property, it is evident from the travel patterns that most “Secret Falls” patrons arrive and stay put until they leave for home – very few partake in visiting the restaurants and wine farms preferring to “chill-out” and enjoy the Winterhoek. This is especially so with the campers as the 4x4 drive up and down the mountain road is quite challenging for a lot of the vehicles and their drivers.

Motivation letter – Secret Falls Tulbagh is a wine tourism destination. Tulbagh is not earmarked for any industrial development the only two sectors that will take the Valley forward is agriculture and tourism. Secret Falls has the potential to contribute tremendously to our tourism and is earmarked to be considered an enormous asset to our communities. Secret Falls, as it stands, plays an integral role in tourism offering not only camping but self-catering accommodation and hiking trails which are kept in pristine conditions by staff employed locally. The need has arisen to build more cottages as is a demand for self-catering accommodation in the Valley. Tourism creates many employment opportunities in the Valley. It is the aim of our tourism establishments to provide a good service to customers as well as boost job creation in the area. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require any further. Regards Patty Nieuwoudt CEO Tulbagh Tourism & Tulbagh Wine Route Tel: 023 230 1375 Fax: 023 230 1348 www.tulbaghtourism.co.za www.tulbaghwineroute.com

It is argued that indiscriminate destruction of the mountain fynbos for the bull-dozing and construction of roads and buildings in a designated CBA 1 landscape, the excavation of embankments to extract road building material, the sinking of septic tanks and construction of soak-a-ways, the levelling of a hill top to create a camp site and, the construction of accommodation within 32 meters of “perennial” mountain streams would certainly require an HIA as such activity has a tangible and detrimental effect on the Heritage Resource.

The issues raised in this comment has been addressed in the 24G application. The competent authority that responds to the mentioned Environmental Issues is the Department of Environmental Affairs and Planning. No Heritage Impact Assessment is required please refer to

RESPONSE TO NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO DEVELOP: FINAL In terms of Section 38(2) of the National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999) and the Western Cape Provincial Gazette, Notice 298 of 2003. In appendix H. CASE NUMBER: 20072803SB0928E

http://www.tulbaghwineroute.com/



2000 cubes is almost double the abstraction referred to in the V and V process. Measurement of same does not make it legal nor is there any guarantee as to the reliability of such measurement or information provided.


If all structures are completed and the camp site remains, as previously stated, the facility will provide overnight accommodation for at least 40 persons. This is not “low intensity”. All patrons traverse across the Remainder in terms of an access servitude in favour of Portion 7. The owner of the Remainder can reasonably expect use of the servitude road to be commensurate with the operation of a commercial farming enterprise. No farming activity takes place on Portion 7 (nor can it!!) and the only activity is that of a VAT registered commercial enterprise in terms of the provision of “holiday accommodation” which is (as already stated) non-compliant with the applicable zoning scheme. Such land usage cannot be permitted in terms of a consent use application with the Witzenberg Planning Authority and it is argued that the Portion 7 would require to be rezoned to “Resort Use 1”. It is doubtful that such rezoning application would receive support from the adjoining landowners. Such rezoning would also have an impact on the Rates payable which would be increased in line with the commercial opportunity permitted. As referred to earlier, there is practically no tangible socio-economic benefit derived locally from the continued operation of “Secret Falls”. It must be noted that the property is currently being offered for sale as a going concern for R8.6 million – go to https://www.property24.com/forsale/tulbagh/tulbagh/western-cape/7608/106131350 .


If the property is sold, any new owner will need to be aware of the Essential Mitigation Measures outlined in your report and the obligations thereof – how will this be policed and enforced? In conclusion, the recommendation to leave the existing facilities in place and rehabilitate ignores the possible zoning issue and the requirement for a commercial water license to be granted by DW&S – both of which will have implications for the continued viability of such operation. This is not a commercial farm with a few cottages on the side – this is a full-on commercial enterprise with the sole purpose of deriving financial benefit (not by farming) but by maximising the income potential of the property by developing a resort (essentially “under the radar”) without any respect for the environment, water rights, ones neighbours or seeking consent from the regulatory authorities.


https://www.property24.com/forsale/tulbagh/tulbagh/western-cape/7608/106131350

https://www.property24.com/forsale/tulbagh/tulbagh/western-cape/7608/106131350



It is very much hoped that the Western Cape Government, when considering this Section 24G application, will also take into consideration the views and comments received from the I&AP’s and in so doing, take a firm position on the matter and institute the necessary punitive sanctions!!

3. Charne Le Roux Response Form Emailed 6/12/2020

There is a discrepancy in the identity of the applicant, being referred to in the documentation prepared in support of the NEMA application either as Marc Ludi and Nadia Ludi Hoffman collectively (eg in the NEMA checklist) or Secret Falls Trust (the draft EMP and notices from the DEA). These discrepancies need to be explained and addressed.

Secret Falls Trust; attention to Mr Marc Ludi and Mrs Nadia Ludi Hoffman.

The DEA served several notices on the applicant in connection with the illegal activities taking place on the property, namely on: 1 August 2017 (of which no copy was provided), 17 January 2018, 12 November 2018, 18 October 2019. The applicant largely ignored these correspondences (which included compliance notices) and continued with the clearing of roads, expansion of the campsite and construction of new cottages up to as recently as around May 2020.

This 24G application is being completed because of the notices given by DEA&DP. Previous actions taken in response to the notices included:

• Rehabilitation plan;

• Botanical and Ecological Observations;

• Environmental Management Plan.

These reports can be viewed in Appendix H under old reports.

The applicant in fact pursued these construction efforts during the course of the national Covid-19 Lockdown announced by the president from March 2020 onwards. At the time, construction of all projects other than maintenance and repairs was prohibited outright. More particularly, the construction activities increased in frequency and intensity during this period, sometimes late into the evenings, with bright lighting visible from a great distance. It was reported at the time that compliance inspections by relevant authorities were impossible as a direct consequence of those officers who were mandated as such, being prevented from doing so by the Lockdown.

This Comment is Noted.

The applicant, reference here being made to Marc Ludi, is the owner of SwissLine Design, a well-established and known manufacturer of modular timber homes and structures. Web links (active at the time of this writing) can be followed by clicking on the below links to http://modulartimberhomes.com/ or http://new.swisslinedesign.co.za/. The business was established in 2006. SwissLine and its owner, Mr. Ludi hold themselves out as expert in their industry and would no doubt, due to the business’ long standing period of operation, have had full knowledge of the environmental requirements for construction in South Africa,

This Comment is Noted.



especially in undeveloped natural areas where modular timber homes are often erected. It is clear from the events and facts set out in paragraphs a) to c) above that the applicant had knowledge of the requirements necessary for construction of the proposed tourist facility on a pristine site, not only as a consequence of the nature of the business that it conducts daily as SwissLine Design, but also arising from the correspondence issued by the DEA. The applicant no doubt also had knowledge of the restrictions that applied during the lockdown period on construction operations. The applicant blatantly ignored the DEA notices and also demonstrated complete disregard for the environment, the national legislation in place to protect the environment and national legislation in general. This is a case where the construction process was manipulated so that the applicant could do what it pleased and ask for permission later.

It is a known advantage (and in fact a selling point) for modular timber homes that they can be partially pre-manufactured in a factory and delivered to site in pre-built components, hence the term Modular. In this manner, a lot, if not most, of the construction work can then be performed off-site. Once the components are delivered to site, it is more a matter of Assembly than Construction, as the building can be erected in a very short timeframe (As was done in this case). By its very design and nature, disassembly of a modular timber structure does not imply extensive demolition or civil works, since the components can be just as easily transported away from site, leaving a very small footprint afterwards.

The viable topsoil has been removed and concrete foundation has been layout. We argue that no further vegetation should be removed and that extensive rehabilitation should be implemented in areas surrounding the impacted footprint.

The applicant’s property has been for sale during the past few years, since prior to the most recent construction and development. It remains for sale and is advertised on a multitude of Estate Agent websites. The accelerated commencement of construction activities, the majority of it performed during Covid-19 Lockdown and without any approval stand in stark contrast with the rational development of a sustainable tourism facility for the benefit of the community and nature in general.



The footprint of the Campsite, which has expanded over the past few years, is roughly 3500m². It was established by levelling a promontory overlooking the valley and cleared from an area of pristine natural fynbos. Most of the surface area has been cleared of natural vegetation that has since been replaced by Kikuyu lawn. Kikuyu (Scientific name Pennisetum clandestinum) is listed as a Nemba Category 1B Alien Invasive Species. It can spread quickly from rhizomes and stolons in suitable soil, and from seed spread by water flow.

Measurements were done with a handheld GPS and verified by mapping of the latest aerial imagery on ArcMap 10. Please provide me with the KML. file with spatial measurements. Management actions have been provided in the EMPr for the Pennisetum clandestinum.

The above image, prior to the most recent expansions of the campsite, shows the context of the surrounding natural landscape, as well as the extensive planting of Kikuyu lawn within it. The campsite is situated less than 300m from the boundary of the Groot Winterhoek Wilderness Area and several footpaths into the Reserve bear witness to the regular access of the Reserve by campsite visitors. The fact that this has not been disclosed in the Botanical Impact Assessment is considered with jaundiced view.

The approximately 300m footpath from the campsite to the “kloof”, does not enter the Nature Reserve managed by Cape Nature. The are in question is mapped as the Winterhoek Mountain Catchment Area and is viewed as a CBA1 as mentioned in the Botanical Report.

In the image below, the access road to the campsite, one of various roads created for the development, can clearly be seen indicated in Pink. This road (as almost all of the roads on the property), falls entirely within the Critical Biodiversity Area. The distance on the property of just the access road to the campsite is approximately 1.5km.

This comment is noted, please provide me with the KML. of the impacted footprint. What is important to note is that the impacted footprint exceeds 300 m2 which triggers the activities listed in GN No. R. 324 Activity No(s): (Listing Notice 3 of 2014). The clearance of an area of 300 square metres or more of indigenous vegetation except where such clearance of indigenous



With an average width of approximately 2.5m wide, the area that needed to be cleared of natural vegetation for this road alone is approximately 3750m². This road is situated on an acute slope and is (and has been) constantly eroded during each rain season since its construction. This leads to a continued loss of topsoil, but more importantly, the disruption and presumably, destruction of biodiversity along the entire combined road footprint. This disregard for the natural environment and a critical biodiversity resource is a crime against nature (note: legislation is already under development for the International Criminal Court to deal with such crimes as ecocide, see https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/nov/30/international-lawyers-draft-plan-to- criminalise-ecosystem-destruction) and most certainly a transgression of the current, applicable legislation in South Africa.

vegetation is required for maintenance purposes undertaken in accordance with a maintenance management plan.

i. Within any critically endangered or endangered ecosystem listed in terms of section 52 of the NEMBA or prior to the publication of such a list, within an area that has been identified as critically endangered in the National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment 2004;

Within critical biodiversity areas identified in bioregional plans.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/nov/30/international-lawyers-draft-plan-to-

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/nov/30/international-lawyers-draft-plan-to-



Apart from the 1.5km of access road for the campsite, an entirely different road network has been cleared across parts of the property in order to develop and access various sites earmarked for construction. In fact, a rough calculation using publicly accessible GIS software, indicates a total combined distance of newly created roads of around 3.2km, including the camping site access road. This equates to around 8000m² of cleared vegetation for roads alone. The below image illustrates the new road network in Pink as it pertains to the landscape and in particular, the Critical Biodiversity Area:

When cleared areas for construction purposes are added to cleared areas for access roads, the total surface area of natural vegetation destroyed is around 11000m² of specifically Critical Biodiversity Area.



When this total surface area is added to the cleared campsite of roughly 3500m², the total cleared and destroyed surface area of natural vegetation is closer to 14500m²!

There appears to be some discrepancy with regard the stated 9000m² stated in the relevant application. Apart from the staggering extent of destruction, the discrepancy seems acute and requires explanation by the EAP and applicant.

The extent of the impacted footprint was measured with a handheld GPS. and then mapped in ArcMap version 10. Please note that not all farm tracks on Secret Falls form part of the study as there were already exciting tracts on Farm 377, Portion3. All additional tracks were assessed, and adequate mitigation measures have been suggested to mitigate any further loss on indigenous vegetation.

Despite the acknowledgements in the reports that the impact made by the clearance of close to 9000 sqm of pristine land constituted a High Negative Impact and that, with active rehabilitation interventions, the impact could be reduced, the reports recommend not to decommission the tourism facility. This constitutes a critical error.


If proper consideration had been given to the different aspects of the “tourism facility”, rather than bundling it together as a single unit towards the justification of its preservation, it would have become clear that it would indeed be both feasible and desirable to decommission: i. the campsite (which, as the photos show, include only two small structures, namely the timber ablution blocks) ii. the prefab site office iii. cottage 6 (which is not a brick-and-mortar building but constructed from timber as a modular unit) iv. cottage 5 (with only the foundations having been built). We acknowledge that it may not be feasible to decommission cottages 1 and 2, which are brick and mortar buildings due to the additional impact that such steps would cause.

Please note that topsoil’s have been removed and that concrete foundation have been layout. Removing this may result in further excavation and loss of endangered vegetation. We therefore recommend that rehabilitation action be implemented in surrounding impacted areas.

Despite this critical aspect being presented as a concern in writing to the EAP preceding the environmental assessment taking place, no consideration was given to the emission of night light into the evening sky. Taking into account the substantial elevation of the facility, more particularly the Campsite, any light emitted from this development can be seen from more than 20 km away. Certainly, with no diffusion of the lights at the existing ablution facilities and general living areas, lights can regularly be seen at the facility from every aspect. Campers who visit the facility display a common camping trait whereby they are socially active throughout the night until early morning hours. The associated light disturbance therefore persists during virtually all night hours where the

The EAP is not suitable qualified to respond to light pollution queries, we will therefore highlight this comment to the DEA&DP. However, consideration should be given to best practice lighting design to reduce the mentioned light pollution concerns. Potential considerations could be (EMPr):

• Use of adaptive controls;

• Light only the intended object or area - keep lights close to the ground, directed and shielded;

• Use appropriate lighting;

• Use non-reflective, dark coloured surfaces;



occupants of the surrounding farms can be affected by it. (Incidentally, light reflecting from car windows during the day often creates a similar, unnatural light source in the mountain) This light source, it must be borne in mind, is in an area elevated far above any other in the valley, extending for many kilometres in either direction. With the unavoidable increase in traffic should a tourism facility be approved and occupied by up to 40 people at maximum capacity, the amount of light pollution is set to increase dramatically and its visibility enhanced exponentially due to its extreme elevation. It must further be borne in mind that, although horizontally this may be only 300m from the Groot Winterhoek Wilderness Area boundary, visually from ground level below, the light seems to emanate from within the Reserve due to the oblique observation angle for most observers. A significant part of he formerly enjoyed natural darkness of the Wilderness experience by residents and neighbours is therefore destroyed with the presence of the campsite. Notwithstanding the aforementioned light pollution factor, robbing people on adjacent properties from naturally dark evenings, more importantly, it has the potential to disrupt the habits of migratory species and to interfere with the biological rhythms and behaviour of nocturnal animals and insects. For context, the concerns around nocturnal light pollution were considered important enough by the Green Building Council of South Africa to include in its requirements for green building certification. See Technical Manual Green Star SA- Office v1. As stated above, this aspect was completely ignored in the EAP’s reports.

• Use lights with reduced or filtered out blue, violet and ultraviolet wavelengths.

Sweeping and unsupported statements were made in the reports of the facility constituting a potential asset in stimulating economic growth for the region. There was no economic study undertaken in this regard at all and none of the authors of the reports submitted so far are qualified to make the statements that they do. Submitting generalised supporting suggestions in favour of development without actually providing quantifiable information pertaining to this exact instance create a misleading narrative. In fact, there are only two types of intended accommodations offered at the facility, namely camping and self-catering. In both instances, observational evidence shows that very few visitors actually purchase their supplies in Tulbagh town, but rather arrive with it in pre-packed camping caravans or the like. Furthermore, as the location is remote vis a vis Tulbagh town (+_15km & finally by 4x4 track only) with access difficult, visitors, once on the property, will likely find it cumbersome to travel into town for interim supplies if any. Campers also rarely venture into economic hubs for

In order to provide some context, District and local documents that relate to IDP, SDF and Witzenberg Local Economic Development (LED) frameworks and strategies were considered. Tulbagh (LED) - Important agricultural activities include the production of quality estate wine, olives, wheat and livestock and deciduous and stone fruit. Potential has been identified for the production of persimmon, olives and niche specialty products and indigenous honey bush, kankerbos and buchu. However, a significant limitation is water availability and indications are that local surface water runoff is being inefficiently harvested to the benefit of local agriculture and the local community. Tulbagh enjoys the attraction of age and Kerkstraat is a significant tourist attraction. Up-market wine estates and cultural and community festivals draw domestic and foreign tourists.



supplies once arrived and as stated above the cottages are self- catering, making any economic advantages for the area as advocated, actually seem extremely negligible. The financial flow in this instance is indeed almost exclusively binary, with the guest paying the applicant directly or via a booking facility and the applicant (who resides in Cape Town and is not a local resident), receiving the funds in turn. The applicant does not, perhaps with the exception of a temporary groundsman, employ in any meaningful way from the local community, nor does he stimulate significant local economic growth in the above transaction-type.

Key elements in the development of the tourism sub-sector in Tulbagh include aggressive marketing, the refurbishment of the Tulbagh caravan park that has served the interests of local tourism for many years, the identification and resolution of access to natural features of significant potential tourism interest on private farms in the area and the encouragement of farm- and craft stalls to serve the passing tourist trade. Secret Falls is in the CORE 1 Spatial Planning Category, indicating that the areas must be maintained in, or restored to, a natural state in order to sustain biodiversity patterns and processes and the functionality of ecosystem services. Activities that are supported in these areas are as follows:

• Subject to stringent controls biodiversity-compatible land uses that may be accommodated include non-consumptive low impact eco-tourism activities (e.g. hiking trails, bird and game watching, and visitor overnight accommodation).

To follow is a letter from the CEO of Tulbagh Tourism & Tulbagh Wine Route. Witzenberg Municipality Ceres 6835 2 February 2021 To whom it may concern Dear Sir / Madam Motivation letter – Secret Falls Tulbagh is a wine tourism destination. Tulbagh is not earmarked for any industrial development the only two sectors that will take the Valley forward is agriculture and tourism. Secret Falls has the potential to contribute tremendously to our tourism and is earmarked to be considered an enormous asset to our communities. Secret Falls, as it stands, plays an integral role in tourism offering not only camping but self-catering accommodation and hiking trails which are kept in pristine conditions by staff employed locally.



The need has arisen to build more cottages as is a demand for self-catering accommodation in the Valley. Tourism creates many employment opportunities in the Valley. It is the aim of our tourism establishments to provide a good service to customers as well as boost job creation in the area. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require any further. Regards Patty Nieuwoudt CEO Tulbagh Tourism & Tulbagh Wine Route Tel: 023 230 1375 Fax: 023 230 1348 www.tulbaghtourism.co.za www.tulbaghwineroute.com

A single, steep and narrow 4x4-only access road to the camp site of around 1.5km imposes a degree of risk. This is especially acute in summer season when the campsite is maximally used due to the high risk of fire in summer. No safety measures appear to be in place to ensure the safe evacuation of 10 vehicles, potentially each with a trailer (if the camp site is occupied to capacity) in case of an emergency. Additionally, since 10 sets of campers (possibly 40 people) can be expected to occupy the campsite in peak summer season, what mitigating factors exist to control the size and timing of campfires, monitoring of campfires, possible spread of fires to nearby veld, especially in high wind which the area is renowned for? Open campfires should be completely prohibited in this highly sensitive, high fire-risk area, yet on this camping site they are regularly seen from the valley below.

The EMPr will be amended to address the potential fire risk in accordance with the National Veld and Forest Fire Act. Road maintenance mitigation measures have been provided in the EMPr.



Natural Heritage refers to the sum total of the elements of biodiversity, including flora and fauna, ecosystems and geological structures. Heritage is that which is inherited from past generations, maintained in the present, and bestowed to future generations. Unesco defines natural heritage most eloquently: Natural heritage refers to natural features, geological and physiographical formations and delineated areas that constitute the habitat of threatened species of animals and plants and natural sites of value from the point of view of science, conservation or natural beauty. It includes private and publically protected natural areas, zoos, aquaria and botanical gardens, natural habitat, marine ecosystems, sanctuaries, reservoirs etc. From these clearly defined concepts, the natural heritage comprising of the general landscape, sense of place and visually unique beauty of the environment in question, will be permanently destroyed unless the development process is decommissioned and fully reversed through well-managed rehabilitation. Every moment, in every environment, but particularly the natural environment, is experienced through each of the senses, being seen, heard, tasted, smelled and touched. But, when it involves nature, there is a fundamental additional experience that is often overlooked and under-valued, that being the spiritual experience that is most profoundly evident in truly natural landscapes. For a landscape to be experienced as natural, few environments provide a more striking example than Wilderness. And consequently, formally declared Wilderness areas must be clearly understood to be special and different from other natural areas such as ordinary nature reserves. Wilderness areas are largely untouched by man. They contain few or no footpaths, they contain few or no formal camping areas, they are allowed to follow nature’s rhythms as they existed for thousands of years past, preferably without man’s interference. They represent an “original way”, wild and untainted by man’s influence. More particularly, human influence and visitors are strictly limited and carefully controlled in Wilderness areas to physically limit the often negative impact that tourism activities are known to have. It is certainly deliberate and necessary that Wilderness areas are less easy to access. There is (and must be) a tangible, physical constraint in gaining access to Wilderness areas because lying within them, is a form of nature

The issues raised in this comment has been addressed in the 24G application. The competent authority that responds to the mentioned Environmental Issues is the Department of Environmental Affairs and Planning. No Heritage Impact Assessment is required please refer to

RESPONSE TO NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO DEVELOP: FINAL In terms of Section 38(2) of the National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999) and the Western Cape Provincial Gazette, Notice 298 of 2003. In appendix H. CASE NUMBER: 20072803SB0928E



that is rare and unique in the world, but is rapidly being lost, destroyed or more often, neglected. By consciously having to make a concerted effort, those entering Wilderness Areas are moved to acknowledge the valuable privilege of being able to transition from an ordinary space, into nature’s original space. Human beings are spiritual beings, that require their spiritual essence to be replenished and nurtured on a regular basis. To deliberately, accidentally or otherwise be disconnected from one’s own spiritual identity, is akin to forfeiting your human-ness. Natural environments have shown to have some of the most profoundly positive and regenerative effects on the spiritual health of people. And, the more natural the environment in which the experience is had, the stronger the infusion of a spiritual sense of wellbeing and contentment. Experience in and of unspoilt nature, is significantly more beneficial for the spiritual (and overall) health of an individual than almost any other activity. This inherent need for spiritual regeneration is perhaps the very definition of Sense of Place implied in the concept. Consequently, the destruction of natural spaces or any action leading to a detrimental effect upon Wilderness areas in general, erodes one’s very own Sense of Place and consequently, negatively affects the fundamental health of all affected human beings. The Groot Winterhoek Wilderness Area, its inclusion in the Cape Floristic Region as a Unesco World Heritage Site and the identification of all of the adjacent Critical Biodiversity Areas, are very clear and unambiguous pronouncements of that “PLACE” that is being described. To underestimate the importance of the meaning of Place in our approach to “Sense of Place” would be to deny at our peril, the power inherent in the heritage of nature. It is important to bear in mind that there are but four officially designated Wilderness Areas in the entire Western Cape Province. It is in this context that the tourist facility must be assessed. The previously described actions of the applicant have all but destroyed the Sense of Place inherent in the space prior to the events. For ease of assessment, the below information is repeated in summarised form. Where once was Nature, unsightly roads, mechanically graded without proper planning, design or approval, now criss-cross the slopes below the Wilderness area. Traversing these rudimentary roads, are 4x4 vehicles that leave billowing clouds of dust in their wake, their sometimes intermittent tyre traction causing irreparable erosion and ever-increasing



loss of topsoil as they go. Campers make fires and cause nocturnal (and other) pollution within a few minutes’ walk from the Wilderness Area. Construction sites have been hastily cleared and factory-built buildings have sprung up, literally overnight, representing unprecedented destruction of natural vegetation and critical biodiversity. Yet, the proposition is made that it would actually be the best course of action for all parties concerned, in particular for Nature itself, if these activities not only continued and were approved retroactively, but were in fact expanded upon and completed to their fullest extent. And this all because the damage has, regrettably, already been done! A more absurd proposition could hardly be imagined. By allowing and condoning any further activity towards the outcome driven by the applicant, the irreversible destruction of Sense of Place in every way for current and future generations would be guaranteed. A greater injustice could not be committed, especially considering the relative ease, if not insubstantial effort, to remove all contentious structures and rehabilitate the natural environment damaged by irresponsible and unlawful earthmoving.

No feasibility study was conducted to test the sweeping statements regarding the advantages of the proposed tourism facility, and that are held to over- ride the significant cost of the environmental degradation. It should be pointed out that any feasibility study should not simply constitute an economic assessment determined by financial returns. Feasibility must be demonstrated in respect of social, environmental and (socio) economic considerations which must be balanced. Tools for such calculations have been developed by the World Bank (https://www.cbd.int/financial/finplanning/g-costestimate-worldbank.pdf) and can also be found in an ISO Standard developed in 2019 already (https://www.iso.org/standard/43243.html). These are just two examples, there are many others available in the market. Consequently, the presence of the pro economic arguments in the reports in without any proper analysis should be dismissed outright. In closing, the owners of Secret Falls have no entitlement to development rights. They purchased the property with the existing zoning and, save for two cottages, 1 and 2, otherwise pristine land that constitutes a critical biodiversity area, neither of which allow for the proposed development. Certainly there must be presented a substantial and cogent motivation if the construction of the campsite, site office and incomplete cottages 5 and

In order to provide some context, District and local documents that relate to IDP, SDF and Witzenberg Local Economic Development (LED) frameworks and strategies were considered. Tulbagh (LED) - Important agricultural activities include the production of quality estate wine, olives, wheat and livestock and deciduous and stone fruit. Potential has been identified for the production of persimmon, olives and niche specialty products and indigenous honey bush, kankerbos and buchu. However, a significant limitation is water availability and indications are that local surface water runoff is being inefficiently harvested to the benefit of local agriculture and the local community. Tulbagh enjoys the attraction of age and Kerkstraat is a significant tourist attraction. Up-market wine estates and cultural and community festivals draw domestic and foreign tourists. Key elements in the development of the tourism sub-sector in Tulbagh include aggressive marketing, the refurbishment of the Tulbagh caravan park that has served the interests of local tourism for many years, the identification and resolution of access to natural features of significant potential tourism interest on

https://www.cbd.int/financial/finplanning/g-costestimate-worldbank.pdf



6 are upheld after the fact. We strongly submit that these should be decommissioned and the affected area rehabilitated.

private farms in the area and the encouragement of farm- and craft stalls to serve the passing tourist trade. Secret Falls is in the CORE 1 Spatial Planning Category, indicating that the areas must be maintained in, or restored to, a natural state in order to sustain biodiversity patterns and processes and the functionality of ecosystem services. Activities that are supported in these areas are as follows:

• Subject to stringent controls biodiversity-compatible land uses that may be accommodated include non-consumptive low impact eco-tourism activities (e.g. hiking trails, bird and game watching, and visitor overnight accommodation).

To follow is a letter from the CEO of Tulbagh Tourism & Tulbagh Wine Route. Witzenberg Municipality Ceres 6835 2 February 2021 To whom it may concern Dear Sir / Madam Motivation letter – Secret Falls Tulbagh is a wine tourism destination. Tulbagh is not earmarked for any industrial development the only two sectors that will take the Valley forward is agriculture and tourism. Secret Falls has the potential to contribute tremendously to our tourism and is earmarked to be considered an enormous asset to our communities. Secret Falls, as it stands, plays an integral role in tourism offering not only camping but self-catering accommodation and hiking trails which are kept in pristine conditions by staff employed locally. The need has arisen to build more cottages as is a demand for self-catering accommodation in the Valley. Tourism creates many employment opportunities in the Valley. It is the aim of our tourism establishments to provide a good service to customers as well as boost job creation in the area.



Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require any further. Regards Patty Nieuwoudt CEO Tulbagh Tourism & Tulbagh Wine Route Tel: 023 230 1375 Fax: 023 230 1348 www.tulbaghtourism.co.za www.tulbaghwineroute.com

• We support the notion that no further vegetation may be lost without the prior authorization from the applicable competent authorities, Strict mitigation measures must be implemented to prevent any further loss of biodiversity. Mitigation measures outline in the EMPr (Appendix I) will be approved or amended by the DEA&DP on the submission of the 24G application.

4. Peter Viljoen Email sent on the 24th of November 2020.

Appendix F: Secret Falls Existing Legal Water Use is 1 095 m3 per year [surface water ] Domestic only not for illegal tourism . Illegal tourism water etc. abstracted illegally on cliff as shown in attached pictures? Ground water 0 .Agricultural use 12 500 m3 per year . This is mountain land with endangered Breede Shale Fynbos not Agri land ?


Background info: Camp site for 10 people? It’s actually 10 + sites X min 4 per site = 40 + people directly influencing natural region. Sign posted hikes, horse trails, biking, 4x4 jeep tracks etc.


Site clearings and roads for new cottages and developments, water, fauna and flora damages ? Rehabilitation is a must in mediation. Sensitive area according to Department Environment Affairs Development and Planning [ DEADP].


Alteration of flow regime is said to be low. This is not correct ? Water diversions from a small stream in Wolkbreuk Kloof and Kloof above camp

Please note that my study was primarily a freshwater ecological assessment and without records or estimates of water abstraction



site has a massive impact on water volume due to strength ability of these small perennial streams . Especially in Summer months? Alleged Illegal tourist operation in high season during summer months consume water?

or year-round hydrological studies to confirm perenniality of watercourses the freshwater specialist relied on the NGI Rivers database which indicates that all streams are non-perennial. The Department of Water and Sanitation (I&AP) is a Competent Authority in this matter, the report will be sent for comment. The 24G application only deal with the activities triggered in the NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ACT, 1998 (ACT NO. 107 OF 1998) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REGULATIONS, 2014. The applicability of a GA or WULA will be determined by the applicable Competent Authority.

Conclusion confirms : The tourist operation should continue based on mitigation measures , main reason , to keep investment done and allow employment. This is ludicrous . You allow for employment but subsequently kill off fauna , Flora and sensitive illegal water diversions for tourism and employment ?Its known employment is minimal, I think Secret falls employs one person if that? When this sensitive region is fully operational over 60 plus people could be wondering and driving around , stressing fauna , flora and water resources? Secret Fall Existing lawful water use of 1 095m3 per year? How does illegal abstraction from Wolk breuk Kloof and Kloof above camp site define what’s actually happening on the ground as we have proved in photos and correspondence? We have emails where Mrs Nadia Ludi confirms they only have friends visiting with 4x4 vehicles with trailers for camping etc .basically allegedly denying tourist activities. Although they have a Web Site advertising Secret Falls as a tourist destination, explain these contradictions? BERG WATER MANAGEMENT page 15: I agree the camp site does not influence non perennial water courses. Only the roads do. But if you abstract water from above camp site as happened in the past from PERENNIAL STREAMS it will influence everything below including fauna and wetlands etc. This is ignored or not mentioned in your assessment hopefully due to the fact it’s illegal , although remnants of this happening is present ? Blue Scorpions directive instructing removal of pipes and tanks in Klowe above supplying gravity pressure over 5 bar to Camp and tourist sites?

Mapped blue dots on page 16 ,figure 8 , confirm NON PERENNIAL STREAMS .This is NOT TRUE ? The northern part of these streams/dots near mountain cliffs are PERENNIAL [ about 20m3 per hour , much less in summer] These streams are or were diverted for tourist operations? The lower part of these dots / streams become PERENNIAL again in the form of Springs or Ground water originating from northern dots near cliff of mountain klowe.

Again on page 20 figure 11 confirms Non Perennial lines. These are PERENNIAL LINES lower down ?

The camp site water confirming alien kikuyu and irrigation systems ?Attached pictures prove illegal 40mm piping from cliff and Klowe above. The bar pressure was over 5 bar as indicated on attached picture ?

Please refer to the EMPr for the applicable mitigation measures.



Basically sucking the resources dry in sensitive extreme hot summer months?

Water quality impairment due to septic tank soak aways? Bearing in mind EXCISTING LEGAL WATER USE ALLOCATION?

Page 27 , table 7 and table 8 , IHIA impact score on Non Perennial drainage lines is based on what? I don’t understand this table7 ? Table 8 the EIS I don’t agree with score 1 and confidence score 4 for sensitivity to change natural hydrological regime .It should be score 4 risk and confidence 1.I had a hydrologist confirm , if you influence or divert Perennial streams above on this gradient it will influence Perennial flow lower down especially in dry hot summer months?

Please note that my study was primarily a freshwater ecological assessment and without records or estimates of water abstraction or year-round hydrological studies to confirm perenniality of watercourses the freshwater specialist relied on the NGI Rivers database which indicates that all streams are non-perennial. The Department of Water and Sanitation (I&AP) is a Competent Authority in this matter, the report will be sent for comment. The 24G application only deal with the activities triggered in the NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ACT, 1998 (ACT NO. 107 OF 1998) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REGULATIONS, 2014. The applicability of a GA or WULA will be determined by the applicable Competent Authority.

Again table 9 the PES category , Score is A ? I believe the true picture was not presented? Sensitive low flowing Perennial water stream diversions upstream would have a massive impact lower down as mentioned before. Hydrologist confirmation. Unless Mr and Mrs Ludi stop this illegal activity? Who is going to police this on a mountain side in private land ? If they stop illegal abstraction how will they supply water in hot summer to swimming pool and camp site irrigation systems etc , high above ? Surely not from non perennial streams or legal water use ?

Not to mention incomplete new housing built in lock down illegally , figure 25 and 26 developments and water requirements? Before impact study no regulations were followed or obeyed . Clearing fauna and fauna and water abstractions were done with impunity? Although authority letters [ see in Nature work correspondence ] and emails instructing developments to stop were allegedly ignored this a fact . During Lock down further developments continued which was reported then temporarily stopped .


Page 34 does not make sense? It mentions decreased flow due to illegal water abstraction, Non Perennial line . Again its Abstraction from PERENNIAL LINES above as confirmed in Blue scorpion pre Directive . Next point it mentions increased flow in receiving Non Perennial drainage line as a result from campsite pool over flow. You suggest decreasing flow above at source diverting the weak perennial feeder stream to increase overflow of the pool further down and not in line with natural flow , all coming from the same source ? Taking into consideration the camp site never had a natural water source and Legal water use? Not to mention the

Please note that my study was primarily a freshwater ecological assessment and without records or estimates of water abstraction or year-round hydrological studies to confirm perenniality of watercourses the freshwater specialist relied on the NGI Rivers database which indicates that all streams are non-perennial.



hydrological impact lower down on springs and wetlands ? I DO AGREE with increased flow in water due to run off from roofs and hard surface roads. Water or rains happen in winter when this is not so critical to collect or feed the resources from a few roofs ?Winter rains have always maintained the natural environment.

Summer this area becomes very sensitive , the alleged illegal tourist operation peaks in Summer .Mitigation and regular checks by authorized personnel and neighbours concerned in community. If mitigation rehabilitation instructions were to be ignored what procedures follow ?Our authorities have achieved little or nothing the past few years? I SUGGEST LOCAL NEIGHBOURS AND LOCAL AUTRHORITIES WHO CARE, BE PART OF MONITORING AND COMPLIANCE.

Please refer to the EMPr for details pertaining the implementation of the mitigation measures.

Page37 “Alteration of flow Regime “ Once again I don’t agree. Diversion of flow especially in Summer from a weak Perennial stream above to fill swimming pool and supply tourist water ?The pool overflow is at least 100m from the natural flow course .The little illegal overflow gets absorbed by the higher hill which pool and campsite is built. The overflow does not reach the natural course +- 100m below .This water flows year round not only when tourists are present .The little water available at source especially in hot Summer months and potential 60 tourists on site fully booked . This can surely not be low impact in a sensitive region? Local knowledge can confirm during periods of low flow there are not Minor reduction as your report indicates but massive reduction in flow .Not to mention if we have dry winters during climate change? These facts would need water meter readings over a period of years .Readings were never necessary before this heavy impact arrived on our mountain side. This is another hydrological fact not taken into account ?Your report mentions overflow from POOL increases flow below in drainage. This is NOT TRUE. In Hot summer months the little pool overflow gets absorbed within about 20 meters below pool . The visible vegetation colour just below pool can prove this . The main drainage course about 100 meters below never receives any run off ?

Please note that my study was primarily a freshwater ecological assessment and without records or estimates of water abstraction or year-round hydrological studies to confirm perenniality of watercourses the freshwater specialist relied on the NGI Rivers database which indicates that all streams are non-perennial. The Department of Water and Sanitation (I&AP) is a Competent Authority in this matter, the report will be sent for comment. The 24G application only deal with the activities triggered in the NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ACT, 1998 (ACT NO. 107 OF 1998) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REGULATIONS, 2014. The applicability of a GA or WULA will be determined by the applicable Competent Authority.

Another hydrological fact and concern :There is a very active PERENNIAL STREAM below Eenboomsrug [below new housing developments ]This Spring is hydrologically activated from WOLKBREUK KLOOF above .Water illegally abstracted for tourism from source under cliff in WolkBreukKloof ?WOLKBREUK KOOF means porous rocks .Water from Wolkbreuk Kloof flows under rocks and ridge feeding springs lower down. Especially the all important EENBOOMSRUG SPRING south west



Wokbreuk kloof, not really mentioned in this report. Water diverted from Wolkbreuk kloof to a swimming pool and tourist site,south east of Wolkbreuk kloof will influence underground water feeding Eenboomsrug Spring . If the pool were to reach the natural flow 100m below , which it definitely does NOT. This would have a influence on the active Eenboomsrug Spring .Water is or was removed above to feed the pool and tourist site .This perennial water especially in dry summer months is crucial to normal flow,feeding springs further down , hydrologically linked to Wolkbreuk kloof .If pool overflow etc were to reach lower drainage course it would have been redirected by 3-400 meters on a slope of 35% much further below.This is causing 90% water loss further up especially in dry times .This water loss or diversion responsible for feeding Eenboomsrug spring might or will have affect in the medium to short term? THIS IS THE BIGGEST WATER CONCERN IN THIS PROJECT AND HAS RECEVEID THE LEAST OR NO ATTETION?

Increased water flow from small amounts of summer rains would increase water flow from roofs and roads . Although this would have minimal effect ,for it would cause erosion and get absorbed within meters of the roads or roofs. Hence little benefit if any ?ITS MORE IMPORTANT TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT WEAK PERENNIAL STREAMS BEING DIVERTED HIGHER UP?DO WE RISK SPRINGS LOWER DOWN DRYING UP DUE TO FEEDER STREAMS HIGHER UP BEING DIVERTED ILEGALLY FOR TOURIST OPEREATIONS? WILL SPRINGS ACTIVATE AGAIN IN A MODERATE RAINY WINTER SEASON IF THEY HAVE BEEN DISTURBED? ITS IMPORTANT TO NOTE ,THESES PRINGS HAVE NEVER DRIED UP . HAVING SAID THAT, NO DIVERSIONS IN THE PAST 100 + ODD YEARS HAPPENED.

Explain page 40 please? Decommissioning due to loss of alleged illegal tourist income ? Table 21 , Alteration of flow regime is indicated very low .This would be the case I agree if no water abstraction takes place above at source. Which is or was not the case[ see pics attached ] . If water abstraction higher up takes place it would surely have a HIGH or extremely HIGH rating on table 21 ? Do you know the flow rate of these streams in summer ?I know from experience streams usually only activate August in a normal wet years . Underground water first needs to be filled, general knowledge. Diversions would cause underground water in Wolbreuk Kloof drainage system to take longer to refill or activate ?

Secret falls employs nobody maybe one or two employees? It’s a self-catering Camp facility .The dust destruction ,fauna and flora damage ,water




diversions , dust on fruit trees caused by heavy summer weekend traffic will cause much more damage and job loss in an established fruit industry.

Roads and rehabilitation need to be done on the mountain side . Not only ban more development and clearing for more sites ?

Road maintenance and erosion mitigation measures are a must as indicated in the EMPr. No new sites may be cleared without the prior approval from the competent authority.

One big concern I do not notice in your report :Fire risk .All campsites in this sensitive region are situated in the natural fynbos , campfires are in close proximity to the Fynbos. Some open fire/braai places are within one or two meters of the mountain open Fynbos?

This has been addressed in further detail in the EMPr.

Appendix regarding emails and warnings from Authorities the past years have been allegedly ignored or not taken seriously , why should Secret falls take this serious now ?

This 24G application is being completed because of the notices given by DEA&DP. Previous actions taken in response to the notices included:

• Rehabilitation plan;

• Botanical and Ecological Observations;

• Environmental Management Plan. These reports can be viewed in Appendix H under old reports.

5. Mirna Rabe Email sent on the 7th of December 2020.

Is dit n toerisme zone? Volgens my kennis van die oorspronklike koop tussen Andrew Moffat en Mark Ludi, is dit verkoop op voorwaarde en uitgestipuleer dat dit nie vir kommersiele gebruik is nie.. Dit behoort in die oorspronklike koopkontrak te staan en kan aangevra word.

A consent use application is required for the current activities.

Die berg is ‘n sensitiewe water gebied veral in somer , water word benut vir toerisme en nie vir huishoudelike gebruik ens.


n Groot bekommernis vir my is die paaie wat sonder ‘n ingenieurs verslag.. net gestoot is nie en dus geen professional beplannig gedoen is om die natuur, erosie en gradient van die berg te beskerm ni. Hy verniel en beskadiging die inheemse Fauna en flora en habitat van organismes en diere. Is daar ‘n environmental impact study gedoen? Herskep hy wat hy uithaal? Bewaar hy ooit die natuur?

No Impact studies were conducted prior to the illegal construction of the road. We aim to address any long term erosion issues through mitigation. Please find the specified mitigation measures in the EMPr.

Verder is Tulbagh is besig om toerisme te bou , die stap roetes raak baie gewild , as ons die natuurlike omgewing beskadig is ons besig om die groter prentjie van toerisme te knou. Ons natuur is ons grootste bate, en tweede is ons plase, wynkelders , restuarante, Kerkstraat ens.




‘n Ander bekommernis is die verkeer op die na die kampeerarea. Nie alle gaste is ervare genoeg 4 x 4 bestuurders nie en gevolglik raak gaste in die moeilikheid met voertuie en moet dan noodgedwonge kom hulle vra, wat onnodige tyd mors en ‘n irritasie skep. Verder gaan die SFalls gaste vir ‘n drive verby my huis en skep onnodige stof, onnodige extra werk, geen konsiderasie! Om nie eers van my privaatheid te praat nie.


6. Charl Herbts Email sent on the 7th of December 2020.

I feel exactly the same as Peter and Max on all these issues regarding Secret Falls.


COMMENTS AND RESPONSE REPORT

Documents

Transcript of COMMENTS AND RESPONSE REPORT