'n Seder val in Waterkloof . . . en 'n trotse baken en historiese landmerk het verlede week in Mosselbaai geval . . . sommer net so?

Die onseremoniële afsaag van een van die vier palmbome wat sowat 'n eeu gelede deur die legendariese Harry Giddy geplant is as grensbakens van die pragtige Harry Giddy-kloof (ook genoem Harry Giddy Corner) aan die bokant van Georgeweg, het hewige kritiek en ontsteltenis van veral oud-inwoners en bewaringsbewustes ontlok.

Die uitheemse dadelpalmbome staan glo al so lank soos die indrukwekkende klipmure en -wandelpaadjies in die kloof wat wyle Harry Giddy destyds self beplan, uitgelê en met behulp van Italiaanse krysgevangenes van WO2 gebou het en word alom beskou as deel van Mosselbaai se kultuurerfenis.

Ontstelde inwoners het verlede Dinsdag die munisipaliteit gebel toe hulle 'n span werkers sien wat besig is om met 'n trapstellasie en kettingsaag die boonste kroon van die eeu-oue palmboom op die een grenshoek af te saag. Dr David McNally, 'n tandarts van Plettenbergbaai en een van die begunstigdes van die McNally Trust aan wie een van die vyf huise langs die kloof behoort, het blykbaar 'n kontrakteur aangestel om die boom te verwyder omdat die wortels glo die "eeu-oue klipmuur beskadig" . . .

Talle inwoners het woedend op sosialemedianetwerke reageer: 

"Dis onsin en pure strooi - die klipmuur bestaan al 'n eeu lank en makeer niks. Die boom het seker sy see-uitsig belemmer!"

"Is dit hoe Mosselbaai se eeue-oue historiese karakter en kultuurerfenis deesdae vernietig word vir selfsugtige doeleindes en 'vooruitgang'? wou 'n ontstelde inwoner weet.

'n Ander inwoner het voorgestel dat die munisipaliteit inwoners en nuwe intrekkers op sy nuusblad bedag maak op ou bome (ook dié in private tuine) as deel van die gemeenskap se erfenis omdat bome buite erfgrense die lug in troon en vir talle sigbaar is en estetiese genot verskaf.

Teen die tyd wat munisipale amptenare van die parke-afdeling en die erfenisvereniging Dinsdag opgedaag het, was dit glo reeds te laat om die boom te red. 

Volgens Carina Wiggill van die Erfenisvereniging was die "kroon" van die boom glo reeds afgesaag en die boom so erg beskadig dat dit nie sou help om die werkery te stop nie. Sy is veral ontsteld dat die betrokke owerhede nie in die saak geken is nie.

Ook mnr. Eddie Jantjies van die munisipaliteit se Parke-afdeling het gesê dis baie jammer dat so 'n ou baken in Mosselbaai goedsmoeds en blykbaar sonder grondige rede vernietig is.

Kenners meen ook 'n klipmuurtjie kan binne 'n paar uur of dae herstel word, maar hoe vervang jy 'n eeu-oue boom? Daar is ook groot teenstrydigheid daaroor of die spesifieke stukkie muur hoegenaamd deur die boom se wortels gekraak het omdat die mure naaste aan die boom niks makeer nie en grondverskuiwing weens die droogte en huisbouery 'n meer waarskynlike oorsaak is.  

Die betrokke boom was glo wel op private trust-eiendom, maar destyds met die onderverdeling van die oorspronklike perseel was streng voorwaardes en beperkings gestel - onder meer dat die ou palmbome nie verwyder mag word nie. Dr David McNally het glo ook téén die wense en besware van die ander trustees opgetree en het daarvolgens nie wettige magtiging gehad om die boom sonder hul toestemming te laat afsaag nie omdat dit nie sy eiendom is nie.

Mnr. Pieter Holzhausen, een van die huidige ses huiseienaars langs die kloof, is ewe ontsteld oor die boom se verwydering. Sy pa, die bekende Mosselbaaise oud-burgemeester Harry Holzhausen, het in 1960 die oorspronklike huis en grond van Harry Giddy gekoop en die grond later in vyf erwe verdeel. Toe was die betrokke dadelpalmbome al groot en gevestig. 

 Mnr. Pieter Holtzhausen op sy stoep met 'n soortgelyke dadelpalmboom as die een wat afgesaag is, op die agtergrond. 

"Wyle Harry Giddy het in 1916 sy huis hier gebou, asook al die uitsonderlike klipmuurtjies en wandelpaadjies. Sover ek kan onthou, was sy huis destyds bekend as West End. Ek het dit 'n tyd terug na Gewels verander sedert dit as 'n gastehuis bedryf word."

"Van die koopvoorwaardes was destyds dat niks aan die huis verander mag word nie en dat die palmbome ook nie verwyder mag word nie. Sedertdien is al vyf erwe op die perseel verkoop en bewoon en ek weet nie of dié beperkinge steeds geld nie. 'n Mens sou hoop dat al die huiseienaars die kosbare nalatenskap van Giddy sou respekteer en bewaar, maar nou lyk dit nie so nie", het hy hartseer gesê.

Bo: Foto's uit die argiewe van Harry Giddy wat uitkyk oor sy geliefde Santosstrand en die oorspronklike gewelhuis en kunstige klip-lushof wat hy destyds met die hulp van Italiaanse krygsgevangenes ontwerp en gebou het.

Dr McNally het gister nie een van die talle oproepe na sy praktyk of selfoonnommer beantwoord nie. Die kontrakteur en werkers op die perseel wou nie kommentaar lewer nie, behalwe om te sê dat hulle die kontrak gekry het om die boom te verwyder en net die "tandarts se opdrag uitvoer."

* Intussen is sommige huiseienaars ook erg ontsteld dat dieselfde kontrakteur ook die tender by die munisipaliteit gekry het om die "stormwaterkanaal skoon te maak" en in die proses glo ook die meeste plante verwyder het wat deur die jare spesiaal aangeplant is ter verfraaiing van die omgewing en om gronderosie te bekamp.

Volgens Madre van den Berg, een van die vyf huiseienaars langs die kloof, het sy die afgelope sowat tien jaar die munisipale deel van die kloof by die munisipaliteit "gehuur" om dit te rehabiliteer en in stand te hou.
"Ons het baie geld en tyd bestee om die kloof te verfraai en in stand te hou - juis omdat dit so uniek en besonders is sodat dit steeds 'n baie gewilde plek is vir foto-sessies van spesiale geleenthede soos troues, matriekafskeide, ens.

"Ek het deur die jare baie inheemse, waterwys-plante soos Arum-lelies, clivias, varings en watsonias langs die spruit en teen die klip-terrasse geplant en ons het self die kloof skoongehou in samewerking met die munisipaliteit wat op 'n gereelde basis die tuinafval kom wegry het.

"Dit wil egter voorkom asof die kontrakteur wat nou deur die strate- en stormwaterafdeling aangestel is om die kloof "skoon te maak", nie behoorlik ingelig was nie en voor die voet alle plante saam met indringerplante verwyder het. Nou is die kaal grond juis 'n groot risiko vir gronderosie en stormwaterprobleme omdat daar niks is om dit te anker nie", het sy gesê. 
Van die kliptrappies is blykbaar ook beskadig toe 'n stomp wat afgesaag moes word, daarop beland het.

"Hier was nog nooit 'n stormwaterprobleem nie omdat ons self die kloof skoongemaak en onderhou het. Dis jammer dat so iets moes gebeur weens swak kommunikasie en onkunde."

Die betrokke kontrakteur wat anoniem wou bly, het by navraag ontken dat enige plante benewens indringerplante, blare en rommel verwyder is of dat enige skade aangerig is. 
"Ons het die tender gekry om die gras te sny, bome wat in die pad is te snoei, indringerplante te verwyder en die stormwaterkanaal skoon te maak. Dis wat ons gedoen het en die munisipaliteit is tevrede en het ons betaal," het sy gesê.

• Die bekende Harry Giddy Park in Marsh-straat is oorspronklik in 1887 as Victoria Park uitgelê ter ere van die Britse koningin Victoria. Gedurende die 1940's het wyle Harry Giddy omvattende opknappingswerk aan die park en die kloof gedoen en is die park na hom herbenoem. Die park, asook die lowerryke kloof waardeur 'n standhoudende spruit vloei, is vandag steeds twee van Mosselbaai se trotse erfenisgebiede en gewilde ontspanningsterreine.
• Nog foto's op ons Facebook-blad: https://web.facebook.com/mosselbayontheline/posts/2376855819212338?_

* Dit blyk daar is ook verwarring en onsekerheid oor die korrekte spelling van wyle Harry Giddy/Giddey se naam. In feitlik alle dokumentasie en internet-verwysings is dit jare lank as Giddy gespel en ook in die jongste munisipale kennisgewings, ens. word dit steeds as Giddy gespel, terwyl die naambord van die park nou glo verander is na Giddey . . . ? 

Toerisme-roete:

Hoe belangrik is Mosselbaai se kultuur-historiese erfenis vandag nog vir inwoners? Die eeu-oue palmboom se "onwettige" afsaag is ironies in die lig van die munisipaliteit se planne om 'n spesiale toerisme-roete te ontwikkel wat juis Mosselbaai se ryk geskiedenis - ofte wel die "storie" van Mosselbaai - uitbeeld . . .

"A proposal was developed to link tourists and tourist related activities in the historic Mossel Bay CBD via a Tourist Route, which tells the history or “Story” of Mossel Bay and its people whilst providing relevant information regarding tourist activities, businesses, restaurants, coffee shops and the history of Mossel Bay. "

The terms of reference include the following:

• Identify the location of existing focus points and tourist assets;
• Determine the best route to link the identified focus points and other tourist assets;
• Identify the best locations for the newly identified focus points within the existing and future urban fabric of the historical CBD;
• Develop a tourism or user optimization and implementation plan for Harry Giddy Park to maximize the use of this park;
• The development of an Art Concept for all the focus points, which will tell a part of the larger “Story”;
• The concept of each artwork for all the focal points will be developed to brief an artist; and
• Development of a business model with costs and timelines will form part of the Tourism Framework.
• The study area is the central area of Mossel Bay which covers the area from the Point to Harry Giddy Park as a first phase. The idea is to use this route to create linkages to all tourist activities in the larger Mossel Bay municipal area.  
• https://www.mosselbayadvertiser.com/News/Article/General/cbd-tourism-vision-unveiled-201904080358

 ONTHOU JY NOG?

Kyk ook dié interessante video van 'n versameling foto's uit toeka se dae in Mosselbaai . . .   

Related Articles:

• Mosselbaai se mooi . . . vir hoe lank nog as politici doen net wat hulle wil ?

Despite several concessions being made, homeowners in Beyers Street along the pristine Little Brak River mouth and estuary are sad and deeply disappointed that the money allocated for the "unnecessary and unwanted" upgrading of the road and the provision of formal parking areas and a boardwalk is not used for more urgent matters.

This comes after months of meetings, public participation processes and objections against the Mossel Bay Municipality's initial proposal to upgrade/reseal Beyers Street and to provide formal parking within the road reserve. The municipality's proposal, as part of its Integrated Development Plan (IDP), also includes the construction of a boardwalk within the road reserve, as well as additional formal parking within Lindt Street.

Homeowners who have lived across the river for decades are now busy identifying and removing trees, shrubbery and plants which they have planted and nurtured for decades on the "extended part of their gardens" on the road reserve -  which will now be replaced by grass blocks.

The need and desirability of the costly project have been questioned and opposed from day one, as it is feared that the formal parking and boardwalk will impact on the authenticity and character of the area.

Homeowners and affected parties along Beyers Street also feel this costly project is a waste of taxpayers money and unnecessary in the light of much more urgent matters such as the cleaning up of the polluted/blocked rivers to avoid future flooding, housing shortages and ongoing legal actions regarding the homeowners of Riverside and Seemeeu Park.

The municipality's reasons for the comprehensive project - to protect the dunes south of Beyers Street from the impact of informal parking during peak holiday periods and to ensure the safety of pedestrians and motorists during high season - were also opposed and deemed unjustified.  

One of the objections is that the main issues - namely parking/congestion/safety along Beyers Street - are only applicable for about two weeks of the year during peak holiday when a high volume of visitors frequent the Estuary/beach area.

"Their concern was the safety of pedestrians, but now there will be far less parking space and pedestrians will have to walk much further and cross several streets to get to the beach", one resident said.

There is also concern that the boardwalk on the dune system will be covered with sand more often than not, forcing pedestrians to walk in the road anyway despite the walkway and that the detailed impact of the project on the sensitive river mouth area has not been properly investigated/assessed in terms of the area falling within the coastal risk area and being subject to flooding.

Affected parties also feel the proposed project is against the Kleinbrak Estuarine Management Plan that specifies that there should be a reduction/cessation of inappropriate development activities in and around the Estuary. Furthermore, existing home services such as septic tanks, water meters, etc. along Beyers Street are already within the study site and the cost and impact of relocating them have not been investigated/assessed.

"We still feel the entire project is unnecessary and a waste of money, but are nevertheless grateful for the concessions made and have now resigned ourselves to the idea and made peace with it. We can't fight the resurfacing of the road and can only hope the proposed boardwalk, which has not yet been approved, will be cancelled", one of the homeowners said.

Registered affected parties are mainly disappointed that their counter-proposals and/or recommendation that the Status Quo be upheld, were not duly considered. Their proposals include that Beyers Street be converted into a one-way road which will enable vehicles to travel along the road whilst making sufficient space for parking within the existing road footprint;

 Traffic control be implemented during the peak holiday periods to manage parking/traffic instead of creating formal parking/walkways;

 Development/utilise alternative parking areas in proximity to the beach/estuary such as the open space next to the ablution facilities or at the railway station parking;

 Ice cream and food vendors can be moved to near the playground by the showers to unlock additional parking at the beach parking area.

Following the heated public participation process and even threats of lawsuits, the following decisions have been made and will be implemented during April:

Grass blocks will be installed for the entire length of the section north of Beyers Street (excluding where the 15ft line comes too close to Beyers Street to make it viable).

• ·The area demarcated for the grass blocks will respect the 15ft setback from erven;
• ·These grass block areas will be seeded and the contractor will be required to water the area during the establishment phase to ensure that the area gets covered with grass;
• ·The grass block area will not be fitted with any structures that may obstruct views i.e. bollards;
• ·The grass block area will be slightly tilted towards the road to direct runoff away from individual erven;
• ·Grass blocks were selected because it is easier to accommodate and maintain existing services within this area (i.e. individual blocks can be removed should access to services be required);
• ·The Municipality still intends to fix and upgrade the road base and surface as planned originally;
• ·The Municipality intends to still erect the boardwalk along the southern side of Beyers Street to improve pedestrian safety and deter vehicles from parking on the dunes (subject to the approval of the MMP);
• ·The Municipality acknowledges the concern raised by interested and affected parties indicating that implementation of the proposed project will affect parking along Beyers Street, therefore they will commission a separate parking study to look at the available areas that stakeholders identified during the process (and possibly other areas) for establishment of more parking areas, due to the fact that approvals for such other portions of land may be different to the current process (i.e. rezoning/consent etc), such a process will be run separately;
• ·The pedestrian access (boardwalk) will be extended to link to the main parking area;
• ·Lind Street will be converted to formal parking as planned (sufficient space will be left open to allow access to erven that can only access their properties via Lind Street);
• ·The Municipality will obtain the necessary consent from the Department of Public Works for the section of boardwalk encroaching beyond the high water mark.

The Mossel Bay Municipality's motivation for this project includes the following:

 Protection of the dunes south of Beyers Street from impacts associated with informal parking during the peak holiday periods when visitors visit the beach/estuary;

 Safety of pedestrians and motorists during peak holiday periods when vehicles park on both sides of Beyers Street forcing pedestrians to make use of the road surface where they compete with vehicles travelling along Beyers Street;

 Beyers Street requires maintenance work in the form of resealing (which will imply layer works/traffic control);

 The Municipality is ultimately looking to the future, long-term development and pressure from increasing tourism to the area that requires improvements to the access/parking areas favoured by visitors;  The Municipality maintains that they are responsible for and have the mandate to implement road and pedestrian safety/maintenance activities within the Beyers Street road reserve.

The following key issues/concerns were raised by participating stakeholders:

 * Lack of reasonable/feasible alternatives investigated/considered during the environmental process.

 * No-Go alternative has not been given due consideration in terms of the EMMP;

 * Maintenance work on Beyers Street generally supported, additional (i.e. parking) and new (i.e. boardwalk) structures/infrastructure not supported for Beyers Street;

 * The overall need and desirability of the project has not been proven and therefore the delegated authority cannot apply its mind in terms of the EMMP;

 * Formal parking and a raised boardwalk will impact on the authenticity and character of the area and this has not been considered/investigated/assessed considering proximity to the Blue Flag Beach;

 * The applicability of the Integrated Coastal Management Act (ICMA) has not been thoroughly considered and applied ito the long-term impacts of the proposal;

 * The sensitive dune system along the estuarine mouth plays an important role in protecting the safety of infrastructure/structures along Beyers Street especially during coastal storm surges and flooding events – concern about the introduction of new structures/infrastructure within this area and that it has not been considered/investigated/assessed properly;

 * The position of the proposed boardwalk on the dune system will result in it being covered with sand more often than not which implies that pedestrians will most likely walk in the road despite the walkway, hence the feasibility and desirability of the walkway is questioned;

 * The proposal will result in a significant reduction in the number of vehicles that will be able to park along Beyers Street, thereby creating a severe shortage of parking over the peak holidays;

 * The EMMP lack information about pedestrian access from the walkway to the Estuary in order to protect the dunes;

 * The project cannot be justified in terms of expense/motivation since the issues being addressed, namely parking/congestion/safety along Beyers Street, applies for approximately 15-days of the year during peak holiday only when high volume of visitors frequent the Estuary/beach area, therefore the Municipality’s preferred option of implementing formal parking and a boardwalk cannot be supported;

 * The proposal is in conflict with historical agreements between property owners and the Mossel Bay Municipality pertaining to specified portions within the road reserve;

 * The additional ‘15ft building line’ created between the 1969 consolidated erven and the road reserve of Beyers Street was intended as a ‘buffer zone’ on which building restrictions would apply and therefore structures/infrastructure cannot be constructed within these areas;

 * Concern about due process not being followed in terms of the Environmental Regulations, namely that an EMMP is not the appropriate tool to investigate and/or make an informed decision about the proposal and instead a Basic Assessment process must be followed because the new parking and walkway cannot be interpreted as ‘maintenance purposes’ irrespective whether these fall within the so-called ‘road reserve’;

 * The tender procedure was followed prematurely, before the outcome of the stakeholder engagement and environmental processes;

 * The mouth of the Klein Brak Estuary is a highly sensitive and dynamic area, however, the detailed impact of the project on this environment has not been properly investigated/assessed with the study area falling within the coastal risk area and subject to flooding; 

 * The proposed project is in contrast to the Kleinbrak Estuarine Management Plan that specifies that there should be a reduction/cessation of inappropriate development activities in and around the Estuary;

Klein Brak residents and affected parties feel formal parking and a raised boardwalk will impact on the authenticity and character of the area and this has not been considered/investigated/assessed considering proximity to the Blue Flag Beach. 

•  * Existing services associated with homes along Beyers Street are already situated within the study site (i.e. septic tanks, water meters) – the impact of relocating these services have not been investigated/assessed;

 * The potential impact of increased flood damage as a result of the proposal has not been considered;

 * Parking provided in Lind Street does not acknowledge existing accesses to homes getting access via Lind Street;

 * The proposal will compromise safe access to existing properties along Beyers Street;

 * Erecting a boardwalk on the Estuary side of Beyers Street will require the use of heavy machinery in some parts and the level and significance of such interventions has not been investigated/assessed;

 * Concern that the Municipality will not be able to maintain the new infrastructure i.e. stormwater management, cleaning of sand, replacing of structures/infrastructure;

 * The EMMP lacks detail about the project scope and does not include sufficient specialist input to make informed recommendations for maintenance and environmental management;

 * The EMMP and subsequent public participation is misleading in that it refers to ‘resealing of Beyers Street’ whereas the tender information refers to complete rebuilding of Beyers Street with deep excavations/slip roads which is a ‘upgrade of the road’, not just maintenance;

 * A portion of Lind Street has been closed as a ‘road’ and approved as such by the Surveyor General and therefore it cannot be claimed for public street purposes any longer;

 * The proposal has not been assessed in terms of the prevailing coastal processes and insufficient information is included in the EMMP dealing with sea level rise as a result of climate change over the next 100 years i.e. disaster management requirements.

 Participating stakeholders also put forward a number of alternatives they believe need to be considered by the delegated Authority (in no particular order):

Status Quo: It is submitted by most registered I&APs (read Beyers Street owners/residents/family/acquaintances) that the current scenario is acceptable to residents along Beyers Street and that should, therefore, be the preferred alternative;

Beyers Street should be converted into a one-way road which will enable vehicles to travel along the road whilst making sufficient space for parking within the existing road footprint;

 Traffic control can be implemented during the peak holiday periods to manage parking/traffic instead of creating formal parking/walkways;

 Development/utilise alternative parking areas in proximity to the beach/estuary such as the open space next to the ablution facilities or at the railway station parking;

 Ice cream and food vendors can be moved to near the playground by the showers to unlock additional parking at the beach parking area.

It is evident that the vast majority of registered I&APs are not in favour of the Municipality’s proposal to perform upgrades to Beyers Street to accommodate formal parking and a pedestrian walkway. The proposal to formalise parking along Lind Street and to perform maintenance work on Beyers Street (resealing of the road) received much less opposition.

In the absence of broader community support for the project, there is a strong possibility that the proposal will be opposed by registered I&APs in their private capacity or in a group format irrespective of the outcome of the ongoing environmental/consultation process. The Mossel Bay Municipality is therefore at risk of implementing the current proposal with potential delays associated with legal action.

Read the follow-up to this story (with pics) here: 

https://web.facebook.com/mosselbayontheline/posts/2406499676247952?

Read the complete report here: 

http://www.cape-eaprac.co.za/projects/MOS526%20Beyers%20Street%20Upgrade/Updated%20EMMP/App%20F%20-%20Stakeholder%20engagement%20report.pdf

Also, read our related articles about the situation at Mossel Bay's three rivers: 

• CRY ME A RIVER . . . The UNTOLD story of Riverside in Little Brak River
• Hartenbosrivier al hoe meer besoedel en gevaarlik vir watersport
• Hartenbos-rivier GESLUIT voor feesseisoen. Wat gaan REGTIG aan by Mosselbaai se drie riviere . . . ?
• Stryd om "siek" Hartenbos-rivier te red, duur voort
• GREAT BRAK RIVER - A RIVER RUNS THROUGH IT . . . OR DOES IT?

Related Articles:

• CRY ME A RIVER . . . The UNTOLD story of Riverside in Little Brak River
• Hartenbosrivier al hoe meer besoedel en gevaarlik vir watersport
• Hartenbos-rivier GESLUIT voor feesseisoen. Wat gaan REGTIG aan by Mosselbaai se drie riviere . . . ?
• Stryd om "siek" Hartenbos-rivier te red, duur voort
• GREAT BRAK RIVER - A RIVER RUNS THROUGH IT . . . OR DOES IT?

Strong and valid objections against the proposed fish meal factory in Mossel Bay's harbour have been pouring in since Mosselbayontheline was urged by concerned residents to launch a petition against the industry due to its devastating effects on the environment, tourism and the livelihood of residents and visitors.

Although most people indicated their concerns and objections, only 331 people have thus far actually SIGNED the petition. The deadline for objections is TODAY and those against such a factory can still register and email their concerns to the following address and/or sign the ongoing petition:

Here are some of the concerns and objections raised by those who have already signed the petition:  

https://www.petitions.net/say_no_to_a_fish_meal_and_fish_oil_factory_on_quay_1_in_mossel_bay_harbour

* It is unacceptable to give permission to go ahead with the proposed Fish Meal Factory without taking into account the concerns of the taxpaying residents of this town. The location of this factory would cause severe problems of air pollution and stress to the residents. Progress is not made to the detriment of the taxpayer nor can the local Government make this decision without considering the impact on business and tourism in our town. I am against this factory and will do all within the law to see it doesn't happen.

* Ek werk in Mossdustria en daar is 'n vismeelfabriek en dit vrot. Kan nie leef van stank party dae.

* We live next door to a fish factory and have first hand experience of just how unpleasant the odours are and how the seawater is polluted by the activity. A fish factory has no place in a primarily holiday destination - especially if the town was not previously renowned for such an activity.

* I'm signing as air, odour and sea pollution are inevitable outcomes of this proposed factory. It has no place in Mossel Bay's most important and sensitive areas and facilities tourism wise (Dias Museum Complex, Santos Blue Flag Beach, Gannet/Protea Hotel complex, the Point, the Goods Shed, proposed Mossel Bay Waterfront) and is also close too close to residential areas.

* I have experienced these factories on the West Coast , Saldanha, St Helena Bay and even with the new high technology extractors and equipment it makes the whole area smells worse than shit!

* I read the environmental impact study which makes it very clear that there is no guarantee that the stinking and toxic emissions will not be impacting the inhabitants of the city.

• * It will destroy the charm of Mosselbay for kilometers around that area where they plan the facility. Financially it does not make sense for Mosselbay and the incidence of shark attacks will definitely increase. Mosselbay as a tourist destination will cease to exist. This will impact on the value of property in the area. The overall balance of current versus future value of Mosselbay will take a turn for the worse. Especially if the investors are not from South Africa or more specifically from Eden. Economical spin-offs from this factory will be minimal in comparison to the oil find or Petros A for instance. I think that an EIA must be further supported by a socio-economic impact study. The reasons will then become clear why not to go ahead with this idea. It makes more sense to enhance the current economic drivers of the town. Waterfront development? That makes sense!
 
•          * 

* It's going to destroy Mossel Bay's harbour with restaurants and tourism. Those kind of factories need to be set up in Industrial areas, not in residential areas where its people rely on tourism.

• Besides having family in Mossel Bay, Mossel Bay attracts tourists and makes its money through tourism, if you open up that factory the restaurants and hotels and guesthouses will have to close, since no one wants to stay or eat at a place that stinks of fish. Mosselbay will become a ghost town because of the stench. Not the brightest move. 

• Job creation to a small number of people will result in job losses in the tourism industry. Restaurants and other retail will die away. Mosselbay will not be an attractive retirement destination any longer and development will seize. Property value will drop and investment in real estate will decline. Stop this Gupta style of capture of our town because a selected few will benefit.  
•  I am a resident living within the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. As in Saldanha and Hout Bay, the fishmeal processing plant will not be able to contain the odours and effluent, resulting in unpleasant smells in the residential and business areas adjacent to the harbour. This will have a negative impact on tourism, business and residents.

This application by Afro Fishing (Pty) Ltd, the owner of the canning factory in the Mossel Bay harbour, to establish a fish meal factory on the old I&J premises, comes in the wake of an appeal by the notorious Southern Cape Fish Meal plant in Mossdustria against the decision of the Garden Route District Municipality NOT to renew its Atmospheric Emission Licence (AEL).

Southern Cape Fish Meal's application for the renewal of their AEL on 15 December 2017 was initially refused by the Eden District Municipality on 17 April 2018, following serious complaints and concerns from residents in Mossdustria, Dana Bay and Aalwyndal regarding the unbearable stench that plagued their health and living conditions. 

The Mossel Bay Municipality was also against the renewal of the licence due to the negative impact that SCFM has on investment and economic growth in Mossdustria and the greater Mossel Bay area. Furthermore, SCFM does not comply with the Mossel Bay By-Law on the discharge of industrial effluent.

Following SCFM's appeal, the EDM has now requested additional information that is now being distributed to the registered Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs) for comment before 11 April 2019 as part of an ongoing public participation process.

Note that the public participation process only applies to already registered interested parties of the previous advertisement regarding the AEL renewal.

The additional information is available on the website of the environmental assessment practitioner, Pieter Badenhorst Professional Services at www.pbps.co.za

Comments may be emailed before 17:00 on 11 April to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

PBPS.CO.ZA

 

PBPS – Pieter Badenhorst

Please feel free to browse the document section of this website and download files as part of our Public Participation programme.

 

* This latest development comes after a short-lived victory for the complainants. 

On 26 April 2018 it was reported that the Eden District Municipality chose to uphold the Constitutional right of the community to clean air when it refused to renew the Atmospheric Emission Licence (AEL) for Southern Cape Fish Meal (SCFM) (PTY) LTD, the fish meal factory in Mossdustria.

For residents of Dana Bay, Aalwyndal and Mossdustria - who for years have been continuously complaining of their living conditions being negatively affected by the ongoing foul odour emanating from this plant - the decision comes as a victory.

Public participation
The EDM decision follows a comprehensive public participation process in which none of the Registered Interested and Affected Parties supported the factory's renewal application.

In a letter to the owners of SCFM on 17 April, the Eden District Municipality (EDM) stated that it "must be emphasised that some of the Interested and Affected Parties are representing Ward 11 and the residences of Aalwyndal and Dana Bay."

A significant number of complaints received are related to after-hours operations when the management is not present to oversee critical control parameters.

Furthermore, the EDM found that "the SCFM is not taking all reasonable steps to prevent the emissions of offensive odour as are evidenced by the amount and degree of on-going complaints received by both the district municipality and the Mossel Bay Municipality."

Cease activities
Pending a possible appeal process, the EDM instructed SCFM to cease activities relating to Category 10 Animal Matter Processing by 30 April and that plant decommissioning must be completed by 25 July. The current AEL of SCFM lapsed on 28 February. EDM granted an extension until 30 April.

The Mossel Bay Municipality also did not support the renewal of the licence specifically as SCFM is deemed to have a negative impact on investment and economic growth in Mossdustria and the greater Mossel Bay area. 

In addition, SCFM also does not comply with the Mossel Bay By-Law on the discharge of industrial effluent.

 

The EDM Air Quality Unit received repeated complaints from residents in Dana Bay, Aalwyndal and business owners in Mossdustria about the offensive odours emanating from SCFM.

Estate agents have in the past stated that the constant foul smell directly and negatively impacts property ownership in these areas, but especially in Mossdustria where the Mossel Bay Municipality incentivises new businesses growth.

 Source: Mossel Bay Advertiser

Also read: 

 http://www.mosselbayontheline.co.za/index.php/news/breaking-news/214-public-only-has-one-month-to-object-to-plans-for-fish-meal-and-fish-oil-factory-on-quay-1-on-mossel-bay-harbour

 http://www.mosselbayontheline.co.za/index.php/news/215-public-outcry-against-fish-meal-plant-in-mossel-bay-harbour

Related Articles:

• OLIE, GAS EN FOSFAAT . . . GAAN MOSSELBAAI SE MARIENELEWE DIT OORLEEF?
• A fishy farce . . . Is Mossel Bay bullied into risky fish farming experiments by the powers that be?
• Mosselbaai se mooi . . . vir hoe lank nog as politici doen net wat hulle wil ?
• Fish meal and fish oil factory proposed on Quay 1 at Mossel Bay harbour
• Petition against fish meal plant in Mossel Bay's harbour

The Mossel Bay public and affected stakeholders only have till 25 March 2019 to register as affected parties in order to complain or give their input regarding a proposed fish meal and fish oil reduction facility on I&J's old premises on Quay 1 of the Mossel Bay harbour.

Afro Fishing (Pty) Ltd. apparently wants to harvest industrial fish species such as anchovy, red-eye, etc. from local waters to produce fish meal and fish oil for the international export market.

This application by Afro Fishing is one of many industries currently considered by the Western Cape Government to boost the Southern Cape's economy and employment rate.

But at what cost to the environment and local residents? If PetroSA, ESKOM and almost every governmental department are bankrupt and under investigation for fraud, incompetence, and corruption, what are the guarantees that a stinky fish meal factory next to other businesses and tourist attractions in Mossel Bay's harbour will be managed and policed well? 

Photo: Dirty fishmeal production in Nouadhibou, Mauritania

BACKGROUND INFORMATION DOCUMENT (BID) APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION

22 FEBRUARY 2019

Introduction:http://www.cape-eaprac.co.za/projects/MOS569%20Afro%20Fishing/MOS569.01%20BID.pdf

Cape Environmental Assessment Practitioners (Cape EAPrac) has been appointed as the independent Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) to facilitate the legally required Environmental Application Process in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA, Act No 107 of 1998 as amended), the 2014 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations & the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act (NEM:AQA, Act 39 of 2004), for the proposed development of a fish meal and fish oil reduction facility on the old I&J properties on Quay 1 of the Mossel Bay Harbour on behalf of the Applicant, Afro Fishing (Pty) Ltd.

The competent authority, in this case, is the Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning (DEA&DP): George office and the Garden Route District Municipality.

This Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Application takes cognisance of the following legislation:

 National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) & the 2014 NEMA EIA Regulations (as amended);

 National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act;  National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act (NEM: ICMA);

 Western Cape Land Use Planning Act; and

 Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act. Project Proposal (preferred alternative)

The expansion of the current Afro Fishing facility to include fish meal and oil reduction processes is proposed on the current footprint of the old I&J facility, with a new canning store adjacent to the current Afro Fishing store.

The proposal entails the harvesting of industrial fish, e.g. anchovy, red-eye, etc., from local waters for the sole purpose of producing fishmeal and fish oil.

The expansion project will include the following:

1. Fish meal and oil reduction plant

2. Fish freezing plant

3. Cold store

4. Fish meal warehouse

5. New canned product warehouse

The reduction process will include the following unit operations: -- Cooking -- Pressing -- Liquid-solid separation -- Steam drying -- Waste heat evaporation -- Oil-liquid separation -- Cooling / grinding / bagging -- Boilers for steam generation. The plant will have a capacity to process 1 000 tons per day of raw fish. The proposed project will produce fish meal and fish oil products for export markets. 

Photo: Fishmeal Factory - Processing fish at fishmeal factory in Nouadhibou. Cape-CFFA.

The project will positively impact local service providers, the Mossel Bay economy, SMME’s and ancillary industries. In terms of employment opportunities, the expansion will increase direct employment from 341 to approximately 560 persons. Afro Fishing (Pty) Ltd envisages an investment of R300-350m in this project. The investment will diversify Afro Fishing into other fisheries, namely anchovy, sardinella and red-eye herring.

The project will increase the canned fish production of which a large percentage of the canned fish production goes into the National Schools Nutrition Programme where Afro Fishing supplies ‘affordable protein’ for school feeding. The design of the plant, especially the use of RTO (re-generative thermal oxidation) is based on a similar facility, Narciso Dias & Filhos, LDA, located in Peniche, Portugal.

The reason for this is due to the similarity in location (seaside town) with tourism as a main driver for the economy. The use of RTO in the plant led to significantly improved odour control management and eliminated offensive odour.

Cape Environmental Assessment Practitioners (Pty) Ltd Reg. No. 2008/004627/07 Telephone: (044) 874 0365 Facsimile: (044) 874 0432 17 Progress Street, George Web: www.cape-eaprac.co.za PO Box 2070, George, 6530 AFRO FISHING FISH MEAL & OIL REDUCTION FACILITY Quay 1, Mossel Bay Harbour

Location & Site Context See Location / SDP Plans attached in document: www.cape-eaprac.co.za

Afro Fishing is located on Quay 1 of the Mossel Bay Harbour. The development property is immediately adjacent to the west which was previously utilised by I&J.

The existing buildings will be demolished to accommodate the new development which will have a slightly smaller footprint. The property was put out on tender for commercial / industrial use by Transnet National Ports Authority (TNPA) as owners of the harbour facility. Afro Fishing was awarded the tender to develop the property as per the TNPA’s future planning goals for the Mossel Bay harbour.

Planning Context

The harbour is zoned as Transport 1 with various consent uses. The expansion of the Afro Fishing facility to include a fishmeal and oil reduction facility will require consent use and other planning approval from the local municipality.

Environmental Context

The harbour is surrounded by a mixture of developments, including residential, commercial and tourism facilities. This makes it a sensitive site for developments that may negatively impact on people in terms of offensive odours, even though it has an industrial nature in itself.

The entire area has already been significantly transformed and there are sensitive terrestrial biodiversity aspects remaining on the site. Afro Fishing currently holds a Coastal Waters Discharge Permit in terms of the NEM: ICMA which will need to be amended in order to accommodate discharge from the proposed fishmeal and fish oil facility.

What is the purpose of this document?

The main purpose of this Background Information Document (BID) is to:

 Provide potential “Interested and Affected Parties” (I&APs) and Stakeholders with information regarding the proposed development; and

 Explain the way forward for the environmental process.

Basic Assessment (BA) Environmental process

The proposed development triggers the following listed activities in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA, Act No.107 of 1998 as amended) and 2014 NEMA Regulations (as amended) and the National Environmental Management:

Air Quality Act (NEM:AQA, Act 39 of 2004): NEMA Listing Notice 1 (GN No. R.327):

 Activity 34: The expansion of existing facilities or infrastructure for any process or activity where such expansion will result in the need for a permit or license or an amended permit or license in terms of national or provincial legislation governing the release of emissions, effluent or pollution. [The expansion to include the fishmeal / fish oil reduction plant will require an amendment to the current Coastal Waters Discharge Permit and will require a new Air Emissions License] NEM:AQA (GN No. R.893):

 Category 10 (Animal Matter Processing): Processes for the rendering, cooking, drying, dehydrating, digesting, evaporating or protein concentrating of any animal matter not intended for human consumption at all installations handling more than 1 ton of raw materials per day. The procedures of a Basic Assessment (BA) Environmental Application Process, as per the 2014 EIA Regulations (as amended), will be undertaken to seek Environmental Authorisation for the abovementioned activities. If such an EA is issued, the Garden Route District Municipality will consider the issuing of an Air Emissions License for the facility.

Stakeholder Engagement

This BID forms part of the pre-application public participation process (PPP) allowing neighbouring property owners and key stakeholders the opportunity to register as ‘Interested & Affected Parties (I&APs)’ and consider / comment on the proposal. Going forward, registered I&APs will be provided an opportunity to review & comment on the Basic Assessment Report (BAR) and Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) when they become available.

Input/comments received during process will be considered and responded to in the final report, to be submitted to the competent authority for review and decision-making. The following steps, amongst others, will be undertaken as part of the EIA Process:

 Identifying potential Interested and Affected Parties (“I&AP’s”);

 Advertising a ‘Call for Registration of Interested & Affected Parties (I&APs)’ in a local newspaper (Mossel Bay Advertiser) with an initial registration and comment period of 30-days, extending from 22 February to 25 March 2019;

Advertising in a regional newspaper (Suid Kaap Burger) with an initial registration and comment period of 30-days, extending from 22 February to 25 March 2019; 

Related Articles:

• OLIE, GAS EN FOSFAAT . . . GAAN MOSSELBAAI SE MARIENELEWE DIT OORLEEF?
• Mosselbaai se mooi . . . vir hoe lank nog as politici doen net wat hulle wil ?
• Mosselbaai se mooi . . . maar wat dreig onder die oppervlak?
• Fish meal and fish oil factory proposed on Quay 1 at Mossel Bay harbour
• Petition against fish meal plant in Mossel Bay's harbour
• Last day for objections against stinky fish meal factory in Mossel Bay harbour while smelly plant in Mossdustria continues fight for AEL
• Moet al ons visbronne uitgeroei word vir 'n vismeelaanleg en wie baat regtig daarby?
• Fish Meal Plant - the A-Z of what Afro Fishing's plans are
• Vrae en vrese oor vismeelaanleg in Mosselbaai vererger oor te veel vaaghede