Property development stories seem to follow a clear pattern. Well-off whites raise environmental objections while ruthless developers do what it takes to get their plans approved – be it by buying off venal politicians or by mobilising local support – while supine Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) consultants acknowledge the universal truth that he who pays the piper calls the tune.

URBAN CREEP: Architect's impression of the projected Lion's Head development

On the slopes of Lion’s Head in Tamboerskloof, Cape Town, lies Erf 1526. Formerly part of Jan van Riebeeck High School, it was put up for sale in 2005, when the ANC was running both the Western Cape and the City of Cape Town.

 Mcebisi Skwatsha, Western Cape ANC secretary and one-time provincial minister, pulled a sufficient number of strings to ensure it went to his buddies. The buyer  was a company called Rowmoor Investments 490 (Pty) Ltd, alter ego of businessman Shaun Rai and ANC Western Cape Treasurer and Skwatsha ally, Fezile Calana. But there was a huge gedoente about the price, R35 million, and in 2007 a price of R60m was agreed on instead. The purchase was financed by Nedbank.

Initially there were calls for the site to be restored to people who had been dispossessed of land in that area, but that nonsense was easily disposed of by simply ensuring that the interest of the regional Land Claims Commissioner was never registered. Land and economic redistribution stories follow a certain pattern too.

So what to do with this rather valuable piece of land? Cape Empowerment Ltd, which has a subsidiary called Lion’s Head Development Company (Pty) Ltd, and whose directors include Shaun Rai (CEO) and well-known ANC man Chris Nissen, want to build eight blocks of 15 apartments each on the site which, in a desirable part of town, will no doubt sell for a bomb.

Residents became aware of these plans in January, when people living in De Hoop Avenue received notice from EIA consultants Aurecon inviting comment on a so-called “listed activity” that required environmental authorisation – “the clearance of an area of 300m2 or more of vegetation where 75% or more of the vegetative cover constitutes indigenous vegetation”. The notice was vague, simply referring to a Block E (being 15 apartments) of “the larger Lion’s Hill Residential Estate” and the inference was that it was simply the north-eastern corner of the property that needed clearing. This was misleading because the vegetation in question, renosterveld, occurs on most of the erf, and would have to be removed to accommodate the construction of the other seven blocks, A-D and F-H. So what gives?
Well, it turns out Aurecon used the wrong biodiversity map for their EIA. Their map didn’t show the vegetation on the remainder of the erf – something the city was quick to point out when it received a copy of Aurecon’s draft assessment report.

Lesley Wolfensberger-Betts of Cape Town’s Environmental Resource Management Department wrote to Aurecon in February this year saying:  “It is unclear as to why only a portion of the site was assessed when it is stated in the botanical assessment (and classified according to the City of Cape Town’s biodiversity maps) that the entire site is covered by Critically Endangered vegetation... It is requested that… an explanation as to the reasoning of the DEA & DP’s (Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning’s) decision to only assess Block E, and not the entire site, be provided... There seems to be some discrepancy between the vegetation maps used... the maps used by council are of a finer scale than that of the consultant’s, making the boundary of the two vegetation types found on site present differently...

“Conclusion: The entire development site should be treated as sensitive from a biodiversity perspective, unless there is evidence to the contrary. Biodiversity Management does not support development at this site without significant mitigation in the form of a biodiversity offset [their emphasis].”

 The residents, too, pointed this out to Aurecon. But Aurecon completely ignored the issue in its final assessment submitted to the province, even failing to mention it under Objections Raised by Interested Parties.

Two residents’ groups, the Tamboerskloof Neighbourhood Watch (TBK Watch) and City Bowl Ratepayers and Residents’ Association (Cibra), together with the German International School, have raised several objections, including standard ones like inadequate notification to residents and visual and traffic impact. But the most concerning one is their claim that the developer and Aurecon tried to confine the vegetation issue to a small portion of the land through use of an incorrect map.

One of the documents lodged by the objectors asserts: “Aurecon thereby appears to have chosen not only to ignore these issues but also deliberately exclude these from the Comments and Reponses form presented to the DEA & DP in its application for authorisation.”

The objectors go on to claim that “almost all of Erf 1526 has been declared a Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA)... the application therefore appears to be flawed to the extent that it seeks to separate the development of Block E from the rest…”

Serious stuff, especially as, in a recent case known as Frylink, a Gauteng court held that an EIA consultant can be held criminally liable if they try to mislead the authorities.

The objectors also remind provincial authorities that as recently as last year the Supreme Court of Appeal, in a case called Oudekraal Estates (Pty) Ltd v City of Cape Town, said of renosterveld: “Coastal Renosterveld... has been identified as the most critically endangered ecosystem in South Africa... the nature of the flora in the Table Mountain National Park and the threatened species of Cape Renosterveld... is of importance to the country and humanity at large”. It is, therefore, “a vital feature” of any planning decision.

Provincial authorities, on the other hand, seem to be in a totally different place. In letters that the DEA & DP sent to Werksmans, and which, for some unknown reason, dealt with five blocks instead of eight, Liz Petersen wrote: “The first four blocks will not trigger any listed activity”, so “construction of the first four blocks may commence legally, should there be no link between the first four blocks and the 5th block”.

The parties await the province’s decision. If it’s in favour of the developer, the objectors may appeal to the MEC, Anton Bredell, who showed balls recently when he turned down the Lagoon Bay development in George. But if it finds for the objectors, will the developers be entitled to proceed with the remaining seven blocks where there is supposedly no vegetation? And is this the thinking behind this farce – get around the vegetation snag by forfeiting one block of eight?

Noseweek sought comment from both Aurecon and the DEA & DP. Aurecon’s Donnelly McClelland, an environmental practitioner, respon-ded with bland nonsense: “The final report has been submitted to the decision making authorities, and we stand by its veracity and we are happy for you to quote anything from it and… to make it available should you require it.”  The DEA & DP didn’t come back to Noseweek at all.
On 1 September Finance Week reported that Cape Empowerment – “once a market darling” – is now of little interest to investors but that “the whispers around Cape Town suggest Rai’s next roar could be its Lion’s Head asset”.

Rai, closely allied to ANC figures like Chris Nissen and Fezile Calana, is no doubt pleased that in 2009 his EIA consultant, Aurecon, appointed another well-connected ANC man as its global chairman, Professor Jakes Gerwel. It also said that property developer Steve Bosch, who owns builders’ merchant Sizawi Build It, and who has been exposed as Julius Malema’s main benefactor, recently became a “strategic equity partner” of Aurecon, responsible for business development, where he soon proved his worth by securing a property contract in Limpopo for Aurecon.

See! Property development stories follow a pattern – a pattern that now includes even closer ties between property developers and EIA consultants.

Copyright © 2012 www.noseweek.co.za