Upload
others
View
5
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING EGG PRODUCTION FACILITY AT JJ
VAN DER SCHYFF & SEUN (Pty) Ltd TO INCLUDE AN ADDITIONAL 3 CHICKEN HOUSES ON
A PORTION OF PORTION 10 OF THE FARM KRANSHOEK 432, PLETTENBERG BAY
Compiled by: HilLand Environmental
Date: March 2016
Reference: PLE/311/14
DEADP Case Officer: Shireen Pullen
DEADP ref no: 16/3/3/1/D1/8/0010/15
DEADP Pre App ref no: 16/3/3/6/7/1/D1/8/0118/15
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 2 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
(AUGUST 2010)
Basic Assessment Report in terms of the NEMA Environmental Impact Assessment
Regulations, 2010
AUGUST 2010
Kindly note that:
1. This Basic Assessment Report is the standard report required by DEA&DP in terms of the EIA Regulations, 2010
and must be completed for all Basic Assessment applications.
2. This report must be used in all instances for Basic Assessment applications for an environmental authorisation in
terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998) (NEMA), as amended, and
the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010, and/or a waste management licence in terms of the
National Environmental Management: Waste Act, 2008 (Act 59 of 2008) (NEM: WA), and/or an atmospheric
emission licence in terms of the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act, 2004 (Act No. 39 of 2004)
(NEM: AQA).
3. This report is current as of 2 August 2010. It is the responsibility of the Applicant / EAP to ascertain whether
subsequent versions of the report have been published or produced by the competent authority.
4. The required information must be typed within the spaces provided in the report. The sizes of the spaces
provided are not necessarily indicative of the amount of information to be provided. It is in the form of a table
that will expand as each space is filled with typing.
5. Incomplete reports will be rejected. A rejected report may be amended and resubmitted.
6. The use of “not applicable” in the report must be done with circumspection. Where it is used in respect of
material information that is required by the Department for assessing the application, this may result in the
rejection of the report as provided for in the regulations.
7. While the different sections of the report only provide space for provision of information related to one
alternative, if more than one feasible and reasonable alternative is considered, the relevant section must be
copied and completed for each alternative.
8. Unless protected by law all information contained in, and attached to this report, will become public
information on receipt by the competent authority. If information is not submitted with this report due to such
information being protected by law, the applicant and/or EAP must declare such non-disclosure and provide
the reasons for the belief that the information is protected.
9. This report must be submitted to the Department at the postal address given below or by delivery thereof to the
Registry Office of the Department. No faxed or e-mailed reports will be accepted. Please note that for waste
management licence applications, this report must be submitted for the attention of the Department’s Waste
Management Directorate (tel: 021-483-2756 and fax: 021-483-4425) at the same postal address as the Cape
Town Office Region A.
10. Unless indicated otherwise, two electronic copies (CD/DVD) and three hard copies of this report must be
submitted to the Department.
DEPARTMENTAL DETAILS
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 3 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
CAPE TOWN OFFICE REGION A
(Cape Winelands, City of Cape Town:
Tygerberg and Oostenberg
Administrations)
CAPE TOWN OFFICE REGION B
(West Coast, Overberg, City of Cape Town:
Helderberg, South Peninsula, Cape Town
and Blaauwberg Administrations
GEORGE OFFICE
(Eden and Central Karoo)
Department of Environmental Affairs
and Development Planning
Attention: Directorate: Integrated
Environmental Management (Region
A2)
Private Bag X 9086
Cape Town,
8000
Registry Office
1st Floor Utilitas Building
1 Dorp Street,
Cape Town
Queries should be directed to the
Directorate: Integrated Environmental
Management (Region A2) at:
Tel: (021) 483-4793 Fax: (021) 483-3633
Department of Environmental Affairs and
Development Planning
Attention: Directorate: Integrated
Environmental Management (Region B)
Private Bag X 9086
Cape Town,
8000
Registry Office
1st Floor Utilitas Building
1 Dorp Street,
Cape Town
Queries should be directed to the
Directorate: Integrated Environmental
Management (Region B) at:
Tel: (021) 483-4094 Fax: (021) 483-4372
Department of Environmental Affairs
and Development Planning
Attention: Directorate: Integrated
Environmental Management (Region
A1)
Private Bag X 6509
George,
6530
Registry Office
4th Floor, York Park Building
93 York Street
George
Queries should be directed to the
Directorate: Integrated Environmental
Management (Region A1) at:
Tel: (044) 805 8600 Fax: (044) 874-2423
View the Department’s website at http://www.capegateway.gov.za/eadp for the latest version of this
document.
DEPARTMENTAL REFERENCE NUMBER(S) File reference number (EIA): DEADP reference number – 16/3/3/1/D1/8/0010/15, File reference number (Waste):
File reference number (Other): pre-app ref 16/3/3/6/7/1/D1/8/0118/15
PROJECT TITLE The expansion of the existing egg production facility at JJ van der Schyff & Seun (Pty) Ltd to
include an additional 3 chicken houses on a portion of portion 10 of the farm Kranshoek
432,Plettenberg Bay
DETAILS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PRACTITIONER (EAP)
Environmental Assessment
Practitioner (EAP): Hilland Environmental
Contact person: Cathy Avierinos Postal address: P O Box 590
George Postal code: 6560
Telephone: ( 044) 889 0229 Cell: 082 558 6589 E-mail: [email protected] Fax: ( 086 ) 542 5248
EAP Qualifications BSc (Hons) 23 years EIA experience in EIA processes, specialist
assessment and environmental compliance monitoring.
EAP Registrations/Associations IAIAsa, Bot Soc, SAAB.
Details of the EAP’s expertise to carry out Basic Assessment procedures
Cathy Avierinos has 23 years of experience as an Environmental Assessment Practitioner
specialising in Impact Assessments and Environmental Control and Monitoring. Included in
this was the process of Environmental Authorisation for the existing egg production facility
which was facilitated (approval 26.05.2004 - EG12/2/1-284 Kranshoek 432/10).
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 4 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE CONTENT OF THE BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT: See attached Executive Summary
SECTION A: ACTIVITY INFORMATION 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
(a) Is the project a new development? YES NO
(b) Provide a detailed description of the development project and associated
infrastructure. The project entails the upgrading of the existing large scale egg production facility (JJ van der
Schyff & Seun (Pty) Ltd) by the construction of a further 3 chicken houses to add to the existing 6
operational chicken houses.
The existing facility consists of an office block (that includes the packing store), a free-standing
‘hanger’ and six chicken houses.
Each chicken house contains three rows of batteries, each with four tiers of cages (6 chickens
per cage). Each chicken house can house a maximum of 29 952 chickens (3 chicken houses
will house a maximum of 89 856 chickens). Each tier has its own feeding and egg removal
conveyor band. Under the cages is another conveyor belt which extends under the rows of
batteries on each level. This transverse conveyor travels through the southern end of each
chicken house, receiving the manure from the battery conveyors in each and finally delivering
the load to an elevator conveyor from which it is loaded directly onto the trucks that remove
the manure. Each chicken house is ventilated by means of 6 large extractor fans that ventilate
the batteries. Depending on the temperature, not all 6 extractor fans operate at the same time.
The dimensions of each chicken house are as follows:
Length: 72m
Width: 9m
Constructional footprint: 648m 2
Eaves height: 4.5m
Ridge height: 5.5m
The proposed addition of 3 chicken houses will be constructed to fit the same dimensions as
described above. They will also be operated using the same conveyor system. The internal
tier system will follow the manufacturer's specifications at the time of order and delivery and
are such that the combined systems will be fully functional and will either be a four or five tier
system (egg collection, manure conveyor, feeding and water etc). The proposed chicken
houses will thus be integrated with the existing 6 chicken houses to form part of an already fully
functioning high quality egg production process.
The facility meets the South African Poultry Association's code of practice 2012 for Pullet
Rearing and Table Egg Production (see EMPr Appendix H, annexure 7) which covers the
industry requirements for Table Egg Production. All aspects of Housing Poultry, Preparation of
the Houses, Health Safety and Sanitation, Management Practices and Health Controls are
covered in the Industry Code of Practice and are not repeated in this application. The
expansion will conform to these codes.
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 5 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
Water supply:
Water for the farm is extracted from a borehole located on the farm. The farm has water rights
to extract 6000 cubic meters per year from the existing borehole. The existing facility uses
approximately 6000 litres per day (an average of 2 190 cubic meters of water per year). The
addition of the 3 proposed chicken houses will increase the yearly water use to 3285 cubic
meters which is still well under the maximum allowed for the farm and is within the required
capacity for production. No expansion of water supply is required.
Power supply:
Electricity to the facility is 3 phase Eskom power with a standby generator that switches on and
off automatically in cases of power failure. The generator switches off only once the full 3
phase electricity is restored. The existing power supply will be sufficient, no upgrading in terms
of power supply will be needed for the addition of the 3 proposed chicken houses
JJ van der Schyff & Seun (Pty) Ltd underwent an environmental scoping process during Dec
2002 – June 2003. During the environmental scoping process impacts were identified and
assessed and recommendations were made accordingly. Issues previously associated with JJ
van der Schyff & Seun (Pty) Ltd were addressed and mitigations were made to ensure
compliance with environmental legislation. Environmental Authorisation was granted by the
competent authority on 26 May 2004 (see EG12/2/1-284 Kranshoek 432/10).
(c) List all the activities assessed during the Basic Assessment process:
GN No. R.983
Activity No(s):
Describe the relevant Basic Assessment
Activity(ies) in writing as per Listing Notice 1
(GN No. R. 983) of the 2014 Impact Assessment
Regulations
Describe the portion of the development as per the
project description that relates to the applicable listed
activity.
40 The expansion and related operation of
facilities for the concentration of poultry,
excluding chicks younger than 20 days,
where the capacity of the facility will be
increased by—
(i) more than 1 000 poultry
where the facility is situated
within a urban area; or
more than 5 000 poultry per facility
situated outside an urban area.
The expansion of JJ van der Schyff & Seun
(Pty) Ltd to include an additional 3 chicken
houses – The expansion of facilities for the
concentration of poultry, more than 5 000
poultry per facility situated outside an urban
area.
If the application is also for activities as per Listing Notice 2 and permission was granted to subject the application to
Basic Assessment, also indicate the applicable Listing Notice 2 activities:
GN No. R. 545
Activity No(s):
If permission was granted in terms of Regulation 20,
describe the relevant Scoping and EIA Activity(ies)
in writing as per Listing Notice 2 (GN No. R. 545)
Describe the portion of the development as per the
project description that relates to the applicable listed
activity.
N/A N/A N/A
Waste management activities in terms of the NEM: WA (Government Gazette No. 32368):
GN No. 718 - Category A
Activity No(s): Describe the relevant Category A waste management activity in writing.
N/A N/A Please note: If any waste management activities are applicable, the Listed Waste Management Activities
Additional Information Annexure must be completed and attached to this Basic Assessment Report as Appendix I.
If the application is also for waste management activities as per Category B and permission was granted to subject
the application to Basic Assessment, also indicate the applicable Category B activities:
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 6 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
GN No. 718 – Category B
Activity No(s): Describe the relevant Category B waste management activity in writing.
N/A N/A
Atmospheric emission activities in terms of the NEM: AQA (Government Gazette No. 33064):
GN No. 248
Activity No(s): Describe the relevant atmospheric emission activity in writing.
N/A N/A
(D) PLEASE PROVIDE DETAILS OF ALL COMPONENTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND ATTACH DIAGRAMS (E.G.
ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS OR PERSPECTIVES, ENGINEERING DRAWINGS, PROCESS FLOW CHARTS ETC.).
(Please see Appendix B and G)
Buildings YES NO
Provide brief description:
The construction of 3 additional chicken houses with a construction footprint of 648 m2 per chicken
house and a total of ±1944 m2 . The construction will be done on a combination of gravel areas and
lawn (Pennisetum clandestinum).
The dimensions of each chicken house will be as follows:
Length: 72m
Width: 9m
Constructional footprint: 648m 2
Eaves height: 4.5m
Ridge height: 5.5m
The existing facility consists of an office block (includes the packing store), a free-standing
‘hanger’ and six chicken houses. The 3 new chicken houses will link onto this system.
Each chicken house will contain three rows of batteries, each with four or five tiers of cages (6
chickens per cage). Each tier has its own feeding and egg removal conveyor band. Under
the cages there is another conveyor belt which extends under the rows of batteries on each
level. This transverse conveyor travels through the southern end of each chicken house,
receiving the manure from the battery conveyors in each and finally delivering the load to an
elevator conveyor from which it is loaded directly onto the trucks that remove the manure.
Each chicken house is ventilated by means of 6 large extractor fans that ventilate the batteries.
Depending on the temperature, not all 6 extractor fans operate at the same time.
The proposed addition of 3 chicken houses be operated using the same conveyor systems as
the existing houses. The proposed additional chicken houses will be integrated with the
existing 6 chicken houses to form part of an already fully functioning high quality egg
production process, meeting the standards of the SAPA Code of Practice.
Infrastructure (e.g. roads, power and water supply/ storage) YES NO
Roads:
Access to the farm is from an existing dirt road that turns off the airport/Kranshoek road. This is
not a private road and serves as an access road to other farms/businesses as well. The
Airport/Kranshoek road carries a moderate amount of traffic. Heavy vehicles currently
generate dust when using the dirt road. This road DR1770 upgrade is in progress and will help
alleviate the current issues. The road is being upgraded to a surfaced road (tar road) and will
in turn entirely eliminate the generation of dust currently associated with this road.
Water supply:
Water for the farm is extracted from a borehole located on the farm. The farm has water rights
to extract 6000 cubic meters per year from the said borehole. The existing facility uses
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 7 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
approximately 6000 litres per day (an average of 2 190 cubic meters of water per year). The
addition of the 3 proposed chicken houses will increase the yearly water use to 3285 cubic
meters which is still well under the capacity available for the farm.
Power supply:
Electricity to the facility is 3 phase Eskom power with a standby generator that switches on and
off automatically in cases of power failure. The generator switches off only once the full 3
phase electricity is restored. The existing power supply will be sufficient, no upgrading in terms
of power supply will be needed for the addition of the 3 proposed chicken houses.
Traffic:
JJ van der Schyff & Seun (Pty) Ltd is a large scale egg production facility; as such traffic to and
from the facility is inevitable. The current incoming traffic to the facility includes chicken feed
deliveries, 1 truck 3 times per week and delivery of eggs, one truck per month. The outgoing
traffic includes egg delivery, 2 trucks daily and the manure collecting, 3 trucks per week. All
the above mentioned incoming and outgoing deliveries takes place during daytime hours with
the exception of outgoing egg deliveries which takes place between 02:00 and 03:00 AM.
After the proposed expansion of the facility the traffic will increase slightly by 1 additional
outgoing egg delivery truck, 1 additional manure collection truck, 1 additional feed truck, all
as per schedule mentioned above. The trucks delivering eggs to the farm will no longer be
needed.
Processing activities (e.g. manufacturing, storage, distribution) YES NO
Provide brief description:
The production and packaging of eggs for distribution is undertaken on site in the existing
facility. Demand current exceeds supply and they currently have to import eggs from other
regions in order to meet their orders. The additional 3 production houses will alleviate this
problem for the short to medium term. There is no requirement to expand the existing storage
and packaging areas.
Chicken feed is stored in fully enclosed silos that prevent water from entering or exiting the
silos.
Distribution of the eggs from the facility will remain unchanged. The facility is currently
importing eggs from elsewhere in the country in order to meet their distribution requirements.
Storage facilities for raw materials and products (e.g. volume and substances to be stored)
Provide brief description YES NO
Chicken feed is stored in fully enclosed silos that prevent water from entering or exiting the silos.
Eggs are stored in the packing shed prior to being distributed.
Manure is not stored on site but is removed from the conveyor system directly onto the trucks for
transport to farms as fertilizer.
Storage and treatment facilities for solid waste and effluent generated by the project Yes NO
Provide brief description
The solid waste produced during the proposed activity will consist of construction waste which
will be disposed of at the nearest appropriate landfill site along with other solid waste
generated on a daily bases on the facility.
During the operational phase solid waste in the form of chicken manure is produced. As this is
already a fully functioning farm, a system for the disposal of the manure is in place.
Manure was previously stored in heaps on outside concrete slabs in order to dry for fertiliser.
The dry manure was then ground and packaged in the ‘hanger’ for sale. These operations
were a source of odour and as a result of complaints regarding the smell of the manure, these
activities were ceased.
Chicken manure is removed from the chicken houses three times per week and loaded
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 8 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
directly onto the trucks that transport it from the site. The trucks that remove the manure use to
be open trucks but as a result of complaints regarding the smell of the manure and manure
spillage onto the road, the trucks are now covered with tarpaulin to prevent spillage. The entire
procedure is termed a “dry brush-operation”. Chicken houses and the manure pit are dry-
brushed every second day. The material removed after the dry brushing is added to the solid
waste that is removed from site daily.
The manure that is collected and loaded onto Interlink trucks 3 times a week is then used as
fertilizer for large scale dairy farmers in the Tsitsikama area. By collecting the manure in this
manner and within this time frame, flies do not have time to hatch and cause sanitary issues
Household type solid waste during the operational phase is gathered daily after closing time.
The waste is disposed of at the local Plettenberg Bay refuse site. The Bitou municipality
confirmed that JJ van der Schyff & Seun (Pty) Ltd dispose of their solid waste at the municipal
refuse site.
Any dead chickens are removed daily from the chicken houses and safely disposed of. Dead
chickens are placed in large disinfected plastic containers and transported off the premises.
The dead chickens are then taken to the Wolf Sanctuary, cut into smaller pieces and boiled
before being fed to wolves and pigs. The feeding to pigs is in accordance with the required
regulations as prescribed by Regulation 2026 of 26 Sept 1986, Reg 24 (1) (c). The plastic
containers are then disinfected by Mr Pieter Botha before returning them to JJ van der Schyff &
Seun (Pty) Ltd.
No contaminated chickens are to be fed to pigs, only chickens having died as a result of
trauma or natural causes are allowed to be fed to pigs. Mr Pieter Botha from the Wolf
Sanctuary confirmed that he disposes of the carcasses by first removing the feathers from the
carcasses, after which they are burned at a high temperature and cut into pieces, boiled and
fed to pigs and wolfs at the Wolf Sanctuary.
If dead chickens are deemed to be contaminated, the Bitou Municipality must be notified in
advance. The requirements of the Code of Practice and the State Vet must be met and will
dictate the required disposal procedure. This is the required standard operating procedure.
This is likely to require the use of an underground septic tank on the premises for the safe
disposal of contaminated dead chickens. The dead chickens must be disposed of into the pit,
covered with lime and a layer of soil
Other activities (e.g. water abstraction activities, crop planting activities) Yes No
Provide brief description
Borehole water as per existing use - no additional abstraction for the proposed expansion.
2. PHYSICAL SIZE OF THE ACTIVITY
Size of the property:
(a) Indicate the size of the property (cadastral unit) on which the activity is to be undertaken.
Portion 10 of the Farm
Kraanshoek 432
(363755m2)
Size of the facility:
(b) Indicate the size of the facility (development area) on which the activity is to be undertaken.
Area within the fence
approx
40,000 m2
Size of the activity:
(c) Indicate the physical size (footprint) of the activity together with its associated infrastructure: Expansion Approx
2000 m2
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 9 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
Total facility approx
1.6ha
(d) Indicate the physical size (footprint) of the activity:
Approx 1944 m2
(e) Indicate the physical size (footprint) of the associated infrastructure:
Part of existing total
facility
16 000 m2
and, for linear activities:
Length of the activity:
(f) Indicate the length of the activity: N/A
3. SITE ACCESS
(a) Is there an existing access road? YES NO
(b) If no, what is the distance over which a new access road will be built? N/A
(c) Describe the type of access road planned:
Access to the farm is from an existing dirt road that turns off from the airport/Kranshoek road DR
1770. This is not a private road and serves as an access road to other farms/businesses as well.
The Airport/Kranshoek road is in the process of being upgraded to a surfaced road.
Please Note: indicate the position of the proposed access road on the site plan.
4. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY ON WHICH THE ACTIVITY IS TO BE UNDERTAKEN AND THE
LOCATION OF THE ACTIVITY ON THE PROPERTY
(a) Provide a description of the property on which the activity is to be undertaken and the location of the activity
on the property.
The site is located west of Plettenberg Bay on a portion of portion 10 of the Farm Kranshoek 342. This
property is situated in recently approved small industrial park within the rural area around Kranshoek.
The farm is surrounded with other smallholdings where agriculture, rural occupation and tourism
activities take place.
The extent of the whole property (portion 10) is 36.3755 ha.
The proposed upgrading will take place on a small area (Approx 1944 m2) on the western part of the
Agriculture II portion of the property within an area currently fenced off for the existing chicken egg
production facility.
Approximately 4,2ha is currently fenced off within which the existing and the proposed expansion will
occur.
The Kranshoek settlement is located approximately 500m to the south west of the farm.
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 10 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
(B) PLEASE PROVIDE A LOCATION MAP (SEE BELOW) AS APPENDIX A TO THIS REPORT WHICH SHOWS THE LOCATION OF
THE PROPERTY AND THE LOCATION OF THE ACTIVITY ON THE PROPERTY; AS WELL AS A SITE MAP (SEE BELOW) AS
APPENDIX B TO THIS REPORT; AND IF APPLICABLE ALL ALTERNATIVE PROPERTIES AND LOCATIONS.
Locality map: Please see
Appendix A
The scale of the locality map must be at least 1:50 000. For linear activities of more than 25 kilometres, a
smaller scale e.g. 1:250 000 can be used. The scale must be indicated on the map. The map must indicate the
following:
an accurate indication of the project site position as well as the positions of the alternative sites, if
any;
road names or numbers of all the major roads as well as the roads that provide access to the
site(s)
a north arrow;
a legend;
the prevailing wind direction (during November to April and during May to October); and
GPS co-ordinates (Indicate the position of the activity using the latitude and longitude of the
centre point of the site for each alternative site. The co-ordinates should be in degrees and
decimal minutes. The minutes should have at least three decimals to ensure adequate accuracy.
The projection that must be used in all cases is the WGS84 spheroid in a national or local
projection).
Site Plan:
Please see
Appendix B
Detailed site plan(s) must be prepared for each alternative site or alternative activity. The site plan must
contain or conform to the following:
The detailed site plan must be at a scale preferably at a scale of 1:500 or at an appropriate scale.
The scale must be indicated on the plan.
The property boundaries and numbers of all the properties within 50m of the site must be indicated
on the site plan.
The current land use (not zoning) as well as the land use zoning of each of the adjoining properties
must be indicated on the site plan.
The position of each element of the application as well as any other structures on the site must be
indicated on the site plan.
Services, including electricity supply cables (indicate above or underground), water supply
pipelines, boreholes, sewage pipelines, storm water infrastructure and access roads that will form
part of the development must be indicated on the site plan.
Servitudes indicating the purpose of the servitude must be indicated on the site plan.
Sensitive environmental elements within 100m of the site must be included on the site plan,
including (but not limited to):
o Rivers.
o Flood lines (i.e. 1:10, 1:50, year and 32 meter set back line from the banks of a river/stream).
o Ridges.
o Cultural and historical features.
o Areas with indigenous vegetation (even if it is degraded or infested with alien species).
Whenever the slope of the site exceeds 1:10, then a contour map of the site must be submitted.
(c) For a linear activity, please also provide a description of the route.
N/A
Indicate the position of the activity using the latitude
and longitude of the centre point of the site. The co-
ordinates must be in degrees, minutes and seconds.
The minutes should be given to at least three
decimals to ensure adequate accuracy. The
projection that must be used in all cases is the
WGS84 spheroid in a national or local projection.
Latitude (S): Longitude (E):
34o 04 ‘ 47.1939“ 23o 18‘ 9.274“
(d) or:
For linear activities: Latitude (S): Longitude (E):
Starting point of the activity N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Middle point of the activity
End point of the activity
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 11 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
Please Note: For linear activities that are longer than 500m, please provide and addendum with co-ordinates taken
every 100 meters along the route.
5. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Colour photographs of the site and its surroundings (taken of the site and from the site) with a description of each
photograph. The vantage points from which the photographs were taken must be indicated on the site plan, or
locality plan as applicable. If available, please also provide a recent aerial photograph. Photographs must be
attached as Appendix C to this report. It should be supplemented with additional photographs of relevant features
on the site. Date of photographs must be included. Please note that the above requirements must be duplicated for
all alternative sites.
Please see Appendix C.
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 12 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
SECTION B: DESCRIPTION OF RECEIVING
ENVIRONMENT
1. SITE/AREA DESCRIPTION
For linear activities (pipelines, etc.) as well as activities that cover very large sites, it may be necessary to complete
copies of this section for each part of the site that has a significantly different environment. In such cases please
complete copies of Section B and indicate the area which is covered by each copy No. on the Site Plan.
1. GRADIENT OF THE SITE
Indicate the general gradient of the sites (highlight the appropriate box).
Flat (river
shoreline
above the
retainer)
Flatter than 1:10 1:10 – 1:4
Steeper than 1:4 (retaining
bank is currently vertical in
two steps)
2. LOCATION IN LANDSCAPE
(a) Indicate the landform(s) that best describes the site (highlight the appropriate box(es).
Ridgeline Plateau Side slope of
hill/mountain
Closed
valley
Open
valley
Plain
(coastal
estuary
flood plain)
Undulating
plain/low
hills
Dune Sea-front
(b) Please provide a description of the location in the landscape.
The site is located west of Plettenberg Bay on a portion of portion 10 of the Farm Kranshoek
342. This property is situated in a small industrial node within the rural area near
Kranshoek.
The farm (portion 10) is surrounded with other smallholdings.
The extent of the whole property is 36.3755 ha. Approximately 4,2ha of the property is
currently fenced off and the existing chicken egg production facility takes place in this
area. This is the Agriculture II portion.
The industrial subdivision approval (NEMA and LUPO) took into account the sensitivities of
the site and set aside certain wetland areas and buffers which are not affected by this
proposed expansion.
The Kranshoek settlement is located approximately 500m to the south west of the farm.
3. GROUNDWATER, SOIL AND GEOLOGICAL STABILITY OF THE SITE
(a) Is the site(s) located on or near any of the following (highlight the appropriate boxes)?
Shallow water table (less than 1.5m deep) YES NO UNSURE
Seasonally wet soils (often close to water bodies) YES NO UNSURE Unstable rocky slopes or steep slopes with loose soil YES NO UNSURE Dispersive soils (soils that dissolve in water) YES NO UNSURE Soils with high clay content YES NO UNSURE Any other unstable soil or geological feature YES NO UNSURE An area sensitive to erosion YES NO UNSURE An area adjacent to or above an aquifer. YES NO UNSURE An area within 100m of the source of surface water YES NO UNSURE
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 13 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
(b) If any of the answers to the above are “YES” or “unsure”, specialist input may be requested by
the Department.
(Information in respect of the above will often be available at the planning sections of local
authorities. Where it exists, the 1:50 000 scale Regional Geotechnical Maps prepared by
Geological Survey may also be used).
(c) Please indicate the type of geological formation underlying the site.
Granite Shale Sandstone Quartzite Dolomite Dolorite Other
(describe)
Please provide a description.
Under laying clay soil with heaving potential. NHBRC (National Home Builders Registration
Council) classification H1, which means: “Fine grain soils with moderate to very high plasticity,
potentially expansive. Expected reign of total soil movement is 7.5 - 15mm.” As a result all
structures have reinforced foundations and floors. There are no issues with the current buildings
and new building plans will take these conditions into account.
4. SURFACE WATER (a) Indicate the surface water present on and or adjacent to the site and alternative sites (highlight the
appropriate boxes)?
Perennial River YES NO UNSURE
Non-Perennial River YES NO UNSURE
Permanent Wetland YES NO UNSURE
Seasonal Wetland YES NO UNSURE
Artificial Wetland YES NO UNSURE
Estuarine / Lagoonal wetland YES NO UNSURE
(b) Please provide a description.
N/A
5. BIODIVERSITY Please note: The Department may request specialist input/studies depending on the nature of the biodiversity
occurring on the site and potential impact(s) of the proposed activity/ies. To assist with the identification of the
biodiversity occurring on site and the ecosystem status consult http://bgis.sanbi.org or [email protected].
Information is also available on compact disc (cd) from the Biodiversity-GIS Unit, Ph (021) 799 8698. This information
may be updated from time to time and it is the applicant/ EAP’s responsibility to ensure that the latest version is
used. A map of the relevant biodiversity information (including an indication of the habitat conditions as per (b)
below) and must be provided as an overlay map to the property/site plan as Appendix D to this report.
(a) Highlight the applicable biodiversity planning categories of all areas on site and indicate the reason(s)
provided in the biodiversity plan for the selection of the specific area as part of the specific category).
Systematic Biodiversity Planning Category If CBA or ESA, indicate the reason(s) for its selection in
biodiversity plan
Critical
Biodiversity
Area
(CBA)
Ecological
Support
Area (ESA)
Other
Natural
Area
(ONA)
No Natural
Area
Remaining
(NNR)
A very small part of the proposed construction
falls within an area mapped as Degraded CBA.
At the scale concerned this would appear to be
a minor mapping error as the site is totally
transformed and holds no ecological potential.
Please see CBA map.
NEMA Authorisation for the industrial and
existing uses took this into account.
(b) Highlight and describe the habitat condition on site.
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 14 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
Habitat Condition
Percentage of
habitat
condition class
(adding up to
100%)
Description and additional Comments and Observations
(including additional insight into condition, e.g. poor land management
practises, presence of quarries, grazing/harvesting regimes etc).
Natural 0%
Near Natural
(includes areas with low
to moderate level of alien
invasive plants)
%
Degraded
(includes areas heavily
invaded by alien plants)
0%
Transformed
(includes cultivation,
dams, urban, plantation,
roads, etc)
100%
The entire site has been completely transformed into lawns
around the existing buildings (Pennisetum clandestinum) and
gravel driving surfaces.
(c) Complete the table to indicate:
(i) the type of vegetation, including its ecosystem status, present on the site; and
(ii) whether an aquatic ecosystem is present on site.
(d) Please provide a description of the vegetation type and/or aquatic ecosystem present on site, including any
important biodiversity features/information identified on site (e.g. threatened species and special habitats)
The entire site has been completely transformed into lawns and gravel driving surfaces or
concrete aprons. There are no important biodiversity features located where the proposed
expansion will take place.
6. LAND USE OF THE SITE
Please note: The Department may request specialist input/studies depending on the nature of the land use
character of the area and potential impact(s) of the proposed activity/ies.
Untransformed area Low density
residential
Medium density
residential
High density
residential Informal residential
Retail Commercial &
warehousing Light industrial Medium industrial Heavy industrial
Power station Office/consulting
room
Military or police
base/station/compound
Casino/entertainment
complex
Tourism &
Hospitality facility
Open cast mine Underground
mine Spoil heap or slimes dam
Quarry, sand or
borrow pit Dam or reservoir
Hospital/medical center School Tertiary education facility Church Old age home
Sewage treatment plant Train station or
shunting yard Railway line
Major road (4 lanes or
more) Airport
Harbour Sport facilities Golf course Polo fields Filling station
Landfill or waste treatment site Plantation Agriculture River, stream or
wetland
Nature
conservation area
Mountain, koppie or ridge Museum Historical building Graveyard Archeological site
Other land uses (describe): Rural area
Terrestrial Ecosystems Aquatic Ecosystems
Ecosystem threat status as per the
National Environmental
Management: Biodiversity Act (Act
No. 10 of 2004)
Critical Wetland (including rivers,
depressions, channelled
and unchanneled
wetlands, flats, seeps
pans, and artificial
wetlands)
Estuary Coastline
Endangered
Vulnerable
Least
Threatened YES NO UNSURE YES NO YES NO
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 15 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
(a) Please provide a description.
The site is zoned Agriculture II and supports an existing egg production facility. It is
located west of Plettenberg Bay on a portion of portion 10 of the Farm Kranshoek 342.
The existing facility consists of an office block (that includes the packing store), a free-
standing ‘hanger’ and six chicken houses. This property totally transformed and
includes an existing large scale egg production facility.
7. LAND USE CHARACTER OF SURROUNDING AREA (a) Highlight the current land uses and/or prominent features that occur within +/- 500m radius of the site and
neighbouring properties if these are located beyond 500m of the site.
Please note: The Department may request specialist input/studies depending on the nature of the land use
character of the area and potential impact(s) of the proposed activity/ies.
Untransformed area Low density
residential
Medium density
residential
High density
residential Informal residential
Retail Commercial &
warehousing Light industrial Medium industrial Heavy industrial
Power station Office/consulting
room
Military or police
base/station/compound
Casino/entertainment
complex
Tourism &
Hospitality facility
Open cast mine Underground
mine Spoil heap or slimes dam
Quarry, sand or
borrow pit Dam or reservoir
Hospital/medical center School Tertiary education facility Church Old age home
Sewage treatment plant Train station or
shunting yard Railway line
Major road (4 lanes or
more) Airport
Harbour Sport facilities Golf course Polo fields Filling station
Landfill or waste treatment site Plantation Agriculture River, stream or
wetland
Nature
conservation area
Mountain, koppie or ridge Museum Historical building Graveyard Archeological site
Other land uses (describe): Rural area
(b) Please provide a description, including the distance and direction to the nearest residential area and industrial
area.
The site is located west of Plettenberg Bay on a portion of portion 10 of the Farm Kranshoek
342. This property is situated within an industrial approved area surrounded by other
smallholdings and the Kranshoek settlement is located approximately 500m to the south west
of the farm.
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 16 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
8. SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS Describe the existing social and economic characteristics of the community in order to provide baseline information.
The socio-economic characteristics of the Pletteberg Bay area is a large disparity
between the wealthy and the poorer communities. There is a high degree of
unemployment in the area and there are not many production farms in the area.
Many of the traditional agricultural areas have become residential / lifestyle farms
(where a family lives but does not necessary utilize for production).
JJ van der Schyff & Seun (Pty) Ltd are an existing highly successful egg production
facility. They have recently added 10 Pick and Pay’s and Spar DC (who distributes
eggs to 120 Spar stores) to their ever growing supply list, these new clients were
assigned to them by Hoëveld Eierkooperasie (responsible for the national marketing of
eggs for all the largest chains companies in the egg industry) as a result of other egg
production facilities failing to keep up with the growing demand.
The upgrading of JJ van der Schyff & Seun (Pty) Ltd is therefore critical in terms local
economy and will form part of the national sustainable food production plan. The
upgrading of JJ van der Schyff & Seun (Pty) Ltd will create 24 temporary and 12
permanent employment opportunities.
In order to meet their current demand they have to import eggs from outside the
region which is contrary to sound environmental management and sustainability
principles.
9. HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASPECTS (a) Please be advised that if section 38 of the National Heritage Resources Act, 1999 (Act No. 25
of 1999), is applicable to your proposed development, then you are requested to furnish this
Department with written comment from Heritage Western Cape as part of your public
participation process. Section 38 of the Act states as follows: “38. (1) Subject to the provisions
of subsections (7), (8) and (9), any person who intends to undertake a development
categorised as- (a) the construction of a road, wall, power line, pipeline, canal or other similar form of linear development
or barrier exceeding 300m in length;
(b) the construction of a bridge or similar structure exceeding 50m in length;
I any development or other activity which will change the character of a site-
(i) exceeding 5 000 m2 in extent; or
(ii) involving three or more existing erven or subdivisions thereof; or
(iii) involving three or more erven or divisions thereof which have been consolidated within the past
five years; or
(iv) the costs of which will exceed a sum set in terms of regulations by SAHRA or a provincial heritage
resources
authority;
(d) the re-zoning of a site exceeding 10 000 m2 in extent; or
(e) any other category of development provided for in regulations by SAHRA or a provincial heritage
resources authority,
must at the very earliest stages of initiating such a development, notify the responsible heritage resources
authority and furnish it with details regarding the location, nature and extent of the proposed
development.”
(b) The impact on any national estate referred to in section 3(2), excluding the national estate contemplated in
section 3(2)(i)(vi) and (vii), of the National Heritage Resources Act, 1999 (Act No. 25 of 1999), must also be
investigated, assessed and evaluated. Section 3(2) states as follows: “3(2) Without limiting the generality of
subsection (1), the national estate may include—
(a) places, buildings, structures and equipment of cultural significance;
(b) places to which oral traditions are attached or which are associated with living heritage;
I historical settlements and townscapes;
(d) landscapes and natural features of cultural significance;
(e) geological sites of scientific or cultural importance;
(f) archaeological and palaeontological sites;
(g) graves and burial grounds, including—
(i) ancestral graves;
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 17 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
(ii) royal graves and graves of traditional leaders;
(iii) graves of victims of conflict;
(iv) graves of individuals designated by the Minister by notice in the Gazette;
(v) historical graves and cemeteries; and
(vi) other human remains which are not covered in terms of the Human Tissue Act, 1983 (Act No. 65 of
1983);
(h) sites of significance relating to the history of slavery in South Africa;
(i) movable objects, including—
(i) objects recovered from the soil or waters of South Africa, including archaeological and
palaeontological objects and material, meteorites and rare geological specimens;
(ii) objects to which oral traditions are attached or which are associated with living heritage;
(iii) ethnographic art and objects;
(iv) military objects;
(v) objects of decorative or fine art;
(vi) objects of scientific or technological interest; and
(vii) books, records, documents, photographic positives and negatives, graphic, film or video material or
sound recordings, excluding those that are public records as defined in section 1(xiv) of the National
Archives of South Africa Act, 1996 (Act No. 43 of 1996).”
Is section 38 of the National Heritage Resources Act, 1999, applicable to the development? YES NO
UNCERTAIN
If YES, explain:
Will the development impact on any national estate referred to in section 3(2) of the National
Heritage Resources Act, 1999?
YES NO
UNCERTAIN
If YES, explain:
Will any building or structure older than 60 years be affected in any way? YES NO UNCERTAIN
If YES, explain:
Please Note: If uncertain, the Department may request that specialist input be provided.
10. APPLICABLE LEGISLATION, POLICIES AND/OR GUIDELINES (a) Please list all legislation, policies and/or guidelines that have been considered in the preparation of this Basic
Assessment Report.
LEGISLATION ADMINISTERING AUTHORITY
TYPE
Permit/ license/
authorisation/comment / relevant
consideration (e.g. rezoning or
consent use, building plan
approval)
DATE
(if already
obtained):
NEMA Department Environmental Affairs &
Development Planning
NEMA Environmental
Authorisation
Subject to
completion
of the EIA
process.
Building plan
approval Bitou Municipality Building plan approval In progress
POLICY/ GUIDELINES ADMINISTERING AUTHORITY
Guideline for Public Participation Report DEADP
Guideline for Need and Desirability DEADP
Guideline for Alternatives DEADP
Guideline on Public Participation DEADP
Guideline on Exemptions DEADP
Guideline on EMP’s DEADP
Code of Practice 2012 Poultry Association SAPA
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 18 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
(b) Please describe how the legislation, policies and/or guidelines were taken into account in the preparation of
this Basic Assessment Report.
LEGISLATION / POLICY / GUIDELINE DESCRIBE HOW THE LEGISLATION / POLICY / GUIDELINE WERE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT
(e.g. describe the extent to which it was adhered to, or deviated from, etc).
NEMA (Act No. 107 of 1998)
and the Environmental
Impact Assessment
Regulations 2014.
Under the NEMA Act and EIA Regulations 2014 listed activities are
triggered. These activities’ impacts are assessed and alternatives
proposed within the Basic Assessment Report to mitigate the
associated impacts as far as possible.
The Biodiversity Sector Plan
The guidelines, criteria and definitions described in the Sector Plan
were used when ground truthing the Critical Biodiversity Areas as
described from the BGIS biodiversity plan on the proposed property.
Guideline for Public
Participation Report This guideline was used to complete the public participation report
Guideline for Need and
Desirability
This guideline was used to complete the section on need and
desirability
Code of Practice 2012
This is the South African Poultry Association's Code that regulates its
member's in the Pullet Rearing and Table Egg Production industry and
is applicable to the existing facility and its proposed expansion.
Please note: Copies of any permit(s) or licences received from any other organ of state must be attached this
report as Appendix E.
SECTION C: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The public participation process must fulfil the requirements outlined in NEMA, the EIA Regulations,
and if applicable the NEM: WA and/or the NEM: AQA. This Department’s Guideline on Public
Participation (August 2010) and Guideline on Exemption Applications (August 2010), both of
which are available on the Department’s website (http://www.capegateway.gov.za/eadp), must
also be taken into account.
Please highlight the appropriate box to indicate whether the specific requirement was undertaken
or whether there was a deviation that was agreed to by the Department.
1. Were all potential interested and affected parties notified of the application by –
(a) fixing a notice board at a place conspicuous to the public at the boundary or on the fence of -
(i) the site where the activity to which the application relates is to be undertaken; and YES DEVIATED
(ii) any alternative site mentioned in the application; YES DEVIATED
(b) giving written notice to –
(i) the owner or person in control of that land if the applicant is not the owner or person in
control of the land; YES N/A
(ii) the occupiers of the site where the activity is to be undertaken and to any alternative site
where the activity is to be undertaken; - occupiers are the applicant YES DEVIATED
(iii) owners and occupiers of land adjacent to the site where the activity is to be undertaken
and to any alternative site where the activity is to be undertaken; YES DEVIATED
(iv) the municipal councillor of the ward in which the site and alternative site is situated
and any organisation of ratepayers that represent the community in the area; YES DEVIATED
(v) the municipality which has jurisdiction in the area; YES DEVIATED
(vi) any organ of state having jurisdiction in respect of any aspect of the activity; and YES DEVIATED
(vii) any other party as required by the competent authority; YES DEVIATED
I placing an advertisement in -
(i) one* local newspaper; and YES DEVIATED
(ii) any official Gazette that is published specifically for the purpose of providing public
notice of applications or other submissions made in terms of these Regulations; YES DEVIATED N/A
(d) placing an advertisement in at least one* provincial newspaper or national
newspaper, if the activity has or may have an impact that extends beyond the
boundaries of the metropolitan or local municipality in which it is or will be
undertaken.
YES DEVIATED N/A
* Please note: In terms of the NEM: WA and NEM: AQA a notice must be placed in at least two
newspapers circulating in the area in which the activity applied for is to be carried out.
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 19 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
AND
AND
3. Please provide an overall summary of the Public Participation Process that was followed. (The detailed outcomes of
this process must be included in a comments and response report to be attached to the final Basic Assessment Report
(see note below) as Appendix F).
See Public Participation Report in Appendix F
Please note:
Should any of the responses be “No” and no deviation or exemption from that requirement was
requested and agreed to /granted by the Department, the Basic Assessment Report will be rejected.
A list of all the potential interested and affected parties, including the organs of State, notified and a
list of all the register of interested and affected parties, must be submitted with the final Basic
Assessment Report. The list of registered interested and affected parties must be opened,
maintained and made available to any person requesting access to the register in writing.
The draft Basic Assessment Report must be submitted to the Department before it is made available
to interested and affected parties, including the relevant organs of State and State departments
which have jurisdiction with regard to any aspect of the activity, for a 30-day commenting period.
With regard to State departments, the 30-day period commences the day after the date on which
the Department as the competent/licensing authority requests such State department in writing to
submit comment. The applicant/EAP is therefore required to inform this Department in writing when
the draft Basic Assessment Report will be made available to the relevant State departments for
comment. Upon receipt of the Draft Basic Assessment Report and this confirmation, this Department
will in accordance with Section 24O(2) and (3) of the NEMA request the relevant State departments
to comment on the draft report within 40 days.
All comments of interested and affected parties on the draft Basic Assessment Report must be
recorded, responded to and included in the Comments and Responses Report included as
Appendix F to the final Basic Assessment Report. If necessary, any amendments in response to
comments received must be effected in the Basic Assessment Report itself. The Comments and
Responses Report must also include a description of the public participation process followed.
The final Basic Assessment Report must be made available to registered interested and affected
parties for comment before submitting it to the Department for consideration. Unless otherwise
indicated by the Department, a final Basic Assessment Report must be made available to the
registered interested and affected parties for comment for 30 days. Comments on the final Basic
2. Provide a list of all the state departments that were consulted:
Department of Water and Sanitation
Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planing - George Office
Department of Agriculture – Outeniqua, W.C., Elsenburg State Veterinarian
Department of Agriculture
Department of Provincial Health
Department of Water and Sanitation
Department of Water and Sanitation (Gouritz Breede Catchment Management Agency)
Organs of State:
Heritage Western Cape
CapeNature
Bitou Municipality
Eden District Municipality
NGO’s
Plettenberg Bay Community Environmental Forum
Plettenberg Bay Business Chamber
Ward Councillor
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 20 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
Assessment Report does not have to be responded to, but the comments must be attached to the
final Basic Assessment Report.
The minutes of any meetings held by the EAP with interested and affected parties and other role
players which record the views of the participants must also be submitted as part of the public
participation information to be attached to the final Basic Assessment Report as Appendix F.
Proof of all the notices given as indicated, as well as of notice to the interested and affected parties
of the availability of the draft Basic Assessment Report and final Basic Assessment Report must be
submitted as part of the public participation information to be attached to the final Basic Assessment
Report as Appendix F.
SECTION D: NEED AND DESIRABILITY
Please Note: Before completing this section, first consult this Department’s Guideline on Need and Desirability
(August 2010) available on the Department’s website (http://www.capegateway.gov.za/eadp).
1. Is the activity permitted in terms of the property’s existing land use rights? YES NO Please explain
JJ van der Schyff & Seun (Pty) Ltd is an existing large scale egg production facility and are within their
rights to expand and upgrade the existing facility. The farm is zoned as Agricultural Zone II and has
an existing chicken farm for the production of eggs. 2. Will the activity be in line with the following?
(a) Provincial Spatial Development Framework (PSDF) YES NO Please explain
No change. The farm has been producing for the past 11 years and as such no change in relation to
planning context. (b) Urban edge / Edge of Built environment for the area YES NO Please explain
Outside the urban edge within a small industrial park (recently approved LUPO and NEMA). (c) Integrated Development Plan and Spatial Development Framework of the
Local Municipality (e.g. would the approval of this application compromise the
integrity of the existing approved and credible municipal IDP and SDF?).
YES NO Please explain
No change. The farm has been producing for the past 11 years and as such no change in relation to
planning context. The facility is currently meeting important food production and job creation goals
of the IDP. (d) Approved Structure Plan of the Municipality YES NO Please explain
No change. The farm has been producing for the past 11 years and as such no change in relation to
planning context. Falls within the recently approved industrial node. (e) An Environmental Management Framework (EMF) adopted by the Department
(e.g. Would the approval of this application compromise the integrity of the
existing environmental management priorities for the area and if so, can it be
justified in terms of sustainability considerations?)
YES NO Please explain
No change (f) Any other Plans (e.g. Guide Plan) YES NO Please explain
3. Is the land use (associated with the activity being applied for) considered
within the timeframe intended by the existing approved Spatial Development
Framework (SDF) agreed to by the relevant environmental authority (i.e. is the
proposed development in line with the projects and programmes identified as
priorities within the credible IDP)?
YES NO Please explain
No change. The farm has been producing for the past 11 years and as such no change in relation to
planning context. 4. Should development, or if applicable, expansion of the town/area concerned
in terms of this land use (associated with the activity being applied for) occur
here at this point in time?
YES NO Please explain
The existing production facility has not been able to meet the demand for eggs.
JJ van der Schyff & Seun (Pty) Ltd recently added 10 Pick and Pay’s and Spar DC (who
distributes eggs to 120 Spar stores) to their ever growing supply list, these new clients were
assigned to them by Hoëveld Eierkooperasie as a result of other egg production facilities failing
to keep up with the growing demand.
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 21 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
The upgrading of JJ van der Schyff & Seun (Pty) Ltd is therefore critical in terms local economy
and will form part of the national sustainable food production plan. The upgrading of JJ van
der Schyff & Seun (Pty) Ltd will create 12 new permanent employment opportunities as well as
24 temporary jobs.
5. Does the community/area need the activity and the associated land use
concerned (is it a societal priority)? (This refers to the strategic as well as local
level (e.g. development is a national priority, but within a specific local context
it could be inappropriate.)
YES NO Please explain
Yes. The upgrading of JJ van der Schyff & Seun (Pty) Ltd critical in terms local economy and forms
part of the national sustainable food production plan. The upgrading of JJ van der Schyff & Seun
(Pty) Ltd will create 12 new permanent employment opportunities as well as 24 temporary jobs. 6. Are the necessary services with adequate capacity currently available (at the
time of application), or must additional capacity be created to cater for the
development? (Confirmation by the relevant Municipality in this regard must
be attached to the final Basic Assessment Report as Appendix E.)
YES NO Please explain
There is sufficient water and electricity and backup generator capacity for the facility to
expand.
The existing facility consists of an office block (that includes the packing store), a free-standing
‘hanger’ and six chicken houses. Space for upgrading of the facility was taken into account
during its construction, this space will be utilised during the proposed upgrading.
The proposed addition of 3 chicken houses will be constructed to fit the same dimensions as
the existing chicken houses. They will also be operated using the same conveyor system. The
proposed chicken houses will thus be integrated with the existing 6 chicken houses to form part
of an already fully functioning high quality egg production process.
7. Is this development provided for in the infrastructure planning of the
municipality, and if not what will the implication be on the infrastructure
planning of the municipality (priority and placement of services and
opportunity costs)? (Comment by the relevant Municipality in this regard must
be attached to the final Basic Assessment Report as Appendix E.)
YES NO Please explain
Won’t have any impact on the infrastructure planning of the municipality. 8. Is this project part of a national programme to address an issue of national
concern or importance? YES NO Please explain
The expansion of JJ van der Schyff & Seun (Pty) Ltd is critical in terms local economy and will form
part of the national sustainable food production plan.
9. Do location factors favour this land use (associated with the activity applied
for) at this place? (This relates to the contextualisation of the proposed land
use on this site within its broader context.)
YES NO Please explain
JJ van der Schyff & Seun (Pty) Ltd is an existing large scale egg production facility. The farm is zoned
as Agricultural Zone II and is within an Industrial node (recently approved) and has an established
chicken farm for the production of eggs and there is adequate space to add on 3 modular additional
units making use of all the existing infrastructure and supply chains and management. 10. How will the activity or the land use associated with the activity applied for,
impact on sensitive natural and cultural areas (built and rural/natural
environment)?
YES NO Please explain
The proposed upgrading will not have any impact on sensitive natural or cultural areas. The whole of
portion 10 has been assessed and granted both Environmental Authorisation (NEMA) and planning
approval (LUPO). All sensitive areas were defined in that process and have been demarcated for
avoidance. 11. How will the development impact on people’s health and wellbeing (e.g. in
terms of noise, odours, visual character and sense of place, etc)? YES NO Please explain
No negative effect on people's health and wellbeing.
JJ van der Schyff & Seun (Pty) Ltd underwent an environmental scoping process during Dec
2002 – June 2003. During the environmental scoping process impacts were identified and
assessed and recommendations were made accordingly. Issues previously associated with JJ
van der Schyff & Seun (Pty) Ltd were addressed and mitigations were made to ensure
compliance with environmental legislation. Environmental Authorisation was granted by the
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 22 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
competent authority on 26 May 2004.
All noise, odour and visual impacts were assessed during the environmental scoping process;
as a result these impacts are within legal boundaries and will not have any negative impact on
any person’s health and wellbeing.
The existing facility has been monitored and meets all the required health and safety and food
production standards.
The existing facility complies with the SAPA Code of Practice which covers all health and
wellbeing issues
12. Will the proposed activity or the land use associated with the activity applied
for, result in unacceptable opportunity costs? YES NO Please explain
No unacceptable opportunity costs linked to the project taking place. Should the expansion be
refused this would be considered an unacceptable opportunity cost. 13. What will the cumulative impacts (positive and negative) of the proposed
land use associated with the activity applied for, be? YES NO Please explain
The proposed expansion of JJ van der Schyff & Seun (Pty) Ltd will create 12 permanent and 24
temporary employment opportunities.
Expanding the facility will ensure that JJ van der Schyff & Seun (Pty) Ltd will be able to produce
enough eggs to satisfy the growing demand, this forms part of the national sustainable food
production plan.
Apart from the above named positive impacts, JJ van der Schyff & Seun (Pty) Ltd are critical to the
local economy, food securing and employment.
Negative impacts associated with the facility have previously been assessed and mitigations were
made accordingly, apart from negative impacts during construction (short term construction
impacts), no additional negative impacts are anticipated. 14. Is the development the best practicable environmental option for this
land/site? YES NO Please explain
Expansion of an existing well run facility is viewed as the best practicable environmental option for
this site.
The site on which the proposed chicken houses will be constructed is completely transformed and
currently being utilised for driving, parking and limited grazing purposes.
The facility has been designed in such a manner as to allow the addition of modular units that simply
feed into the existing facility management structures (conveyors, egg sorting, water supply,
electricity provision etc)
The facility design allows for expansion.
The facility is situated on Agricultural zone II land and as an existing large scale egg production
facility, they are within their rights to expand the facility if needed.
The facility conforms with the Cope of Practice of the SAPA.
15. What will the benefits be to society in general and to the local communities? Please explain
The expansion of JJ van der Schyff & Seun (Pty) Ltd is critical in terms local economy and will form
part of the national sustainable food production plan.
The expansion of JJ van der Schyff & Seun (Pty) Ltd will create 12 new permanent employment
opportunities as well as 24 temporary jobs. 16. Any other need and desirability considerations related to the proposed activity? Please explain
Since 2000 the egg market has more than doubled in the Eastern and Western Cape. JJ van
der Schyff & Seun (Pty) Ltd are members of “Hoëveld Eierkooperasie” who’s responsible for the
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 23 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
(17) Please describe how the general objectives of Integrated Environmental Management as set out in section 23
of NEMA have been taken into account:
Section 23 requires the following general objectives:
(2) The general objective of integrated environmental management is to—
a. promote the integration of the principles of environmental management set
out in section 2 into the making of all decisions which may have a significant
effect on the environment;
b. identify, predict and evaluate the actual and potential impact on the
environment, socio-economic conditions and cultural heritage, the risks and
consequences and alternatives and options for mitigation of activities, with a
view to minimising negative impacts, maximising benefits, and promoting
compliance with the principles of environmental management set out in
section 2;
c. ensure that the effects of activities on the environment receive adequate
consideration before actions are taken in connection with them;
d. ensure adequate and appropriate opportunity for public participation in
decisions that may affect the environment;
e. ensure the consideration of environmental attributes in management and
decision-making which may have a significant effect on the environment; and
f. identify and employ the modes of environmental management best suited to
ensuring that a particular activity is pursued in accordance with the principles
of environmental management set out in section 2.
These are achieved as follows:
a) Decision making based on the findings of the BAR process
b) Impacts have been identified, predicted and evaluated in terms of environmental,
socio-economic and cultural heritage environment. The risks, consequences and
alternatives and options for mitigation have been evaluated.
c) This BAR process and the EMP ensure that the effects of the activities on the
environment receive adequate consideration before actions are taken in connection
with them.
d) There will have been adequate and appropriate opportunity for public participation
that will lead to the decision being taken.
e) Environmental attributes have been considered in management and decision
making.
f) The modes best suited to environmental management for this activity have been
followed and recommended.
national marketing of eggs for all the largest chains companies in the egg industry and expects
sustainability from their producers.
Because of the high demand in the egg market as well as JJ van der Schyff & Seun’s (Pty) Ltd
limitations in terms of production, they have been forced to import eggs from other provinces in
order to keep up with the growing demand.
This causes a number of problems of which profitability, sustainability and lack of quality are
the major issues.
Because of the above mentioned concerns expansion JJ van der Schyff & Seun (Pty) Ltd is an
immediate priority to ensure that egg production requirements are met.
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 24 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
(18) Please describe how the principles of environmental management as set out in section 2 of NEMA have been
taken into account:
NEMA Section 2 requires:
(2) Environmental management must place people and their needs at the forefront of its
concern, and serve their physical, psychological, developmental, cultural and social
interests equitably.
This has been achieved as follows:
The environmental management relating to the expansion of JJ van der Schyff & Seun (Pty)
Ltd by the construction of the proposed chicken houses has been set up in such a way as to
place the needs of people at the forefront of its concern while addressing the environmental
issues concerning the upgrading of the facility.
The facility has been designed to allow for addition of modules utilizing the same
infrastructure which allows for true sustainable management.
SECTION E: ALTERNATIVES
Please Note: Before completing this section, first consult this Department’s Guideline on Alternatives (August 2010)
available on the Department’s website (http://www.capegateway.gov.za/eadp).
“Alternatives”, in relation to a proposed activity, means different means of meeting the general purposes and
requirements of the activity, which may include alternatives to –
(a) the property on which, or location where, it is proposed to undertake the activity;
(b) the type of activity to be undertaken;
I the design or layout of the activity;
(d) the technology to be used in the activity;
(e) the operational aspects of the activity; and
(f) the option of not implementing the activity.
The NEMA prescribes that the procedures for the investigation, assessment and communication of the potential
consequences or impacts of activities on the environment must, inter alia, with respect to every application for
environmental authorisation –
ensure that the general objectives of integrated environmental management laid down in NEMA and the
National Environmental Management Principles set out in NEMA are taken into account; and
include an investigation of the potential consequences or impacts of the alternatives to the activity on the
environment and assessment of the significance of those potential consequences or impacts, including the
option of not implementing the activity.
The general objective of integrated environmental management is, inter alia, to “identify, predict and evaluate the
actual and potential impact on the environment, socio-economic conditions and cultural heritage, the risks and
consequences and alternatives and options for mitigation of activities, with a view to minimising negative impacts,
maximising benefits, and promoting compliance with the principles of environmental management” set out in
NEMA.
1. In the sections below, please provide a description of any indentified and considered alternatives and
alternatives that were found to be feasible and reasonable.
Please note: Detailed written proof the investigation of alternatives must be provided and motivation if no
reasonable or feasible alternatives exist.
(a) Property and location/site alternatives to avoid negative impacts, mitigate unavoidable negative impacts and
maximise positive impacts, or detailed motivation if no reasonable or feasible alternatives exist:
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 25 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
One site alternative – the existing facility requires expansion to ensure future sustainability in
terms of egg production. The facility was designed to enable modular expansion.
The listed activity (expansion of an existing facility) precludes any location alternatives other
than looking at the location on the property itself. The modular design dictates the location
of the expansion on site so as to tie in with the existing infrastructure.
The location of a wetland buffer in one corner of the site precludes the consideration of any
activities in that area (as defined by the EA for the Industrial subdivision)
Construction of a whole new facility at a new location was screened out as the capital
expenditure would be too great in order to meet the desired increase in capacity.
Development of another facility would fragment management and operation and would not
maximise the sustainable use of the existing resources at the existing facility.
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 26 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
(b) Activity alternatives to avoid negative impacts, mitigate unavoidable negative impacts and maximise positive
impacts, or detailed motivation if no reasonable or feasible alternatives exist:
Activity alternatives are alternatives which meet the same desired outcome. These would be
as follows:
Expansion of the existing facility through the construction of an additional 3 chicken houses:
Construction of each of the 3 chicken houses during different constructional phases
as demand of egg production increases: Impacts associated with construction will
not be restricted to a single constructional phase. At least 2 chicken houses are
needed to keep up with the current demand; as such this alternative will not be the
best economic approach.
Construction of all 3 proposed chicken houses during a single constructional phase:
The impacts associated with the constructional phase (noise, dust and traffic) will be
restricted to a limited timeframe. Production can be increased to more than equal
the demand.
Construction of the first 2 chicken houses with the option to construct a third if egg
production demands can’t be met in the future: JJ van der Schyff & Seun (Pty) Ltd are
currently not reaching the demand in terms of egg production. To meet the growing
demand they have been forced to import eggs from other provinces; as such the
construction of at least 2 of the 3 chicken houses as soon as possible is critical in
order to produce enough without having to import eggs.
Besides the construction period variation there is no significant difference between
these alternatives and it is recommended that the Environmental authorisation does
not specify or prescribe the construction as this will be a purely market driven and
financial decision for the applicant to make at the time when they are ready to
commence with implementation of the expansion.
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 27 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
(c) Design or layout alternatives to avoid negative impacts, mitigate unavoidable negative impacts and maximise
positive impacts, or detailed motivation if no reasonable or feasible alternatives exist:
One layout alternative – The existing facility requires expansion to ensure future sustainability
in terms of egg production.
During the construction of the existing facility modular expansion was considered a potential
future need and as such the design caters for the modular expansion and linking to all the
facilities.
In order to connect to all the existing infrastructure the size and layout of the new sheds is
limited to replicate those already on site.
The proposed additional chicken houses will be integrated together with the 6 existing
chicken houses; as such the proposed chicken houses will have the same layout plan as the
existing chicken houses in order to form part of the already fully functioning egg production
process.
(d) Technology alternatives (e.g. to reduce resource demand and resource use efficiency) to avoid negative
impacts, mitigate unavoidable negative impacts and maximise positive impacts, or detailed motivation if no
reasonable or feasible alternatives exist:
Technology alternatives– The proposed additional chicken houses will be integrated together
with the 6 existing chicken houses; as such the proposed chicken houses will be designed
based on existing chicken houses in order to form part of the already fully functioning egg
production process.
The facility is already utilizing state of the art egg sorting and packing systems, manure
conveyor removal systems and ventilation and feeding systems. As new technology is
developed this will be incorporated where practical and possible.
(e) Operational alternatives to avoid negative impacts, mitigate unavoidable negative impacts and maximise
positive impacts, or detailed motivation if no reasonable or feasible alternatives exist:
Operational alternatives – The proposed chicken houses will be integrated together with the 6
existing chicken houses; as such the proposed chicken houses will be designed and operated
based on the existing chicken houses in order to form part of the already fully functioning egg
production process. As and when alternative operational procedures are developed, these will
be incorporated where possible.
(f) the option of not implementing the activity (the No-Go Option):
Upgrading of the facility does not take place and a new facility will have to be developed to
meet the demand elsewhere in the area.
This does not meet the applicant's need or desirability and is not viewed as a sustainable use
of existing resources.
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 28 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
(g) Other alternatives to avoid negative impacts, mitigate unavoidable negative impacts and maximise positive
impacts, or detailed motivation if no reasonable or feasible alternatives exist:
JJ van der Schyff & Seun (Pty) Ltd underwent an environmental scoping process during
Dec 2002 – June 2003. During the environmental scoping process impacts were
identified and assessed and recommendations were made accordingly. Issues
previously associated with JJ van der Schyff & Seun (Pty) Ltd were addressed and
mitigations were made to ensure compliance with environmental legislation.
Environmental Authorisation was granted by the competent authority on 26 May 2004.
Impacts investigated:
Smell:
Foul smells from the chicken manure and chicken feed on site. An olfactory expert
was appointed to do site inspections and provide an objective opinion relating to the
presence of offensive odour.
The general findings of the report were as follows:
Air inside production units carried a smell of feed and “chicken”, but could not be
described as offensive or foul.
In the event where chicken manure was observed outside the buildings (small
localised spillages) the odour could not be detected from a distance greater than
5m.
The ventilator system expels air that smells of “chicken”, and could be detected
up to 5m from the ventilator fans.
The maintenance of this level and type of odour (not deemed as overpowering, foul or
intrusive) will be entirely dependent upon the continuation of diligent “housekeeping”
practices which ensure frequent removal of chicken manure and other organic waste
which may generate from time to time. Thus far all the necessary measures are taken
to prevent any odour.
Noise:
The noise that the emergency generator on the property makes when it runs (when
there is a power failure). Noise surveys were conducted and based on the
recommendations the necessary changes were made. The survey concluded that the
decibel readings were dramatically lower than during previous surveys. The noise level
is now within the legal boundaries and within acceptable standards.
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 29 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
Potential surface and groundwater contamination:
The operation is deemed a dry-brush operation. No water is used to clean any of the
chicken sheds. The sheds are all brushed and vacuumed twice a week. Chicken feed
is stored in fully enclosed silos that prevent water from entering or exiting the silos. Solid
waste, including dead chickens and left over feed are removed from site everyday
and disposed as required by the regulations. Mature live birds are sold to local farmers
once they have exceeded their productive years.
Sewerage:
The property has existing conservancy tanks. The conservancy tanks is pumped by the
Bitou Municipality.
Solid waste:
The solid waste produced during the proposed activity will consist of construction
waste which will be disposed of at the nearest appropriate landfill site along with other
solid waste generated on a daily bases on the facility.
Solid waste during the operational phase is gathered daily after closing time. The
waste is disposed of at the local Plettenberg Bay refuse site.
Dead chickens are removed daily in accordance with the required regulations.
Death due to disease requires containment in accordance with the regulations and is
prescribed by the State Vet.
Manure was previously stored in heaps on outside concrete slabs in order to dry for
fertiliser. The dry manure was then ground and packaged in the ‘hanger’ for sale.
These operations were a source of odour and as a result of complaints regarding the
smell of the manure, these activities were ceased and the current conveyor system
delivery straight onto the trucks was implemented.
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 30 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
Roads:
Access to the farm is from an existing dirt road that turns off from the airport/Kranshoek
road. This is not a private road and serves as an access road to other farms/businesses
as well. The Airport/Kranshoek road carries a moderate amount of traffic and is in the
process of being upgraded to a surfaced road by District roads. Alternative access is
not an option.
Storm water:
Storm water will be required to be part of the new storm water system as part of the
approved rezoning and services agreement.
Traffic:
JJ van der Schyff & Seun (Pty) Ltd is a large scale egg production facility; as such traffic
to and from the facility is inevitable. The current incoming traffic to the facility includes
chicken feed deliveries, 1 truck 3 times per week and delivery of eggs, one truck per
month. The outgoing traffic includes egg delivery, 2 trucks daily and the manure
collecting, 3 trucks per week. All the above mentioned incoming and outgoing
deliveries takes place during daytime hours with the exception of outgoing egg
deliveries which takes place between 02:00 and 03:00 AM.
After the proposed expansion of the facility the traffic will increase slightly by 1
additional outgoing egg delivery truck, 1 additional manure collection truck, 1
additional feed truck, all as per schedule mentioned above. The trucks delivering eggs
to the farm will no longer be needed.
(h) Please provide a summary of the alternatives investigated and the outcomes of such investigation:
Please note: If no feasible and reasonable alternatives exist, the description and proof of the investigation of
alternatives, together with motivation of why no feasible or reasonable alternatives exist, must be provided.
Alternatives Summary
No-Go alternative - No expansion at this site
Would not meet the need and desirability objectives or the sustainability objectives.
A new facility would be required in the area to meet the growing demand.
Expansion of existing facility
Modular expansion - allows for the new chicken houses to be built to link to the
existing infrastructure and operational management systems. This is viewed as the
preferred alternative as it is the best practical environmental alternative and is most
appropriate sustainable use of existing infrastructure. No significant impact will be
associated with the timing of the building of the 3 additional modules. Building one at
a time, or 2 followed by the 3rd or building all 3 together. The only difference would
be to the applicant in terms of cashflow and an extended construction period. These
impacts are not viewed as significant and the applicant should be permitted to
decide on the method that suites his means the best and the EMPr will cover the
construction impacts during construction.
Non-modular expansion - would require excessive additional costs to service the
facility and link to the collection and delivery systems already in place. The
remaining area within the Agricultural II zone does not specifically suit the
development of anything other than a modular expansion.
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 31 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
Alternative methods of handling the manure have already been considered in the past and
the current system meets the desired outcomes.
Alternative technology in relation to the facility and its operation will be used as and when
required in order to meet the high standard of production required. The current system, into
which the 3 new laying houses will feed, is already state of the art and running under
capacity.
Alternative sites have not been assessed as these would not fall under the listed activity
which pertains to expansion of existing facilities and not to the development of new facilities.
SECTION F: IMPACT ASSESSMENT, MANAGEMENT,
MITIGATION AND MONITORING MEASURES Please note: The information in this section must be duplicated for all the feasible and reasonable alternatives
(where relevant).
1. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE MANNER IN WHICH THE DEVELOPMENT WILL IMPACT ON THE
FOLLOWING ASPECTS: (a) Geographical and physical aspects:
The site upon which construction of the proposed chicken houses will take place is entirely
transformed and consists mostly of gravel and lawn (Pennisetum clandestinum). The
proposed construction will have little to no impact in terms of the physical aspects of the site.
The surface upon which the proposed construction will take place is flat; as such no
excavation or earthworks in addition to foundation excavation of the chicken houses will be
necessary.
The ground conditions require raft foundations which is a design issue that has been
successfully implemented in all the existing structures.
Therefore no adverse impacts on geographical or physical aspects.
(b) Biological aspects:
Will the development have an impact on critical biodiversity areas (CBAs) or ecological support areas
(ESAs)? YES NO
If yes, please describe:
N/A
Will the development have an impact on terrestrial vegetation, or aquatic ecosystems (wetlands,
estuaries or the coastline)? YES NO
If yes, please describe:
N/A Please describe the manner in which any other biological aspects will be impacted:
(c) Socio-Economic aspects:
What is the expected capital value of the activity on completion? R9 678 300.00 What is the expected yearly income or contribution to the economy that will be generated
by or as a result of the activity? R28 500 000.00
Will the activity contribute to service infrastructure? YES NO
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 32 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
How many new employment opportunities will be created in the construction phase of the
activity?
Approximately
36
What is the expected value of the employment opportunities during the construction
phase?
± R180 000
What percentage of this will accrue to previously disadvantaged individuals? 100%
How will this be ensured and monitored (please explain):
Applicant will appoint a local contractor to construct the buildings. Temporary jobs will be
created for local labour as this is a very labour intensive process. Through compliance with
the EMP and inclusion in tender documents. This will be monitored by the ECO. How many permanent new employment opportunities will be created during the
operational phase of the activity? 12
What is the expected current value of the employment opportunities during the first 10
years? ± R57 000 000.00
What percentage of this will accrue to previously disadvantaged individuals? 90%
How will this be ensured and monitored (please explain):
Part of the permanent maintenance staff. Through compliance with the EMP and inclusion in
tender documents. This will be monitored by the ECO
Any other information related to the manner in which the socio-economic aspects will be impacted:
The expansion of JJ van der Schyff & Seun (Pty) Ltd plays a critical role in the local economy
and does not only provide employment opportunities but will form part of the national
sustainable food production plan.
(d) Cultural and historic aspects:
There should be no impact on cultural or historic aspects as the expansion will be done to an
existing facility. The farm has been subjected to prior NEMA and ECA scoping process, and
previous disturbance within the area render any heritage resources to be out of context.
2. WASTE AND EMISSIONS
(a) Waste (including effluent) management
Will the activity produce waste (including rubble) during the construction phase? YES NO
If yes, indicate the types of waste (actual type of waste, e.g. oil, and whether hazardous or not) and
estimated quantity per type? M3
The waste produced during the proposed activity will consist of construction
waste which will be disposed of at the nearest appropriate landfill site.
Very
limited as
building
process
not
designed
to be
wasteful
Will the activity produce waste during its operational phase? YES NO
If yes, indicate the types of waste (actual type of waste, e.g. oil, and whether hazardous or not) and
estimated quantity per type? M3
Manure and the occasional dead chickens.
Normal Agri-Industry waste
11 m3
Per Day
Where and how will the waste be treated / disposed of (describe)?
If yes, indicate the types of waste (actual type of waste, e.g. oil, and whether hazardous or not) and estimated quantity per
type per phase of the development?
Operational "domestic type" waste to the Municipal refuse site.
Manure to farming sector as fertilizer (viewed as a resource not waste)
Dead chickens suitable for animal consumption to the Wolf Sanctuary under control of
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 33 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
regulations (viewed as a resource not waste)
Contaminated chicken to Municipal waste site under specific protocols or as directed by the
State Vet if the need arises.
Sewage collected by Municipality for disposal in the WWTW.
Has the municipality or relevant authority confirmed that sufficient capacity exist for treating / disposing of
the waste to be generated by this activity(ies)? If yes, provide written confirmation from Municipality or
relevant authority
YES NO
Will the activity produce waste that will be treated and/or disposed of at another facility other than into a
municipal waste stream? (other waste is used as a resource (manure or food) and is not disposed). YES NO
If yes, has this facility confirmed that sufficient capacity exist for treating / disposing of the waste to be
generated by this activity(ies)? Provide written confirmation from the facility and provide the following
particulars of the facility:
YES NO
Does the facility have an operating license? (If yes, please attach a copy of the license.) YES NO
Facility name:
Contact person:
Postal address:
Postal code:
Telephone: Cell:
E-mail: Fax:
Describe the measures that will be taken to reduce, reuse or recycle waste:
Manure- reused as a resource in the agricultural sector.
Dead Chickens - reused as a food source at the Wolf Sanctuary.
Broken eggs during sorting are used in the catering sector.
.
(b) Emissions into the atmosphere
Will the activity produce emissions that will be disposed of into the atmosphere? YES NO
If yes, does it require approval in terms of relevant legislation? YES NO
Describe the emissions in terms of type and concentration and how it will be treated/mitigated:
N/A
3. WATER USE
Please indicate the source(s) of water for the activity by ticking the appropriate box(es)
Municipal Water
board Groundwater
River, Stream,
Dam or Lake Other The activity will not use water
If water is to be extracted from a groundwater source, river, stream, dam, lake or any other natural feature, please
indicate
the volume that will be extracted per month:
273.75m3
Please provide proof of assurance of water supply (eg. Letter of confirmation from municipality / water user
associations, yield of borehole)
Does the activity require a water use permit / license from DWAF? YES NO
If yes, please submit the necessary application to Department of Water Affairs and attach proof thereof to this
application.
Describe the measures that will be taken to reduce water demand, and measures to reuse or recycle water:
Water for the farm is extracted from a borehole located on the farm. The farm has water
rights to extract 6000 cubic meters per year from the said borehole. The existing facility
uses approximately 6000 litres per day (an average of 2 190 cubic meters of water per
year). The addition of the 3 proposed chicken houses will elevate the yearly water use
to 3285 cubic meters which is still well under the maximum allowed for the farm.
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 34 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
4. POWER SUPPLY
Please indicate the source of power supply eg. Municipality / Eskom / Renewable energy source
Electricity to the facility is 3 phase Eskom power with a standby generator that switches
on and off automatically in cases of power failure. The generator switches off only
once the full 3 phase electricity is restored. The existing power supply will be sufficient,
no upgrading in terms of power supply will be needed for the addition of the 3
proposed chicken houses
If power supply is not available, where will power be sourced from?
N/A
5. ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Describe the design measures, if any, that have been taken to ensure that the activity is energy efficient:
The construction design limits work to make maximum use of available energy as efficiently
as possible. Describe how alternative energy sources have been taken into account or been built into the design of the activity,
if any:
No alternative energy sources have been taken into account because the proposed activity
entails the upgrading of an existing facility. Energy will be supplied in the same manner as
the rest of the existing facility. No additional power will be required.
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 35 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
6. DESCRIPTION AND ASSESSMENT OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS PRIOR TO AND AFTER
MITIGATION
Please note: While sections are provided for impacts on certain aspects of the environment and certain
impacts, the sections should also be copied and completed for all other impacts.
(a) Impacts that may result from the planning, design and construction phase (briefly describe and compare the
potential impacts (as appropriate), significance rating of impacts, proposed mitigation and significance rating
of impacts after mitigation that are likely to occur as a result of the planning, design and construction phase.
Potential impacts on geographical and physical
aspects:
Soil disturbance during construction of chicken houses
and installation of services resulting in potential for
erosion.
Nature of impact: Neutral - no impact (already disturbed site)
Extent and duration of impact: Short term and site specific
Probability of occurrence: Definite
Degree to which the impact can be reversed:
Low. Foundations to be excavated for permanent
structures.
Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable
loss of resources:
Low
Cumulative impact prior to mitigation:
Increased runoff from hard surface - suited to rain
water harvesting off the roof
Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)
Low
Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: High
Proposed mitigation: None required other than sound work methods.
Cumulative impact post mitigation: Slight increase in runoff from hard surfaces.
Significance rating of impact after mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)
Low
Potential impact on biological aspects:
None anticipated. Expansion onto gravel and lawn
area.
Nature of impact:
Extent and duration of impact:
Probability of occurrence:
Degree to which the impact can be reversed:
Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable
loss of resources:
Cumulative impact prior to mitigation:
Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 36 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
Degree to which the impact can be mitigated:
Proposed mitigation:
Cumulative impact post mitigation:
Significance rating of impact after mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)
Potential impacts on socio-economic aspects:
Construction phased employment (24 short term
employment opportunities)
Nature of impact: Positive
Extent and duration of impact: Local and short term
Probability of occurrence: High
Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Not necessary to reverse
Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable
loss of resources:
No loss of resources
Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: None
Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)
Low
Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: High
Proposed mitigation:
EMP to ensure local labour, work method labour
intensive
Cumulative impact post mitigation: Short term employment opportunities
Significance rating of impact after mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)
low
Potential impacts on cultural-historical aspects: None anticipated
Nature of impact:
Extent and duration of impact:
Probability of occurrence:
Degree to which the impact can be reversed:
Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable
loss of resources:
Cumulative impact prior to mitigation:
Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)
Degree to which the impact can be mitigated:
Proposed mitigation:
Cumulative impact post mitigation:
Significance rating of impact after mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)
Potential noise impacts: Noise during construction phase
Nature of impact: Neutral
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 37 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
Extent and duration of impact: Short term and Site specific
Probability of occurrence: Definite
Degree to which the impact can be reversed:
Not necessary to reverse, negligible working noise from
building operations.
Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable
loss of resources: No irreplaceable loss – short term impact
Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: None anticipated
Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Low
Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Low
Proposed mitigation:
None necessary other than normal standard good
practice.
Cumulative impact post mitigation: None anticipated
Significance rating of impact after mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Low
Potential visual impacts: No visual impact during construction (rural area)
Nature of impact: Extent and duration of impact: Probability of occurrence: Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable
loss of resources:
Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)
Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Proposed mitigation: Cumulative impact post mitigation: Significance rating of impact after mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)
(b) Impacts that may result from the operational phase (briefly describe and compare the potential impacts (as
appropriate), significance rating of impacts, proposed mitigation and significance rating of impacts after
mitigation that are likely to occur as a result of the operational phase.
Potential impacts on the geographical and physical
aspects: Smell.
Nature of impact: Neutral
Extent and duration of impact: Short term site specific Probability of occurrence: Low Degree to which the impact can be reversed: High Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable
loss of resources: Low
Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Already resolved in terms of existing operation. Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Low
Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: High
Proposed mitigation:
Continuation of diligent “housekeeping”
practices which ensure frequent removal of
chicken manure and other organic waste which
may generate from time to time. Thus far all the
necessary measures are taken to prevent any
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 38 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
odour.
Cumulative impact post mitigation: None anticipated
Significance rating of impact after mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Low
Potential impact biological aspects: Disease and health risks Nature of impact: Negative
Extent and duration of impact: Short term Probability of occurrence: Possible
Degree to which the impact can be reversed: High - protocols in place to rapidly identify potential for
disease and prevent or respond accordingly Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable
loss of resources: Low - protocols in place limit the risk
Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Low - risk limited to the immediate chicken house
Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)
Low - the mitigation measures are in place and are
required in terms of the code of practice and Animal
Disease Act.
Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: High - measures in place
Proposed mitigation: Protocol in place for monitoring and rapid
response. Vet on standby when required.
Cumulative impact post mitigation: Low
Significance rating of impact after mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Low - risk limited and managed
Potential impacts on the socio-economic aspects: 12 new permanent employment opportunities
Nature of impact: Positive
Extent and duration of impact: Long term permanent employment
Probability of occurrence: Definite
Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Not necessary to reverse
Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable
loss of resources:
No irreplaceable loss
Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: 12 Long term permanent employment opportunities
Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)
Low
Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: High
Proposed mitigation: No mitigation needed
Cumulative impact post mitigation: Creating 12 permanent employment opportunities
Significance rating of impact after mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)
High
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 39 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
Potential impacts on the cultural-historical aspects:
None anticipated.
Nature of impact: Extent and duration of impact: Probability of occurrence: Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable
loss of resources:
Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)
Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Proposed mitigation: Cumulative impact post mitigation: Significance rating of impact after mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)
Potential noise impacts: Noise created by backup generator and additional
traffic
Nature of impact: Neutral - already screened generator and negligible
increase in traffic.
Extent and duration of impact: Short term site specific Probability of occurrence: Low Degree to which the impact can be reversed: High Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable
loss of resources: Low
Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Noise from backup generator and delivery trucks Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Low
Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Medium
Proposed mitigation:
The generator room was enclosed to reduce
ambient noise and trucks limited to day time
deliveries with the exception of long hull egg
deliveries that leave between 2-3am.
Cumulative impact post mitigation:
Slight increase in noise through additional vehicles
although the surfacing of the airport road underway
will reduce this impact
Significance rating of impact after mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High) Low
Potential visual impacts: No change Nature of impact:
Extent and duration of impact:
Probability of occurrence:
Degree to which the impact can be reversed:
Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable
loss of resources:
Cumulative impact prior to mitigation:
Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)
Degree to which the impact can be mitigated:
Proposed mitigation:
Cumulative impact post mitigation:
Significance rating of impact after mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)
(c) Impacts that may result from the decommissioning and closure phase (briefly describe and compare the
potential impacts (as appropriate), significance rating of impacts, proposed mitigation and significance rating
of impacts after mitigation that are likely to occur as a result of the decommissioning and closure phase.
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 40 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
Potential impacts on the geographical and physical
aspects: No decommissioning likely
Nature of impact:
Extent and duration of impact:
Probability of occurrence:
Degree to which the impact can be reversed:
Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable
loss of resources:
Cumulative impact prior to mitigation:
Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)
Degree to which the impact can be mitigated:
Proposed mitigation:
Cumulative impact post mitigation:
Significance rating of impact after mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)
Potential impact biological aspects: No decommissioning likely
Nature of impact:
Extent and duration of impact:
Probability of occurrence:
Degree to which the impact can be reversed:
Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable
loss of resources:
Cumulative impact prior to mitigation:
Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)
Degree to which the impact can be mitigated:
Proposed mitigation:
Cumulative impact post mitigation:
Significance rating of impact after mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)
Potential impacts on the socio-economic aspects: No decommissioning likely
Nature of impact:
Extent and duration of impact:
Probability of occurrence:
Degree to which the impact can be reversed:
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 41 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable
loss of resources:
Cumulative impact prior to mitigation:
Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)
Degree to which the impact can be mitigated:
Proposed mitigation:
Cumulative impact post mitigation:
Significance rating of impact after mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)
Potential impacts on the cultural-historical aspects: No decommissioning likely Nature of impact:
Extent and duration of impact:
Probability of occurrence:
Degree to which the impact can be reversed:
Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable
loss of resources:
Cumulative impact prior to mitigation:
Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)
Degree to which the impact can be mitigated:
Proposed mitigation:
Cumulative impact post mitigation:
Significance rating of impact after mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)
Potential noise impacts: No decommissioning likely
Nature of impact:
Extent and duration of impact:
Probability of occurrence:
Degree to which the impact can be reversed:
Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable
loss of resources:
Cumulative impact prior to mitigation:
Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)
Degree to which the impact can be mitigated:
Proposed mitigation:
Cumulative impact post mitigation:
Significance rating of impact after mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)
Potential visual impacts: No decommissioning likely
Nature of impact:
Extent and duration of impact:
Probability of occurrence:
Degree to which the impact can be reversed:
Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable
loss of resources:
Cumulative impact prior to mitigation:
Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)
Degree to which the impact can be mitigated:
Proposed mitigation:
Cumulative impact post mitigation:
Significance rating of impact after mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 42 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
(d) Any other impacts:
Potential traffic impact: Nature of impact: Extent and duration of impact: Probability of occurrence: Degree to which the impact can be reversed: Degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of
resources:
Cumulative impact prior to mitigation: Significance rating of impact prior to mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)
Degree to which the impact can be mitigated: Proposed mitigation: Cumulative impact post mitigation: Significance rating of impact after mitigation
(Low, Medium, Medium-High, High, or Very-High)
7. SPECIALIST INPUTS/STUDIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Please note: Specialist inputs/studies must be attached to this report as Appendix G. Also take into account
the Department’s Guidelines on the Involvement of Specialists in EIA Processes available on the Department’s
website (http://www.capegateway.gov.za/eadp).
Specialist inputs/studies and recommendations:
No specialist input requested to date or anticipated as being necessary. Specialist inputs from
the original application are in place and effective.
The South African Poultry Association Code of Practice 2012 is the current code to which the
operation needs to comply and the existing facility complies with this code so no additional
studies are deemed necessary.
8. IMPACT SUMMARY
Please provide a summary of all the above impacts.
Construction phase impacts These are limited to the constructional of the proposed chicken houses.
Noise impacts during construction - limited to the usual anticipated building noises. No impact.
Socio-economically short term employment will be created for the construction of the chicken
houses. 24 short term employment opportunities will be created. These should go to local
residents.
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 43 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
Operational impacts
Smell:
Manure collection and disposal methods such as to keep the operation dry and to
avoid smells by disposal directly into the trucks for delivery to the farms requiring the
fertilzer. EMPr management protocols to ensure continued efficient management and
control of potential impacts.
Noise:
The noise that the existing emergency generator on the property makes is now within
the legal boundaries and within acceptable standards. No change to this is anticipated
with the expansion.
Potential surface and groundwater contamination:
The operation is a dry-brush operation. No water is used to clean any of the chicken
sheds. The sheds are all brushed and vacuumed twice a week. Chicken feed is stored
in fully enclosed silos that prevent water from entering or exiting the silos. Solid waste,
including dead chickens and left over feed are removed from site everyday and
disposed of at the Municipal refuse site resulting in no potential for contamination.
Potential disease outbreaks:
The potential for disease outbreaks is always there and can only be avoided by
implementing efficient vaccination programs as well as ensuring regular cleaning of
chicken houses as well as sound “housekeeping”. JJ van der Schyff & Seun (Pty) Ltd
conceders itself as a leader in the industry with regards to the implementation of the
above mentioned activities. Regular vaccinations for diseases like Salmonella,
Newcastle Disease and Avian Influenza are implemented and all the sanitary
precautions are in place (Please see Appendix J Annexure 5). The Animal Disease Act
(Act number 35 of 1984) must be complied with. The SAPA Code of Practice 2012
attached to the EMPr currently governs the operations on site and will continue to do so.
General sanitation and biological hazard control:
Prevention / Control
- Only staff members assigned to work in the hen houses is permitted entry.
- Staff members who work in the hen houses are not permitted to keep any fowl of any
kind to prevent possible spread of disease / bacteria to hen houses.
- When advice from consulting vet is required, samples of carcasses, birds, bloods etc is
sent to him. Consulting vet is the ONLY visitor permitted to enter the hen houses.
- Under no circumstances will ANY other visitor be allowed access to hen houses.
Reaction
- A Crisis Management team will be elected by the Farm Owner to deal with any
outbreak of a disease that may occur.
- Risk assessment performed for each occurrence and determine what further steps are
to be taken to prevent contamination of the product, to protect the health of the staff,
the health of the consumer, and any steps necessary to contain contamination to
prevent further spread of any disease. These actions could be any of the following:
Restricted movement, additional sanitizing, foot dips, incineration of product, additional
veterinary medicines to layers, inoculations and whatever other restrictions that the
situation dictates
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 44 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
Emergency situations
- State Vet in consultation with the facility vet will alert the local authorities and a plan
devised to suit the situation.
- Should the situation dictate so, the Crisis Management Plan will be implemented to deal
with the various aspects of recalling of product, the media etc.
- The risk of Avian influenza is very low, as the houses are sealed and wild birds do not
enter, and water is chlorinated.
- In case of an outbreak the State Vet prescribes the procedure to deal with
contaminated birds on site. Most likely buried underground in a sealed septic tank and
the birds shall be covered with lime and soil within the septic tank.
Vaccination and cleaning of waterlines and chicken houses:
Hens are vaccinated every month, one month with Bioral IB H120 spry, which are
normally done in the middle of each month, at the end of each month hens are
vaccinated with Abic NCD Lasota / ND Clone 30.
When the chicken houses are empty, the whole chicken house is washed with a high
pressure hose and disinfected using Virukill and Formaldehyde. After this procedure the
chicken house is left closed and empty for 24 hours before new hens are placed.
When new hens are placed, they are given Multi-vitamins through means of Dosartron.
After hen placing is completed and the chicken house is full. The following morning
hens are given Abic NCD VH strain though Dosartron in the water lines. The next day
Nobilis IB 4-91 are sprayed. The following week Poilvac E-coli vaccine is sprayed to
complete the procedure.
The water lines are flushed over a period of 3 days. First a sodium bicarbonate solution
is pumped and left in the waterlines for 24 hours, then flushed with clean water. There
after a Citric acid solution is pumped and left in the waterlines for 24 hours and flushed
using clean water afterwards. Finally an Auqua-clean solution is pumped and left in the
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 45 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
waterlines for 24 hours and once more flushed with clean water afterwards. After this
procedure the waterlines are deemed clean. Flushed water flows out of the chicken
houses as controlled runoff stormwater. This will eventually be picked up in the formal
storm water system of the larger industrial park, at present it infiltrates into the
surrounding grazing lands on the Agriculture II zone.
9. OTHER MANAGEMENT, MITIGATION AND MONITORING MEASURES
(a) Over and above the mitigation measures described in Section 6 above, please indicate any additional
management, mitigation and monitoring measures.
Compliance with the EMPr, current and new EA and specific measures indicated above.
Compliance with the industry Cope of Practice (SAPA) as updated and amended from time
to time.
ECO control during construction
Compliance reporting in operational phase.
(b) Describe the ability of the applicant to implement the management, mitigation and monitoring measures.
The applicant is already implementing the management of the existing facility in
accordance with the SAPA Code of Practice.
The reporting, management, mitigation and monitoring measures are already in place for the
existing 6 chicken houses and will be expanded to include the 3 new chicken houses as and
when they come on line.
The contractors during the construction phase will be contractually bound to comply with the
construction management requirements.
The applicant will appoint an ECO to ensure compliance monitoring during the construction
phase as per the EMPr and compliance reporting during the operational phase as prescribed
in the EMPr.
See Appendix H for the EMPr which includes all the current protocols as annexures to the
EMPr.
Please note: A draft ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME must be attached this report as Appendix H.
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 46 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
SECTION G: ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES AND
CRITERIA, GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE, UNDERLAYING
ASSUMPTIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES
(a) Please describe adequacy of the assessment methods used.
The assessment methods used are considered adequate to the activity proposed.
Based on the nature of the expected impacts of the proposed chicken houses, the assessment
methods used are considered adequate as they are all known impacts.
As the facility is an existing facility the impacts are known and have been addressed and certified
as compliant.
The industry Code of Practice (SAPA) covers the requirements of the industry in terms of all aspects
of commercial egg production within which this facility falls and the expansion will fall.
The risks are known and the procedures to manage these risks are known and being
implemented already across the industry and at the site specifically.
(b) Please describe the assessment criteria used.
Assessment criteria based on the Convention of Assigning Significance Rating to Impacts
as attached in Appendix J. Sound judgment and knowledge of the existing facility and its operation where the impacts are
well known and have been easily avoided through sound environmental planning at the initial
stages of design and through modification of the systems where problems were experienced.
(c) Please describe the gaps in knowledge.
No gaps in knowledge. Expansion of existing and functioning facility. All impacts are known and
are already being addressed.
(d) Please describe the underlying assumptions.
It is assumed that all impacts have been identified.
It is assumed that the industry continually update their requirements to comply with sound
environmental management and that these are contained in the Code of Practice 2012.
(e) Please describe the uncertainties.
Uncertainties involve knowing when and if a disease outbreak will occur - the testing and
preventative protocols are in place and the systems in place to deal with an outbreak should one
occur.
SECTION H: RECOMMENDATION OF THE EAP
In my view (EAP), the information contained in this application form and the documentation
attached hereto is sufficient to make a decision in respect of the activity applied for. YES NO
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 47 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
If “NO”, list the aspects that should be further assessed through additional specialist input/assessment or whether this
application must be subjected to a Scoping & EIR process before a decision can be made:
N/A If “YES”, please indicate below whether in your opinion the activity should or should not be authorised:
Activity should be authorised: YES NO
Please provide reasons for your opinion
There are no adverse impacts associated with the proposed expansion of the facility by the
proposed addition of 3 chicken houses.
All possible impacts are known through the existing facility where sound management has
been documented. The Environmental Management Programme contains the required
methods
JJ van der Schyff & Seun (Pty) Ltd have to continually expand their facility to keep up with
the ever growing market demands.
The upgrading of JJ van der Schyff & Seun (Pty) Ltd is critical in terms local economy and
will form part of the national sustainable food production plan.
The sustainable use of resources is promoted by adding to an existing facility and its
infrastructure without having to build a whole new facility with all the infrastructure.
If you are of the opinion that the activity should be authorised, then please provide any conditions, including
mitigation measures that should in your view be considered for inclusion in an authorisation.
Compliance with the EMPr
Ensuring that the proposed chicken houses are operated in the same manner as the
existing facility is operated.
Duration and Validity:
Environmental authorisations are usually granted for a period of three years from the date of issue. Should a longer
period be required, the applicant/EAP is requested to provide a detailed motivation on what the period of validity
should be.
The standard 5 year period will be an adequate period of time in which to commence due to
the current urgency in increased demand. The completion of the 3 additional chicken sheds
is anticipated at 1 every 2nd year so a completion date of 6 years after commencement is
anticipated.
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 48 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
SECTION I: APPENDICES
The following appendices must be attached to this report:
Appendix
Tick the box
if Appendix
is attached
Appendix A: Locality map
Appendix B: Site plan(s)
Appendix C: Photographs
Appendix D: Biodiversity overlay map
Appendix E:
Permit(s) / license(s) from any other organ of state including service
letters from the municipality
Water Use Certificates
Certificates of Achievement
Historic Approvals
Appendix F:
Public participation information: including a copy of the register of
interested and affected parties, the comments and responses report,
proof of notices, advertisements and any other public participation
information as required in Section C above.
Appendix G: Specialist Report(s) N/A
Appendix H : Environmental Management Programme
Appendix I: Additional information related to listed waste management activities
(if applicable)
Appendix J:
Any Other (if applicable)
Municipal Approval
Chicken House Specifications
Costing of Expansion
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 49 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
DECLARATIONS
The applicant
I Mr JJ van der Schyff, in my personal capacity or duly authorised (please circle the
applicable option) by thereto hereby declare that I:
regard the information contained in this report to be true and correct, and
am fully aware of my responsibilities in terms of the National Environmental Management
Act of 1998 (“NEMA”) (Act No. 107 of 1998), the Environmental Impact Assessment
Regulations (“EIA Regulations”) in terms of NEMA (Government Notice No. R. 543 refers),
and the relevant specific environmental management Act, and that failure to comply
with these requirements may constitute an offence in terms of the environmental
legislation;
appointed the environmental assessment practitioner as indicated above, which meet
all the requirements in terms of regulation 17 of GN No. R. 543, to act as the independent
environmental assessment practitioner for this application;
have provided the environmental assessment practitioner and the competent authority
with access to all information at my disposal that is relevant to the application;
will be responsible for the costs incurred in complying with the environmental legislation
including but not limited to –
o costs incurred in connection with the appointment of the environmental assessment
practitioner or any person contracted by the environmental assessment practitioner;
o costs incurred in respect of the undertaking of any process required in terms of the
regulations;
o costs in respect of any fee prescribed by the Minister or MEC in respect of the
regulations;
o costs in respect of specialist reviews, if the competent authority decides to recover
costs; and
o the provision of security to ensure compliance with the applicable management and
mitigation measures;
am responsible for complying with the conditions that might be attached to any
decision(s) issued by the competent authority;
have the ability to implement the applicable management, mitigation and monitoring
measures;
hereby indemnify, the government of the Republic, the competent authority and all its
officers, agents and employees, from any liability arising out of, inter alia, the content of
any report, any procedure or any action for which the applicant or environmental
assessment practitioner is responsible; and
am aware that a false declaration is an offence in terms of regulation 71 of GN No. R.
543.
Please Note: If acting in a representative capacity, a certified copy of the resolution
or power of attorney must be attached.
Signature of the applicant:
JJ van der Schyff & Seun (Pty) Ltd
Name of company:
Date:
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 50 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
The independent environmental assessment practitioner (EAP)
I … Cathy Avierinos of HilLand Environmental cc …, as the appointed independent
environmental practitioner (“EAP”) hereby declare that I:
act/ed as the independent EAP in this application;
regard the information contained in this report to be true and correct, and
do not have and will not have any financial interest in the undertaking of the activity,
other than remuneration for work performed in terms of the NEMA, the Environmental
Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010 and any specific environmental management Act;
have and will not have no vested interest in the proposed activity proceeding;
have disclosed, to the applicant and competent authority, any material information that
have or may have the potential to influence the decision of the competent authority or
the objectivity of any report, plan or document required in terms of the NEMA, the
Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010 and any specific environmental
management Act;
am fully aware of and meet the responsibilities in terms of NEMA, the Environmental
Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010 (specifically in terms of regulation 17 of GN No. R.
543) and any specific environmental management Act, and that failure to comply with
these requirements may constitute and result in disqualification;
have ensured that information containing all relevant facts in respect of the application
was distributed or made available to interested and affected parties and the public and
that participation by interested and affected parties was facilitated in such a manner
that all interested and affected parties were provided with a reasonable opportunity to
participate and to provide comments;
have ensured that the comments of all interested and affected parties were considered,
recorded and submitted to the competent authority in respect of the application;
have kept a register of all interested and affected parties that participated in the public
participation process;
have provided the competent authority with access to all information at my disposal
regarding the application, whether such information is favourable to the applicant or
not; and
am aware that a false declaration is an offence in terms of regulation 71 of GN No. R.
543.
Note: The terms of reference must be attached.
Signature of the environmental assessment practitioner:
HilLand Environmental cc
Name of company:
Date:
Hilland Environmental PLE15/311/14
Page 51 of 51
HilLand Environmental Basic Assessment Report - JJ van der Schyff & Seun, Kranshoek Plettenberg Bay
The independent PERSON WHO COMPILED A SPECIALIST REPORT OR UNDERTOOK A
SPECIALIST PROCESS
I................................................., as the appointed independent specialist hereby declare that I:
act/ed as the independent specialist in this application;
regard the information contained in this report as it relates to my specialist input/study to
be true and correct, and
do not have and will not have any financial interest in the undertaking of the activity,
other than remuneration for work performed in terms of the NEMA, the Environmental
Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010 and any specific environmental management Act;
have and will not have no vested interest in the proposed activity proceeding;
have disclosed, to the applicant, EAP and competent authority, any material information
that have or may have the potential to influence the decision of the competent
authority or the objectivity of any report, plan or document required in terms of the
NEMA, the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010 and any specific
environmental management Act;
am fully aware of and meet the responsibilities in terms of NEMA, the Environmental
Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010 (specifically in terms of regulation 17 of GN No. R.
543) and any specific environmental management Act, and that failure to comply with
these requirements may constitute and result in disqualification;
have ensured that information containing all relevant facts in respect of the specialist
input/study was distributed or made available to interested and affected parties and the
public and that participation by interested and affected parties was facilitated in such a
manner that all interested and affected parties were provided with a reasonable
opportunity to participate and to provide comments on the specialist input/study;
have ensured that the comments of all interested and affected parties on the specialist
input/study were considered, recorded and submitted to the competent authority in
respect of the application;
have ensured that the names of all interested and affected parties that participated in
terms of the specialist input/study were recorded in the register of interested and
affected parties who participated in the public participation process;
have provided the competent authority with access to all information at my disposal
regarding the application, whether such information is favourable to the applicant or
not; and
am aware that a false declaration is an offence in terms of regulation 71 of GN No. R.
543.
Note: The terms of reference must be attached.
Signature of the specialist:
Name of company:
Date: