Cape Town Film Studios Development Framework · Cape Town Film Studios Development Framework Portion 13 of Farm 653, City of Cape Town (Source: Square One Landscape Architects) Draft

Square One Landscape Architects October 2018

Cape Town Film Studios Development Framework

Portion 13 of Farm 653, City of Cape Town

(Source: Square One Landscape Architects)

Draft Visual Impact Statement

10th October 2018

Visual Statement prepared by Square One Landscape Architects

for SIP Project Managers (Pty) Ltd

D r a f t V I S : C T F S D e v e l o p m e n t F r a m e w o r k


CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 3

1.1. Approach to the Study ........................................................................................................ 3

1.2. Terms of Reference ............................................................................................................. 3

1.3. Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 4

1.4. Assumptions and Limitations .............................................................................................. 4

1.5. Information Sources ............................................................................................................ 5

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................... 6

2.1. Site Description ................................................................................................................... 6

2.2. Proposed Development ...................................................................................................... 6

2.2.1 Existing Development Framework ....................................................................................... 6

2.2.2 Proposed Development Framework .................................................................................... 6

2.2.3 Components for Visual Consideration ................................................................................. 7

3. RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................................... 11

3.1. Topography and Landforms .............................................................................................. 11

3.2. Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 12

3.3. Landscape Cover/Vegetation ............................................................................................ 13

3.4. Settlement Patterns/ Landscape Character ...................................................................... 13

3.5. Scenic Routes and Visual Corridors ................................................................................... 14

3.5.1 R310/ Baden Powell Road .................................................................................................. 14

3.5.2 The N2 Highway ................................................................................................................. 16

3.6. Heritage Resources contributing to Landscape Character ............................................... 17

3.6.1 Vergenoegd Wine Estate ................................................................................................... 17

4. VISUAL ANALYSIS / SITE VISIBILITY ................................................................................................ 18

4.1. Visibility (viewshed versus view shadow) ......................................................................... 18

4.1.1 Site to the north of the Service Station I ............................................................................ 18

4.1.2 Proposed DF with and without berms ............................................................................... 19

5. VISUAL ASESSMENT CRITERIA ....................................................................................................... 22

5.1. Visibility – Viewshed Area and Zone of Visual Influence .................................................. 22

5.2. Visual Exposure ................................................................................................................. 22

5.3. Visual Absorption Capacity ............................................................................................... 22

5.4. Visual Sensitivity of the Area ............................................................................................ 23

5.5. Visual Sensitivity of the Receptors .................................................................................... 23



5.6. Visual Intrusion ................................................................................................................. 23

5.7. Summary Table ................................................................................................................. 24

6. VISUAL ISSUES, OPPORTUNITIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................... 25

6.1. Policies and Guidelines ..................................................................................................... 25

6.2. Visual Issues and Opportunities ........................................................................................ 25

6.3. Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 26

7. CONTRIBUTORS ............................................................................................................................. 28

8. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 29

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: Section through berm areas as per the VIA .......................................................................... 7

Figure 2.2: Mitigation actions as per the VIA conducted as part of the initial EIA process .................... 8

Figure 2.3: Currently approved Development Framework as per the amended Environmental

Authorisation ............................................................................................................................. 9

Figure 2.4: Proposed Revised Development Framework ..................................................................... 10

Figure 3.1: View towards CTFS Development looking northeast from the N2 ..................................... 11

Figure 3.2: Kuils River and Wetland Area crossing through the development area ............................. 12

Figure 3.3: Kleinvlei Canal to the east of the site viewed from the R310 ............................................. 12

Figure 3.4: Conservation area to the north of Film City Boulevard with invasive vegetation adjacent

to the west of the R310 ........................................................................................................... 13

Figure 3.5: Portion of the R310 to the south of the N2, looking towards the Cape Fold Belt Mountains

................................................................................................................................................. 14

Figure 3.6: View of the portion of the R310 to the north of the intersection with the N2 .................. 15

Figure 3.7 View of the portion of the R310 adjacent to the Eerste River development approaching

Van Riebeeck Road .................................................................................................................. 15

Figure 3.8: Views to the east of the R310 beyond Van Riebeeck Road and the Meerlust Estate ........ 15

Figure 3.9: Views moving in a southwesterly direction towards the site from Van Riebeeck Road .... 16

Figure 3.10: Views towards portions of the CTFS development from the N2 ...................................... 16

Figure 3.11: Views towards Ithemba Labs and the site from the Vergenoegd Wine Estate ................ 17

Figure 3.12: Views towards the CTFS from the Vergenoegd Wine Estate ............................................ 17

Figure 4.1: Viewshed and view shadow areas for site to the north of the service station with berms19

Figure 4.2: Viewshed and view shadow areas for development framework with berms .................... 20

Figure 4.3: Viewshed and view shadow areas for development framework without berms ............... 21



LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Approved Development Framework Land Use Budget.......................................................... 6

Table 5.1: Visual Criteria Summary Table: ............................................................................................ 24

D r a f t V I S : C T F S D e v e l o p m e n t F r a m e w o r k P a g e | i

Square One Landscape Architects cc October 2018

ABBREVIATIONS

BGIS Biodiversity Geographic Information Systems

CBD Central Business District

CoCT City of Cape Town

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

DEA&DP Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

FOV Field of View

GIS Geographic Information Systems

Ha Hectare

NFEPA National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas

SANBI South African Biodiversity Institute

VAC Visual Absorption Capacity

VIA Visual Impact Assessment

VIS Visual Impact Statement

D r a f t V I A : C T F S D e v e l o p m e n t F r a m e w o r k P a g e | ii


DEFINITIONS

Fatal flaw: A fatal flaw is defined as an impact that could have a "no-go" implication for the project.

Impact A noticeable change to the status quo when perceived under normal conditions. This change is not necessarily negative or positive, but may contain aspects of both.

Impact (visual): A description of the effect of an aspect of the development on a specified component of the visual, aesthetic or scenic environment within a defined time and space.

Issue (visual): A context-specific question that asks “what will the impact of some activity/aspect of the development be on some element of the visual, aesthetic or scenic environment?”

Landscape integrity: The relative intactness of the existing landscape or townscape, whether natural, rural or urban, and with an absence of intrusions or discordant structures.

Receiving environment: The surrounding area within which the development is situated. The area depends on the scale of the development and its influence on the context.

Receptors: Individuals, groups or communities who are subject to the visual influence of a particular project. Also referred to as observers, viewers, or viewer groups.

Sense of place: The unique quality or character of a place, whether natural, rural or urban. Relates to uniqueness, distinctiveness or strong identity. Sometimes referred to as genius loci meaning 'spirit of the place'.

Scenic route: A linear movement route, usually in the form of a scenic drive, but which could also be a railway, hiking trail, horse-riding trail or 4x4 trail.

View catchment area: A geographic area, usually defined by the topography, within which a particular project or other feature would potentially be visible. Sometimes called the visual envelope.

View corridor/ Visual Corridor: A linear geographic area, usually along movement routes, that is visible to users of the route.

Viewpoint: A selected point in the landscape from which views of a particular project or other feature can be obtained.

Viewshed: The outer boundary defining a view catchment area, usually along crests and ridgelines.

View shadow: An area within the view catchment visually obscured from a particular project or feature by the topography, vegetation or buildings.

Visual The full range of visual, aesthetic, cultural and spiritual aspects of the environment, which together contribute to the sense of place.

Visual absorption capacity: The ability of an area to visually absorb development as a result of screening topography, vegetation or structures in the landscape.

Visual exposure: The proportion of a project or feature visually exposed to receptors.

Visual intrusion Visual intrusion refers to the compatibility of the project with the particular characteristics and qualities of the receiving environment.

Zone of visual influence: An area subject to the direct visual influence of a particular project.

D r a f t V I S : C T F S D e v e l o p m e n t F r a m e w o r k P a g e | 3


1. INTRODUCTION

Square One Landscape Architects (Square One) were appointed by SIP Project Managers (Pty) Ltd to undertake a Visual Impact Statement (VIS) to inform the planning application for an amendment to the proposed Cape Town Film Studios (CTFS) Development Framework (DF) (the proposed project).

1.1. Approach to the Study

This VIS report aims to adhere to the criteria outlined by the Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEA&DP) Guideline for Involving Visual and Aesthetic Specialists in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process (the DEA&DP Guidelines) (Oberholzer, 2005), which recommends that the following concepts underpin the visual evaluation of development proposals:

Understand that ‘visual’ implies the full range of visual, aesthetic, cultural and spiritual aspects of the environment, which together contribute to the local character and sense of place;

Understand that ‘impact’ means a noticeable change to the status quo when perceived under normal conditions and this change is not necessarily negative or positive, but may contain aspects of both;

Identify all significant scenic resources, including protected areas, scenic drives, sites of special interest and tourist destinations, together with their relative importance within the region;

Understand the dynamic landscape processes, including geological, biological, horticultural and human settlement patterns, which contribute to landscape character, visual attributes and scenic amenity value;

Include both quantitative criteria, such as visibility, and qualitative criteria, such as aesthetic value or sense of place to achieve a balanced perception of visual impact;

Include visual input as an integral part of the project planning and design process, to ensure that the visual findings and recommended measures for mitigation can influence the final design pro-actively; and

Determine the value and significance of visual and aesthetic resources responsibly through a rigorous process, of which participatory public engagement forms an essential component.

Based on the scale of the project and its location outside a built-up urban area and along a scenic route; a Medium to High localized visual impact can be expected in terms of the DEA&DP Guidelines and it has been determined that a Level 3 VIS is required to assess the visual impact associated with the proposed project (Oberholzer, 2005).

1.2. Terms of Reference

The general terms of reference for the VIS are as follows:

Review technical data and background information

Describe the proposed project, in terms of its form, scale, massing, and general ‘fit’; including technical data with respect to layout, bulk, etc.

Describe the receiving environment, identifying landscape types, landscape character and sense of place based on topography, landforms, vegetation cover and settlement patterns.

Collect visual data and process visual information through site visits and research.



Identify the viewshed, view catchment area and zone of visual influence, generally based on topography, modified by existing built fabric and vegetation, foreground conditions and site distance.

Review the proposed project against established visual criteria.

Identify significant issues and real values relating to visual, aesthetic and scenic resources.

Establish view catchment area, view corridors, viewpoints and receptors;

Describe visual impact criteria and identify issues and/ or particular visual concerns.

Identify potential visual issues and recommend potential mitigation measures.

1.3. Methodology

The methodology to complete the VIS involved the following:

Existing information regarding the proposed project, site and surrounding area was collected and reviewed.

The relevant spatial data was collated within a defined area surrounding the site, including informants related to landscape character and existing and proposed developments.

Desktop viewshed mapping was completed to verify the view catchment by generating a digital viewshed analysis to establish the extent of visibility, visual exposure to viewpoints and inherent visual sensitivity of the site. City of Cape Town (CoCT) City Maps Lab Lidar data (alternatively referred to as Lidar data) was used for this purpose.

A site visit was undertaken and the site was photographed to record visual data and to determine the actual extent of visibility of the site from specific locations in the landscape.

The development proposal was tested against the visual impact criteria (visibility, visual exposure, sensitivity of the site and receptors, Visual Absorption Capacity (VAC) and visual intrusion).

Visual issues were identified and potential visual impacts were described.

Mitigation measures were recommended to reduce potential visual impacts and address potential visual issues.

1.4. Assumptions and Limitations

A number of assumptions and limitations apply to this VIS:

It is assumed that the information provided to Square One is correct, that the proposed project is reasonable and feasible and that no fatal flaws associated with the project were identified during the planning process. It is also assumed that the development seeks to unlock the most appropriate use of the site.

This VIS focusses on the assessment of specific aspects associated with the proposed DF and does not intend to comment on the visual suitability of the DF as a whole. The specific aspects that are taken into consideration in the VIS include: the visibility of mixed use areas along Baden Powell and to the north of the proposed service station (located along the scenic R310 route) and the replacement of berm structures approved as part of the existing DF with landscaped buffer areas.

The DF is intended as a broad-scale framework and the detailed design and proposed architectural articulation for built elements within the various sub-divisional areas associated with the proposed DF were not available at the time of writing this Report. The maximum allowable heights of the various sub-divisional areas of the previously proposed (2017) DF were therefore used to generate the viewshed mapping. The provided heights are understood to include maximum roof heights. The currently proposed building heights (2018) have been revised from the previously proposed version of the DF. It was not considered necessary to reproduce the viewshed mapping, as the increased visibility as a



result of the increased heights of the buildings is expected to have a relatively minor effect on the visual assessment of the suitability of the berm structures.

Although the DF including heights of various sub-divisional areas of the proposed development was available, 3D detailed architectural imagery was not available at the time of writing this Report. Square One was not appointed to complete photomontaged 3D imagery of the proposed development from specific vantage points as this is considered to fall outside the scope of this assessment. As 3D photomontaged imagery has not been produced, the identification of the anticipated visual issues and impacts is based on our professional expertise and understanding of potential visual impacts within the affected environment and the type of development that is proposed.

The digital generation of the viewshed is based solely on topographical Lidar information, which includes the screening effect of vegetation and buildings. Lidar information is considered to provide an adequate (although not 100% accurate) depiction of the heights, scale and massing of structures, vegetation and landform within the affected environment and is considered sufficient for the generation of viewshed mapping. The accuracy of the viewshed was also verified through a ground truthing exercise.

Photographs were taken from publicly accessible areas only, specifically along the scenic routes and visual corridors that could potentially be affected by the proposed development. Photographs in this Report date from earlier revisions of the Report and were taken in 2015 and 2017. The study area has not changed significantly and it was therefore not considered necessary to update the photos in this Report as they provide an accurate depiction of the character of the area.

As detailed design and 3D imagery of the proposed development was not available, the maximum height of the development was estimated as per the project description information provided (see Section 2). As part of the viewshed analysis, the proposed development is recorded as being visible from a certain viewpoint even if only a portion of proposed development is visible from that viewpoint. The viewshed analysis is therefore limited in that it does not describe the degree of visual exposure of the entire development. However, the degree of visual exposure of the development is qualitatively described.

The findings of this Report are based on the available information and the professional opinion of the authors of this Report. Should additional information regarding the proposed project become available, the findings of this Report may need to be amended.

1.5. Information Sources

Information used for the preparation of this report has been provided by the project professional team, as follows:

Environmental Consultant: Chand Environmental Consultants Marielle Penwarden

Architects: SVA International Planners: NM & Associates Planners and Designers

The geographic aspects of this report are based on a combination of 1:1 000 000 and 1:50 000 topo-cadastral and geological maps, together with aerial photography (GoogleEarth imagery) and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) information at various scales as well as the use of CoCT City Maps Lab Lidar data.



2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1. Site Description

The CTFS development area is located on Rem ST653-13, ST 653-14, ST 653-16 and ST 653-17. The site is located to the northwest of the intersection between Baden Powell Drive (the R310) and the N2 highway. The R310 is classified as a scenic route and ‘gateway’ to the Cape Winelands and the N2 highway serves as an important national connectivity route between the CoCT, Somerset West and regional centers beyond. The site is located at the interface between the Cape Winelands and the Cape Flats area.

2.2. Proposed Development

Development at the CTFS site is directed by an approved DF and the ‘Special Zone’ (Dreamworld) that has been created for the project. An amendment to the approved DF is currently proposed as part of a town planning application in response to the changing development needs of the CTFS development area.

2.2.1 Existing Development Framework

As part of the existing approved DF, the CTFS site was split into 3 main land uses (see Figure 2.3):

Conservation areas (Renosterveld, dune slack and main green corridor)

Landscaped areas (detention area, film studio buffers/berms, R310 landscaped edge and N2 bermed edge)

Urban development (film studios, mixed use areas, residential areas, main access routes and the northern powerline servitude)

The approved land use budget for the existing approved DF is indicated in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1: Approved Development Framework Land Use Budget

Component Area

Conservation areas (with buffers) 70.8 ha

Landscaped areas 20.77 ha

Urban development area

Film Studio 60.40 ha

Mixed Use 3.66 ha

Residential 32.87 ha

Main Access Routes 3.57 ha

Northern Powerline Servitude 6.65 ha

Total Approximately 198

2.2.2 Proposed Development Framework

The proposed amended DF intends to accommodate increased light industrial warehousing and mixed use development, a fuel service station with a convenience store and diner is proposed and the amount of proposed residential development would be reduced. The proposed DF is illustrated in Figure 2.4 and revisions to the DF include:

The conversion of residential, mixed use and conservation areas along the access roads to mixed use development and a service station.

The second access road (Dune Road) will be re-aligned through Erf 585 to access Old Faure Road.

The Renosterveld conservation area to the north of the main access road (Film City Boulevard) will be reconfigured.

The development boundary between the CTFS and the conservation area will be amended.

Mixed use development is proposed on mixed use portion 1, 2 and 3 and along the R310 (previously designated for mixed use, residential and conservation purposes).



A Mixed use development (Portion 4) is proposed.

A service station is proposed with an associated convenience store, diner and outside entertainment area to be located in the landscaped buffer strip along the R310.

Various conditions of approval will be reconsidered as part of the proposed DF, including to conditions related to the placement of berms/ buffers/ landscape areas, allowable building heights and access.

2.2.3 Components for Visual Consideration

This VIS focuses on the assessment of specific aspects of the proposed DF from a visual perspective, particularly:

The placement of a mixed use building to the north of the service station located along the R310 at a maximum height of 10.8m;

The replacement of residential units with mixed use units at a maximum height of two to three storeys (8m) along the R310; and

The replacement of proposed berm structures approved as part of the existing DF with landscaped buffer areas.

A VIA was conducted as part of the original approval of the proposed DF (Louw & Dewar, 2005). The VIA recommended the implementation of berm structures in certain locations to screen the proposed development from view. Figure 2.1 indicates a section through the proposed berm structures intended to be located along the N2. Figure 2.2 indicates the proposed placement of the berm structures in plan view. According to the VIA, the berms are intended to be between 3 and 4.5m high, with tree screening placed between the berms and the residential development beyond. The intention of the mitigation measures suggested as part of the VIA was that wetland areas adjacent to the N2 were to be retained (see Figure 2.1). However, there are some discrepancies between the placement of the berms suggested as per the VIA (see Figure 2.2) and those approved as part of the existing DF (see Figure 2.3): the berms indicated on the existing approved DF are placed within the wetland area adjacent to the N2; the continuous berms that were intended to surround the CTFS are disjointed; and no berms are indicated surrounding the Open Air Film Studios development areas.

The proposed DF is illustrated in Figure 2.4. The height and scale of the proposed sub-divisional areas is intended to increase gradually in scale towards the central northern portion of the CTFS development area, with a maximum height of 25m within the internal portions of the site. (The assessment these portions is excluded from the scope of this Report). Mixed use areas are intended to be at a height of three storeys (8m) along Baden Powell (the R310). The height of the service station canopy will be approximately 7m, with associated signage (at a height of approximately 10-15m). As part of the proposed DF, it is suggested that the berms approved as part of the existing DF (see Figure 2.3). Berms are now replaced by landscaped buffer strips.

Figure 2.1: Section through berm areas as per the VIA



Figure 2.2: Mitigation actions as per the VIA conducted as part of the initial EIA process

BERM

BERM

BERM

BERM

BERM



Figure 2.3: Currently approved Development Framework as per the amended Environmental Authorisation

BERM

BERM

BERM

BERM



Figure 2.4: Proposed Revised Development Framework



3. RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT

Landscape character constitutes the attributes which make an area unique. It is defined by the U.K. Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment as the “distinct and recognisable pattern of elements that occurs consistently in a particular type of landscape, and how this is perceived by people. It reflects particular combinations of geology, land form, soils, vegetation, land use and human settlement.” It contributes to the specific ‘sense of place’ or essential character and ‘spirit of the place’.

This section describes the existing visual environment that will be affected by the proposed development. The landscape character and sense of place of the surrounding environment is described, based on an understanding of the topography, landform, vegetation cover, anthropogenic influences and historic land use patterns.

3.1. Topography and Landforms

The CTFS development area is located within a relatively low lying area between the Cape Fold Belt Mountains and the False Bay Coast. It lies at the outskirts of the CoCT Metropolitan area at the interface between the Cape Flats and the Cape Winelands (specifically Stellenbosch and surrounds).

The Cape Flats area is characterized by low-lying undulating sand dunes covered in low growing vegetation. This area has been largely transformed by urban development and the encroachment of invasive vegetation. The Cape Winelands area is characterized by the surrounding sandstone mountain peaks of the Cape Fold Belt, which form a prominent backdrop to the farmsteads and agricultural lands (mostly viticulture) located on the lower lying slopes and fertile valleys within the region. The topographic setting and location of the development area is of key importance when determining the visibility and sensitivity of the development area within its context.

Figure 3.1 illustrates the view towards the existing CTFS development looking in a northeasterly direction from the N2. The Stellenbosch Mountains and agricultural hills are visible in the background with the low growing wetland vegetation associated with the largely transformed Cape Flats environment in the foreground. The development area is located to the northwest of the intersection between the R310 and the N2. The R310 is not visible in Figure 3.1, but would cut across the view horizontally, between the CTFS development and the agricultural hills beyond.

The topography of the development area is relatively flat, undulating slightly where watercourses and wetland areas have shaped the landscape (see Section 3.2). The topography has also been transformed by the encroachment of invasive vegetation and urban development, which has stabilized and flattened portions of the landscape.

Figure 3.1: View towards CTFS Development looking northeast from the N2



3.2. Hydrology

The Kuils River meanders through the development area (see Figure 3.2). According to the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) Biodiversity Geographic Information Systems (BGIS) National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas database (NFEPA) (SANBI NFEPA, 2015), the Kuils River is classified as Class D (largely modified). The NFEPA database also indicates a wetland area associated with the Kuils River located in the southern portion of the site (close to the N2). This wetland is classified as a Western Strandveld Channeled Valley Bottom wetland. It is likely that other wetland areas associated with the Kuils River occur within the development area and the surrounding areas. Wetland vegetation is prominently noticeable adjacent (to the north) of the N2 (see Figure 3.1). Although these wetland areas are likely degraded, it is possible that they perform important ecological functions in terms of pollutant assimilation and habitat provision.

The Kleinvlei Canal runs along the R310, at the eastern border of the development area (see Figure 3.2 and Figure 3.3). It is essentially a canalized river conduit running through the urbanized Blue Downs and Eerste River residential areas. It feeds into the Kuils River, which then joins the Eerste River, flowing out to sea at Macassar on the False Bay Coast. The canal is a concrete lined channel with little ecological value and serves as a conduit for litter and pollutants. It does however provide limited scenic amenity, as it reads as a water source in the open, rural environment associated with the R310.

Figure 3.2: Kuils River and Wetland Area crossing through the development area

Source: SANBI NFEPA, 2015.

Figure 3.3: Kleinvlei Canal to the east of the site viewed from the R310

Existing CTFS

development

Kleinvlei

Canal

Kuils River

Channeled

Valley Bottom

Wetland



3.3. Landscape Cover/Vegetation

The eastern portion of the CTFS development area is located within the original extents of the Cape Flats Sand Fynbos vegetation type (which is considered to be Critically Endangered). The western portion of the CTFS development area is located within the original extents of the Cape Flats Dune Strandveld vegetation type (which is considered to be Endangered). Although the development area is located within the original extent of Critically Endangered and Endangered vegetation types, the development area has been transformed to a large extent by urban development and the encroachment of invasive vegetation.

According to the CoCT Biodiversity Network (SANBI BGIS, 2015), various portions of the CTFS development area are classified into the following categories:

Irreplaceable and high and medium condition site (to the north of the N2). The objective of this area is to: ‘obtain appropriate legal conservation status, maintain natural ecosystems, restore degraded land to natural and manage for no further degradation’.

Transformed site of conservation significance (to the west of the R310). The objective of this area is to ‘maintain as open space and where appropriate restore degraded land to natural or near-natural for improved ecological functioning’.

Unselected natural vegetation – high/ medium/ restorable (to the west of the existing CTFS development). The objective of this area is for ‘sustainable management with general rural land-use principles’.

The vegetation at the site is a matrix between invasive and remnants of indigenous vegetation types. The area immediately to the west of the R310 is largely characterized by invasive Acacia Cyclops vegetation, while the area to the north of the N2 is largely characterized by a matrix of wetland and invasive vegetation. A conservation area is located to the north of Film City Boulevard (see Figure 3.4). It is therefore possible that there may be remnants of Endangered and Critically Endangered vegetation within the development area. From a visual perspective, it is important to note that the (mostly invasive) vegetation located along the R310 and the N2 currently provides screening to the existing CTFS development (see Section 4).

Figure 3.4: Conservation area to the north of Film City Boulevard with invasive vegetation adjacent to the

west of the R310

3.4. Settlement Patterns/ Landscape Character

The R310 is considered to be scenic route passing through the Cape Winelands area (Winter & Oberholzer, 2013). Settlement patterns within the Cape Winelands area have responded to the geology and topography of the region. Agricultural areas are located on fertile soils associated with the undulating hills and valleys at the foothills of the Cape Fold Mountains. Historic villages, towns and farmsteads are located at intermediate distances within the region, their location having been determined by, inter alia, the availability of water sources and agricultural soils. Stellenbosch is one of the oldest colonial settlements in the Cape Winelands region and the town and its surrounds is a significant tourism attraction of importance to the regional economy (Winter & Oberholzer, 2013).



The Cape Winelands region is considered to be a cultural landscape of great significance in terms of its beauty, richness and diversity. However, the region is considered to be threatened due to the erosion and fragmentation of its rural landscapes by the imposition of inappropriate development typologies and creeping urbanization (Winter & Oberholzer, 2013). This is evident when interrogating the integrity of the scenic landscape along the R310 between the N2 and Van Riebeeck Road (see Section 3.5.1).

The site is located on the outskirts of the CoCT Metropolitan area, at the interface between the Cape Flats and the Cape Winelands area. The Cape Flats area comprises the low-lying undulating dunes, which have been colonised by urban development and residential sprawl due to the rapid expansion of the CoCT Metropolitan area within the latter half of the last century. The windswept area is home to the majority of Cape Town’s population, with low-income development and informal settlements located adjacent to the N2, forming part of the visual landscape experienced by receptors moving along this route. Residential areas located in the immediate vicinity of the development area include Khayelitsha (to the south) and Blue Downs (to the north). The industrial scale Ithemba Labs development has also been constructed at the northern boundary of the site.

3.5. Scenic Routes and Visual Corridors

3.5.1 R310/ Baden Powell Road

A number of scenic routes crisscross the Cape Winelands region, passing through undulating rural terrain and rugged mountain landscapes to connect regional centres. The R310 meanders through the rural agricultural landscapes associated with the Cape Winelands area. It connects the False Bay coastline to the Cape Winelands and is also a major route towards Stellenbosch from the N2 highway (see Figure 3.5). According to Winter and Oberholzer (2013), the R310 (Baden Powell Drive) has been designated as a scenic route as part of the revised Stellenbosch Zoning Scheme’s Scenic Route Overlay Zone (2012). Winter and Oberholzer (2013) describe a number of policies and guidelines for the protection and enhancement of scenic routes. These are discussed in more detail in Section 6.

Figure 3.5: Portion of the R310 to the south of the N2, looking towards the Cape Fold Belt Mountains

Heading in the direction of Stellenbosch, as the R310 crosses over the N2, the Stellenbosch and Helderberg Mountains and surrounding agricultural landscape (to the east) and the CTFS development (to the west) become clearly visible at an elevated position above the N2. The R310 crosses over the N2 and dips down to the portion of the R310 to the north of the N2, which is relatively flat and curves slightly in a northeasterly direction before it increases in elevation again where it crosses over Van Riebeeck Road.

The portion of the R310 between the N2 and Van Riebeeck Road is characterized by wide mowed road verges and invasive vegetation (see Figure 3.6). Glimpses towards industrial sized buildings associated with the CTFS development are available to the west, while the agricultural Cape Winelands landscape is perceivable at a distance to the east. The overall experience and sense of place of this portion of the route is that of the wide expanses of moved road verges and the littered and degraded nature of the Kleinvlei Canal. The invasive vegetation screens the development



located at further distances on either side of the road, i.e. the CTFS development to the west and the Vergenoegd wine estate and associated agricultural areas to the east.

Figure 3.6: View of the portion of the R310 to the north of the intersection with the N2

Moving in a northeasterly direction towards Van Riebeeck Road along the R310, large scale pylon infrastructure and residential development associated with the Eerste Rivier residential area becomes prominent in the observer’s Field of View (FOV) (see Figure 3.7). The De Wijnlanden development located beyond Van Riebeeck Road protrudes from the surrounding landscape due to its height and scale and this development detracts from the rural feel of the agricultural landscape to the east. The road loses some of its scenic characteristics at this point, with the encroachment of development which is incongruent with the Cape Winelands area.

Figure 3.7 View of the portion of the R310 adjacent to the Eerste River development approaching Van

Riebeeck Road

The experience of the R310 as a scenic route becomes more pronounced to the north of Van Riebeeck Road as views towards the surrounding agricultural landscapes become more accessible, with vineyards and farm dams encroaching onto the road reserve and into the observer’s FOV on either side of the road (see Figure 3.8). High traffic volumes are experienced along the route and a portion of the R310 has recently been widened. The implementation of wide, hardened road medians with kerbs and street lighting infrastructure has detracted from its rural character to a certain degree. Further widening is planned on the R310 towards the N2 highway.

Figure 3.8: Views to the east of the R310 beyond Van Riebeeck Road and the Meerlust Estate



When approaching the development area along the R310 in a southwesterly direction from Van Riebeeck Road towards the N2 highway, the receptor’s FOV is occupied by pylon infrastructure and housing development in close proximity and urban development associated with the Cape Flats area in the distance. The vistas moving in this direction are therefore experienced as ‘exiting’ the Cape Winelands area and ‘entering’ the Cape Flats at the outskirts of the CoCT Metropolitan area.

Figure 3.9: Views moving in a southwesterly direction towards the site from Van Riebeeck Road

3.5.2 The N2 Highway

The N2 highway is an important national route linking the CoCT Central Business District (CBD) with Somerset West and other regional centers. The route is experienced as a visual corridor with changing conditions along its length. Urban infrastructure increases within proximity to the CoCT CBD and decreases at the outskirts of the CoCT Metropolitan area (in proximity to the site). There are a high number of users along this route and although these users are moving at high speeds and passing elements are observed as a continuum of changing features, the experiential aspects of the route are important from a tourism perspective.

Infrastructure and urban development is common and the Cape Flats is characterized by a mixture of urban sprawl, informal settlements and low growing (mostly invasive) vegetation. The CTFS is currently experienced as a unique element along the N2. Film production sets (large historic ship-replica structures) have been constructed as temporary features in the landscape, creating a point of interest along the route as they are out of context with the surrounding environment of low growing vegetation and create a visual spectacle (see Figure 3.1). Passing glimpses towards the larger scale infrastructure (warehouses) associated with the CTFS development are less pronounced due to the distance at which they are placed from the N2 and R310 and due to the screening effect of existing vegetation, when moving in an easterly direction towards Somerset West (see Figure 3.10).

The existing development at the CTFS is prominently visible from the portion of the N2 to the east of the intersection with the R310, when moving towards the CoCT CBD. This is due to the low-lying agricultural vegetation (grazing land) to the north of the N2 and the seemingly elevated position of the CTFS development area when viewed from this direction, as well as the size and scale of the warehouse buildings and ‘ship’-replica structures associated with the CTFS development. Although the existing development at the CTFS site is experienced as passing glimpses towards the site, increased development at the site would likely become highly visible from portions of the N2, moving towards the development area from both easterly and westerly directions.

Figure 3.10: Views towards portions of the CTFS development from the N2



3.6. Heritage Resources contributing to Landscape Character

3.6.1 Vergenoegd Wine Estate

The Vergenoegd Wine Estate which is a provincial heritage site is located to the southeast of the R310, opposite the CTFS. The estate has retained its historic character and recent refurbishments are aimed at enhancing its unique cultural heritage. The Estate is popular over weekends and as a provincial heritage resource, contributes to the sense of place of the region. The site is located adjacent to the N2 and the R310 and increasing development pressure in the surrounding areas threatens to impact on the sense of place of the farm.

The industrial-scale Ithemba Labs, which are located to the west of the site, are currently visible from the farm, looking in a westerly direction towards the R310. Figure 3.11 shows the Ithemba Labs to the left of the image, while the site is located to the right of the image, adjacent to the pylon infrastructure. Figure 3.12 illustrates vistas from the Farm looking in a westerly direction towards Table Mountain, with the CTFS located in the foreground (the ship structures are visible to the left of the image).

Figure 3.11: Views towards Ithemba Labs and the site from the Vergenoegd Wine Estate

Figure 3.12: Views towards the CTFS from the Vergenoegd Wine Estate



4. VISUAL ANALYSIS / SITE VISIBILITY

This section describes the visual analysis that was conducted to determine the visibility of specific aspects associated with the proposed development (i.e. the visibility of the site to the north of the service station, located along the R310 and the visibility of the proposed DF, with and without the implementation of berms as per the existing and approved DF).

4.1. Visibility (viewshed versus view shadow)

Visibility is described in terms of the viewshed and view shadow areas which were calculated for specific aspects associated with the proposed development, based on digitized topographical (Lidar) information about the site and surrounding areas, including the size, scale and massing of the surrounding buildings, vegetation and urban infrastructure. The viewshed area (shown in colour) indicates areas from which the proposed aspect under investigation could potentially be visible, while the view shadow area (clear areas) indicates areas from which the proposed aspect under investigation is unlikely to be visible. The visibility of various aspects under investigation within an approximate 2.5km radius of the development area is illustrated in Figure 4.1 to Figure 4.3.

The overall visibility of the proposed development is largely dependent on the size and scale of the development and the presence and positions of screening elements, including vegetation, urban development and infrastructure. The proposed development is expected to fade or become less visually apparent in the observer’s FOV with increasing distance from the site. Visibility will decrease exponentially with the apparent decrease in size of the development within the receptor’s FOV and as contextual visual information increases within the receptor’s FOV. Similarly, the development will be more visible to receptors within close proximity to the development area and may cause visual intrusion within the receptor’s FOV.

4.1.1 Site to the north of the Service Station I

The visibility of the mixed use site to the north of the Service Station is illustrated in Figure 4.1. This site will be highly visible from the R310 scenic route, particularly the portion of the route between the N2 and Van Riebeeck Road. The visibility of the development is illustrated in Figure 4.1, along with the screening of foreground elements (in this case, the invasive vegetation along the edge of the road reserve). The visibility shown in Figure 4.1 therefore indicates that the development at this site would be highly visible within a 1km radius of the site, due to its height and scale. Even with the implementation of appropriate screening vegetation, portions of the development would remain visible, due to its close proximity to the edge of the R310 and its position along a relatively flat, low-lying portion of the route.

Large scale development that is out of keeping with the rural character of the surrounding environment is likely to be visually intrusive in this location. The development at the site is also likely to be visible from the area along the R310 to the east of Van Riebeeck Road and will incrementally increase in scale as the observer moves towards the development from this direction. It would also be highly visible from the agricultural areas to the east of the R310, associated with the Vergenoegd wine estate, as well as vistas along the N2 moving towards the CTFS development area in a westerly direction (the section of the N2 to the east of the intersection with Van Riebeeck Road).

Development is planned to the southwest of this site, including the implementation of a service station (at a height of 7m, excluding signage) and a mixed use area at a height of 8m. These developments are likely to be highly visible from the R310. However, due to their reduced height, these developments are likely to be somewhat less visible from the R310 than the mixed use site to the north of the Service Station. It is unlikely that screening vegetation would screen the proposed development to a significant degree and it is likely that the building would be prominently noticeable along this stretch of the route. Development at the site would likely be similar in height and scale to the De Wijnlanden development located further to the northeast. The De Wijnlanden development is out of keeping with the surrounding context due to its height and scale and also due



to the lack of screening vegetation that has been implemented in the foreground, thereby making it highly prominent within the observer’s FOV and detracting from the sense of place of the area.

The site would also be larger in scale than the mixed use development planned to the west at a height of 8m. The site would therefore contradict the gradual grading in heights of the development as a whole towards the northern and central portions of the CTFS development area as per the DF.

The implementation of screening along the R310 should be carefully considered to ensure that the scenic quality of this portion of the route is not further eroded. The height and scale of development at the site to the north of the service station would also need to be carefully considered. This is discussed in more detail in Section 6.

Figure 4.1: Viewshed and view shadow areas for site to the north of the service station with berms Source: Square One

4.1.2 Proposed DF with and without berms

Figure 4.2 below illustrates the visibility of the sub-divisional areas of the proposed DF (see Figure 2.4) with the implementation of the berms as per the existing DF (Figure 2.3). Figure 4.3 indicates the visibility of the proposed development without the implementation of the berms indicated as per the existing DF. A comparison between Figure 4.2 and Figure 4.3 illustrates that the overall visibility of the development as per the proposed DF would remain largely similar, with and without the implementation of berms as per the existing and approved DF.



The viewshed analysis takes the screening effect of foreground elements, including existing vegetation into account. The viewshed scenarios therefore indicate that the screening effect of existing vegetation (including invasive and wetland vegetation) would have a largely similar effect on the overall visibility of the development to the berm areas proposed as part of the approved DF. It should be noted that the viewshed model indicates an area as falling into the viewshed area if only a portion of the development is visible from that area. Therefore the viewshed area indicates areas from which any portion of the development would be visible and not the degree to which the development would be visible from a specific viewpoint. This would need to be determined through 3D modelling and photomontages (which fall outside the scope of this study).

Figure 4.2: Viewshed and view shadow areas for development framework with berms

Figure 4.2 indicates that the proposed berm structures would only entirely screen the proposed development from view along a portion of the N2 (to the west of the intersection with Van Riebeeck Road and to the south of residential area 1 as per the proposed DF). The berm indicated in this area as part of the approved DF, would be constructed within the wetland area located adjacent to the N2 along this portion of the road. However, the construction of the berm at a distance further away from the N2 and closer to the residential area (as per the suggestions in the VIA that was initially conducted for the project – see Figure 2.2), would be unlikely to provide a similar screening effect to the construction of the berm immediately adjacent to the N2 (within the wetland area).



Due to the height and scale of the various components associated with the proposed development, the proposed development would be visible from an area wider than 2km. It would be particularly visible to users along the portion of the R310 between the N2 and Van Riebeeck Road and to users of the N2 (both to the east and west of the R310). It would also be prominently noticeable in the agricultural areas to the east of the site due to the higher elevation and lack of foreground elements in this area. The development would be more visible to users within close proximity to the site, particularly within a <1km radius along the R310 and the N2.

According to the viewshed analysis, the implementation of landscaped buffer areas would potentially have a similar impact in terms of the visibility of the development when compared to the implementation of berm structures as per the approved DF. Due to the height and scale of the proposed development (particularly towards the interior of the site), portions of the development would remain visible whether or not the berm structures are implemented. The approved berm structures would therefore not serve to entirely screen the development from view (except from a particular portion of the N2, where the berm structure itself may intrude onto the receptors FOV due to its size and scale). The strategic implementation of smaller scale vegetated berm areas and appropriately landscaped buffer strips could be equally effective in ameliorating the visual impact of the proposed development. This is elaborated upon in more detail in Section 6.

Figure 4.3: Viewshed and view shadow areas for development framework without berms



5. VISUAL ASESSMENT CRITERIA

This Section includes a description of the visual criteria that were used to identify potential visual issues and impacts associated with the development (see Section 6).

5.1. Visibility – Viewshed Area and Zone of Visual Influence

The zone of visual influence is defined as the area which is subject to the direct visual influence of the proposed project. The zone of visual influence will be experienced at different scales by receptors located at various distances from the site. Visibility (viewshed area and zone of visual influence) is defined as follows:

High visibility - Visible from a large area (E.g.: several square kilometres, >5km radius).

Moderate visibility - Visible from an intermediate area (E.g.: several hectares, 2.5 – 5 km radius).

Low visibility - Visible from a small area around the project site (E.g.: <1km radius).

The proposed DF would be visible within a 2.5km radius. It is unlikely that the mixed use areas along the R310 would be visible from a distance greater than 5km. However, due to the size and scale of the buildings associated with the proposed DF, it is possible that portions of the proposed DF would be visible from a distance greater than 5km. The site to the north of the service station is therefore considered to have Moderate visibility in the landscape, while the proposed DF is considered to have High visibility in the landscape.

5.2. Visual Exposure

Visual Exposure is based on the degree to which the site is visually apparent and the distance from the project to selected viewpoints towards the site. Visual Exposure tends to diminish exponentially with distance and is defined as follows:

High exposure – Dominant or clearly noticeable.

Moderate exposure – Recognisable to the viewer.

Low exposure – Not particularly noticeable to the viewer.

The site to the north of the service station along the R310 is likely to have High visual exposure due to its location in the landscape as well as its scale and size. It would be particularly noticeable to users of the portion of the R310 between the N2 and Van Riebeeck Road.

The visibility of the proposed DF is expected to be High within an approximate 1.5km radius of the site due to the size and scale of the development. The visibility of the development would recede within increasing distance and Moderate exposure would be experienced at distances greater than 2.5km.

5.3. Visual Absorption Capacity

The VAC of a site indicates how much of the project would be visually “absorbed” or “disappear”, into the receiving environment. VAC is defined as follows:

High VAC – Effective screening by topography and vegetation.

Moderate VAC – Partial screening by topography and vegetation.

Low VAC – Little screening by topography or vegetation.

The VAC of the site to the north of the service station along the R310 is currently moderately high, due to the existing invasive vegetation at the site. However, this vegetation will be cleared as part of the development at site to the north of the service station along the R310 and this development would likely become highly exposed. Due to its height and scale, the buildings would likely protrude above vegetation implemented within the landscaped buffer strip. The VAC of site to the north of the service station along the R310 is therefore considered to be Low.



Although the existing vegetation within the development area particularly along the R310 and the N2 (some of which may be retained) would provide visual screening to the proposed DF, due to the scale and size of the proposed DF, the development area is considered to have Moderate VAC.

5.4. Visual Sensitivity of the Area

The degree of visual impact is dependent on the location of the site within the receiving environment and the sensitivity of its location to development. Visual sensitivity is defined as follows:

High visual sensitivity – Highly visible and potentially sensitive areas in the landscape.

Moderate sensitivity – Moderately visible areas in the landscape.

Low visual sensitivity – Minimally visible areas in the landscape.

The development area will be visible from the N2 and the scenic R310 route. The site to the north of the service station along the R310 is located adjacent to the R310 and this area is considered to be visually sensitive. This site will be highly visible along the portion of the R310 between the N2 and Van Riebeeck Road. Inappropriate development typologies have already detracted from the integrity of this portion of the scenic route. However, due to its location along a scenic route within a visually sensitive rural environment at the ‘gateway’ to the Cape Winelands, this site is considered to have High visual sensitivity.

The various components of the proposed DF will be visible from the N2 and the R310. Existing development associated with the CTFS has altered the scenic environment in this area. The development will be located at the intersection between the N2 and the R310 and the interface between the Cape Flats and the Cape Winelands area. Due to the extent and scale of the proposed DF, the site is considered to have High visual sensitivity.

5.5. Visual Sensitivity of the Receptors

The level of visual impact considered acceptable is dependent on the type of receptors.

High sensitivity – Residential areas, nature reserves and scenic routes or trails.

Moderate sensitivity – Sporting or recreational areas, or places of work.

Low sensitivity – Industrial or degraded areas.

The site to the north of the service station along the R310 is located along the R310 scenic route and ‘gateway’ into the Cape Winelands area (specifically Stellenbosch and surrounds). The proposed DF would also be visible from a portion of the R310 and this route is often used for tourism and recreational purposes. The N2 is also considered an important tourism route between the CoCT CBD and Somerset West. Portions of the proposed DF could also be visible from residential areas located in the vicinity of the proposed development area (Khayelitsha, Blue Downs and Eerste River). Both the site to the north of the service station along the R310 and the proposed DF would be visible from the agricultural areas to the east of the R310 (including the Vergenoegd wine estate). The visual sensitivity of the receptors that could be exposed to the proposed development is therefore considered to be High.

5.6. Visual Intrusion

The visual intrusion that could potentially be caused by the proposed project is related to the level of compatibility or congruence of the proposed project with the particular qualities or sense of place of the surrounding areas. Visual intrusion relates to the concept of placing appropriate development typologies within their context to maintain landscape integrity and sense of place and is defined as follows:

High visual intrusion – Noticeable change or conflicts with the surroundings.



Moderate visual intrusion – Partially fits into the surroundings, but clearly noticeable.

Low visual intrusion – Minimal change or blends in well with the surroundings.

The site to the north of the service station along the R310 would be located adjacent to the service station building and the mixed use building planned at Site D. It would become integrated with the development planned as part of the DF over time. However, site to the north of the service station along the R310 and the adjacent buildings are likely to cause a notable change in the environment along this portion of the R310. Due to existing development at CTFS and gradual grading of development typologies towards the interior (northern, central) portion of the development area, the proposed DF and site to the north of the service station along the R310 are considered to potentially cause Moderate to High visual intrusion.

5.7. Summary Table

Table 5.1: Visual Criteria Summary Table:

Visibility Site to the north of the service station– Moderate,

Proposed DF- High

Visual Exposure Site to the north of the service station – High

Proposed DF - High within approximate radius of 1km, Moderate at a distance of more than 2km.

VAC Site to the north of the service station – Low

Proposed DF - Moderate

Visual Sensitivity of the Area High

Visual Sensitivity of Receptors High

Visual Intrusion Moderate to High



6. VISUAL ISSUES, OPPORTUNITIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A number of visual issues, concerns and opportunities associated with the aspects of the proposed development under investigation were identified, based on the analysis of the receiving environment and visual data. The relevant policies and guidelines for scenic routes in the Western Cape are briefly discussed and recommendations are made to address potential visual issues and concerns.

6.1. Policies and Guidelines Winter and Oberholzer (2013) identify a number of policies and guidelines for scenic routes. These should be taken into consideration in the determination of the relevant visual issues and recommendations. According to Winter and Oberholzer (2013), scenic routes of regional, heritage and tourism significance should be protected and promoted and the landscape setting and the gateway qualities of important scenic routes within a rural setting should be respected. A number of guidelines are proposed by Winter and Oberholzer (2013):

Prohibit obstruction of sea and mountain views along proclaimed scenic routes and avoid visual intrusions, such as inappropriate signage (billboards) and infrastructure.

Establish visual buffer zones with setbacks and height restrictions along scenic routes, for example 100m setbacks for major national/ provincial routes and 30m from secondary routes, depending on view corridors and local conditions.

Ensure appropriate design of road verges, stormwater structures, fences and picnic sites, which should be in character with the natural or rural surroundings.

6.2. Visual Issues and Opportunities

The development area is located at the interface between the Cape Winelands and the Cape Flats, to the northwest of the intersection between the N2 and the R310 scenic route, at the ‘gateway’ to the Cape Winelands. A number of visual issues and opportunities are associated with the development and the proposed replacement of berm areas as per the existing approved DF with landscaped buffer areas. These include:

The buildings to the north of the service station along the R310 will be at a height of 10.8m. This is higher than the adjacent service station (at a height of 7m, excluding signage) and the proposed mixed use sites (at a height of 8m). In addition, buildings in this area would be higher than mixed use development proposed further to the west (at a height of 8m) and buildings further towards the interior (northern, central portion) of the development area as per the proposed DF. The height of the buildings to the north of the service station along the R310 would therefore stand in contrast to the gradual grading of the development typologies towards the northern, central portion of the development area. The increased height of buildings at this location would create an unbalanced composition with the adjacent service station and adjacent mixed use buildings. The reduction of the height to match the surrounding mixed use areas would create a more balanced composition.

Although the character of the scenic route along the portion of the R310 between the N2 and Van Riebeeck Road has been eroded due to existing development in the area (including development at De Wijnlanden, pylon infrastructure and development associated with the Eerste River residential area), the scale and character of increased density development associated with the DF may further detract from the scenic quality of this portion of the route and may impact cumulatively with the existing undesirable elements in the surrounding area. The screening provided within the landscaped buffer area could reduce the visual intrusion caused by development along this portion of the R310 and should be carefully considered. There is also an opportunity to integrate ecological considerations into the design of the landscaped buffer strip. The degraded Kleinvlei Canal can be integrated as part of the design and degraded vegetation at can be restored. Appropriate indigenous



planting could serve the dual purpose of screening the development and improving its ecological condition.

The implementation of the berm structures as per the existing and approved DF would not necessarily reduce the overall visibility of the proposed DF to surrounding receptors. The berm structures would only entirely screen the proposed DF from view in relatively a small section along the N2 and it is likely that the berm structure itself would intrude on the receptor’s FOV in this area. It is also likely that the berm structure would be placed in a wetland in this area, causing ecological damage. In addition, the construction of large scale berm structures surrounding the CTFS development area could potentially cause ecological damage due to the excessive earthworks that would be required. These berm structures would also not necessarily provide effective screening to the development in the area, due to the height and scale of the buildings proposed in this CTFS sub-divisional area. The scale and positioning of the berm structures approved as part of the existing DF is considered inappropriate and it is likely that the strategic use of appropriately designed lower scale berm and landscaped buffer areas would screen the proposed DF to a similar degree as the berm structures approved as part of the existing DF.

The design and architectural articulation of buildings and landscapes constructed within the sub-divisional areas associated with the proposed DF is of key importance to the ultimate visual impact of the proposed development. It should be ensured that the architectural and landscape design of these areas is carefully considered to ameliorate any potential visual impacts associated with the proposed DF.

The implementation of lighting associated with the proposed DF and the site to the north of the service station may affect the rural ambience of the surrounding area. The lighting design of the various components of the proposed DF needs to be carefully considered to ensure that it does not cause visual intrusion.

6.3. Recommendations

Appoint a professional Landscape Architect registered with SACLAP to design the landscaped buffer strip which would replace the berm areas approved as part of the existing DF, ensuring that:

o Appropriate indigenous vegetation is utilised in the design.

o Sufficient visual screening is provided to the proposed development from the scenic R310 route and the relevant portions of the N2.

o Low level vegetated berm areas with appropriate planting are used in strategic places to provide visual screening.

o The landscaped buffer area is designed so that the height of the vegetation grades gradually towards the height of the buildings (i.e. shrubs or groundcovers in the foreground with larger trees in the background).

o Sufficient tree planting is provided in appropriate places to provide visual screening.

Limit the height of the buildings to the north of the service station to the height of the adjacent mixed use area to ensure that it does not cause visual intrusion and creates a balanced composition, i.e. a maximum height of 3 storeys (8m).

Ensure that the buildings within the mixed use areas along the R310 are cohesively designed to create a uniform architectural character with positive visual impacts on the surrounding area. The buildings in the area should be designed cohesively, within set parameters determined for the development area, by a qualified professional architect registered with SACAP.

Ensure that sufficient screening is provided within the landscaped buffer area along the R310 to ensure that the proposed development does not detract from the scenic quality of the route.



Ensure that sufficient visual screening is allowed to reduce the potential visual exposure of the development DF (through the use of appropriately designed screening vegetation, including indigenous trees and groundcovers).

Ensure that ecological factors (such as the upgrade and maintenance of the Kleinvlei Canal and the use of indigenous vegetation) are incorporated into the landscape design.

Retain existing (non-invasive) screening vegetation (including wetland vegetation that provides important ecological functions and provides low level screening) as far as possible.

Ensure that fencing is visually permeable, contextually appropriate and softened with planting to provide visual screening. Use appropriate colours such as dark grey, charcoal and black that are visually recessive.

Appoint a professional Landscape Architect to oversee the preparation of a landscape master plan and guideline document for the relevant sub-divisional areas to ensure that the design of buildings and surrounding landscapes includes sufficient vegetation to provide visual screening over time.

Ensure that the architectural articulation of buildings and the landscape design of the sub-divisional areas take the following factors into considerations into consideration:

o Ensure that buildings are well-integrated into the landscape and do not appear as monolithic elements.

o Ensure that the visual impacts of the architecture when viewed from the R310 are carefully considered and taken into account in the design articulation of the building elements.

o Ensure that sufficient vegetation is provided to allow the development to become visually integrated within the surrounding environment over time.

o Ensure that building facades are appropriately articulated and that buildings are integrated into their context within the landscape as far as possible.

o Configure buildings and articulate walls and other structures so as to maintain the flow of vegetation around buildings and neighbouring developments to reduce their visibility.

o Use exterior colours that have low reflectivity value and blend with the surroundings.

o Design streetscape elements (e.g. paving, street furniture, lighting etc.) in a manner that responds to the local context.

o Make use of natural, contextually appropriate materials.

o Keep reflective surfaces to a minimum or ensure that these areas are shaded by roof overhangs, where possible.

Designed lighting appropriately along the following guidelines:

o Use low level lighting.

o Limit neon, spot or up-lighting.

o Screen and filter lights sources as far as possible.

o Shield external lights on buildings to cast light only upon the area required to be illuminated.

o Ensure that naked light sources are not visible from beyond the site.

o Ensure that no light is emitted into the sky.

Make allowance for on-going landscape maintenance to allow site vegetation to mature sufficiently to allow the environment to achieve maximum VAC.



7. CONTRIBUTORS

Larissa Heyns PrLArch #20227 (SACLAP), MLArch (UCT), BSc ConsEcol (2005) is a professional Landscape Architect and Environmental Consultant with 8 years of experience. She graduated from UCT's Master of Landscape Architecture Programme with distinction in 2010. She became registered as a professional Landscape Architect in 2013 and subsequently worked as an Environmental Consultant on a number of large scale EIA projects within the Western and Northern Cape as well as Angola and Guinea. She is currently eligible for registration with the Interim Certification Board for Environmental Practitioners, South Africa. Her expertise includes environmental planning and sensitivity analysis, landscape architectural design, Visual Impact Assessment (VIA), EIAs, and Environmental Management Plans (EMPs).



8. REFERENCES

Louw, P. & Dewar, D. 2005. Visual Impact Assessment for the proposed Development of the Dreamworld Film City, Faure. Prepared by Piet Louw and Dave Dewar, dated March 2005. Oberholzer, B. 2005: Guideline for involving Visual and Aesthetic Specialists in EIA processes: Edition 1. CSIR Report No ENV-S-C 2005 053 F. Republic of South Africa, Provincial Government of the Western Cape, DEA&DP, Cape Town. Winter, S and Oberholzer, B. 2013: Heritage and Scenic Resources: Inventory and Policy Framework for the Western Cape. A study prepared for the Western Cape Provincial Spatial Development Framework Draft: May 2013, version 5. Prepared for the Provincial Government of the Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, in associated with Setplan. SANBI BGIS, 2015 Cape Town Biodiversity Network 2015. Available at: http://bgis.sanbi.org/capetown/bionetwork.asp, accessed on 7 December 2015. SANBI NFEPA, 2015 National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas 2011 Available at http://bgis.sanbi.org/NFEPA/NFEPAmap.asp, accessed on 15 December 2015.

http://bgis.sanbi.org/capetown/bionetwork.asp

Documents

Cape Town Film Studios Development Framework · Cape Town Film Studios Development Framework Portion 13 of Farm 653, City of Cape Town (Source: Square One Landscape Architects) Draft