SHELL SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A FILLING STATION IN

HEIDELBERG, LESEDI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY, GAUTENG
PROVINCE

FINAL BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT

Project Reference Number: Gaut 002/18-19/E2341

By

Mills & Otten

Environmental Consultants

P O Box 84344
Greenside
2034

Tel: (011) 486 0062

Fax: 086 554 6573
Email: info@millsandotten.co.za

MO4261 October 2019

Basic Assessment Report in terms of the National Environmental Management
Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998), as amended, and the Environmental Impact
Assessment Regulations, 2014 (Version 1)

Kindly note that:

1. This Basic Assessment Report is the standard report required by GDARD in terms of the EIA Regulations, 2014.

2. This application form is current as of 8 December 2014. It is the responsibility of the EAP to ascertain whether
subsequent versions of the form have been published or produced by the competent authority.

3. A draft Basic Assessment Report must be submitted, for purposes of comments within a period of thirty (30)
days, to all State Departments administering a law relating to a matter likely to be affected by the activity to be
undertaken.

4. A draft Basic Assessment Report (1 hard copy and two CD’s) must be submitted, for purposes of comments
within a period of thirty (30) days, to a Competent Authority empowered in terms of the National Environmental
Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998), as amended to consider and decide on the application.

5. Five (5) copies (3 hard copies and 2 CDs-PDF) of the final report and attachments must be handed in at offices of the
relevant competent authority, as detailed below.

6. The report must be typed within the spaces provided in the form. The size of the spaces provided is not necessarily
indicative of the amount of information to be provided. The report is in the form of a table that can extend itself as each
space is filled with typing.

7. Selected boxes must be indicated by a cross and, when the form is completed electronically, must also be highlighted.

8. An incomplete report may lead to an application for environmental authorisation being refused.

9. Any report that does not contain a titled and dated full colour large scale layout plan of the proposed activities
including a coherent legend, overlain with the sensitivities found on site may lead to an application for
environmental authorisation being refused.

10. The use of “not applicable” in the report must be done with circumspection because if it is used in respect of material
information that is required by the competent authority for assessing the application, it may result in the application for
environmental authorisation being refused.

11. No faxed or e-mailed reports will be accepted. Only hand delivered or posted applications will be accepted.

12. Unless protected by law, and clearly indicated as such, all information filled in on this application will become public
information on receipt by the competent authority. The applicant/EAP must provide any interested and affected party
with the information contained in this application on request, during any stage of the application process.

13. Although pre-application meeting with the Competent Authority is optional, applicants are advised to have these
meetings prior to submission of application to seek guidance from the Competent Authority.

DEPARTMENTAL DETAILS

Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

Attention: Administrative Unit of the of the Environmental Affairs Branch
P.O. Box 8769
Johannesburg
2000

Administrative Unit of the of the Environmental Affairs Branch

Ground floor Diamond Building
11 Diagonal Street, Johannesburg

Administrative Unit telephone number: (011) 240 3377

Department central telephone number: (011) 240 2500

1
 (For official use only)
NEAS Reference Number:
File Reference Number:
Application Number:
Date Received:

If this BAR has not been submitted within 90 days of receipt of the application by the competent authority and
permission was not requested to submit within 140 days, please indicate the reasons for not submitting within
time frame.
Not applicable

Is a closure plan applicable for this application and has it been included in this report?
NO
if not, state reasons for not including the closure plan.
The application for the proposed development of a filling station is a long-term development that is not
generally associated with a closure plan. Decommissioning of the activity will be associated with a separate
environmental authorisation application at the time of decommissioning planning. General mitigation and
management measures for the decommissioning phase have nonetheless been included in this impact
assessment.

Has a draft report for this application been submitted to a competent authority and all State YES
Departments administering a law relating to a matter likely to be affected as a result of this activity?

Is a list of the State Departments referred to above attached to this report including their full
contact details and contact person? YES

If no, state reasons for not attaching the list.

Not applicable

Have State Departments including the competent authority commented?

YES
If no, why?
Not applicable. Comments have been received from the Competent Authority (GDARD), the Department of
Water and Sanitation and the Sedibeng District Municipality. The comments have been documented in the
Comments and Responses Report attached as Appendix E-6 of this Report.

2
SECTION A: ACTIVITY INFORMATION
1. PROPOSAL OR DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION
Project title (must be the same name as per application form):

Proposed development of a filling station in Heidelberg, Lesedi Local Municipality, Gauteng Province

Select the appropriate box

The application is for an upgrade The application is for a Other,

of an existing development new development X specify

Does the activity also require any authorisation other than NEMA EIA authorisation?

YES X NO

If yes, describe the legislation and the Competent Authority administering such legislation

An application for both a Site License and a Retail License is required in terms of the Petroleum Products Act
120 of 1977, as amended, and the Petroleum Products Site and Retails License Regulations, 2006, for the
development and operation of a filling station.

If yes, have you applied for the authorisation(s)? YES NO X

If yes, have you received approval(s)? (attach in appropriate appendix) YES NO X

2. APPLICABLE LEGISLATION, POLICIES AND/OR GUIDELINES

List all legislation, policies and/or guidelines of any sphere of government that are applicable to the application as
contemplated in the EIA regulations:

Title of legislation, policy or guideline: Administering authority: Promulgation Date:

National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act National & Provincial 27 November 1998
No. 107 of 1998 as amended).

Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2014, Provincial (GDARD) 04 December 2014

(GN. R982 and 983) as amended by GNR 326 and
Amended 07 April
327 of 2017
2017

Gauteng Conservation Plan v.3.3 Provincial (GDARD) 2011

Gauteng Provincial Environmental Management Provincial (GDARD) 2015

Framework

Lesedi Local Municipality Final Integrated Municipal (Lesedi Local 2018

Development Plan 2018/2019 Municipality)

Lesedi Nodal and Corridor Development Study Municipal (Lesedi Local 2009
Municipality)

Lesedi Local Municipality Spatial Development Municipal (Lesedi Local 2016

Framework (Review 2016) Municipality)

Occupational Health and Safety Act No. 85 of 1993, as National (Department of 23 June 1993
amended Labour)

3
Description of compliance with the relevant legislation, policy or guideline:
Legislation, policy of guideline Description of compliance

NEMA (Act 107 of 1998), as amended, and the The application for environmental authorisation is submitted
EIA Regulations, 2014 in accordance with the NEMA requirements for activities
listed in the 2014 EIA Regulations, as amended. The
process followed in applying for environmental authorisation
and conducting the Public Participation and EIA Process is
in accordance with the legislative requirements and
departmental guidelines.

The Department of Environmental Affairs and The Integrated Environmental Management (IEM) Guideline
Tourism Integrated Environmental documents informed the compilation of the BAR, EMPr and
Management Information Series the undertaking of the Public Participation Process and
Impact Assessment.

Gauteng Conservation Plan v.3.3
The Gauteng Conservation Plan identifies a network of
Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs) and Ecological Support
Areas (ESAs) in the province based on a systematic
biodiversity plan. The proposed project site is not located
within or immediately adjacent to any identified CBAs or
ESAs. The site falls on the outer edge of an area identified
as part of the Blesbokspruit Threatened Ecosystem.

Gauteng Provincial Environmental In terms of the GPEMF, 2015, the proposed project site falls
Management Framework within Environmental Management Zone 1 (Urban
Development Zone).

Lesedi Local Municipality Final Integrated Demographic and socio-economic information and
Development Plan 2018/2019 planning strategies for the area.

Lesedi Local Municipality Spatial Development Demographic and socio-economic information and planning
Framework (Review 2016) strategies

Occupational Health and Safety Act The proposed activity will require workers during the
construction activities as well as operations. The applicant
will have to abide by the Occupational Health and Safety
Act throughout all phases of the activity.

3. ALTERNATIVES

Describe the proposal and alternatives that are considered in this application. Alternatives should include a consideration of
all possible means by which the purpose and need of the proposed activity could be accomplished. The determination of
whether the site or activity (including different processes etc.) or both is appropriate needs to be informed by the specific
circumstances of the activity and its environment.

The no-go option must in all cases be included in the assessment phase as the baseline against which the impacts of the
other alternatives are assessed. Do not include the no go option into the alternative table below.

Note: After receipt of this report the competent authority may also request the applicant to assess additional alternatives that
could possibly accomplish the purpose and need of the proposed activity if it is clear that realistic alternatives have not been
considered to a reasonable extent.

Please describe the process followed to reach (decide on) the list of alternatives below

An alternative can be defined as a possible course of action, in place of another, that would meet the same
purpose and need as the development proposal. The development proposal is for a proposed filling station
development on Portion 101 (a portion of Portion 82) of the Farm Langlaagte 186-IR.
Potential alternatives are identified through consultation with the project proponent, relevant authorities and
4
interested and affected parties. In addition, evaluation of the project site and surroundings can inform preferred
layouts, access routes and activities.

Provide a description of the alternatives considered

No. Alternative type, either alternative: Description

site on property, properties, activity,
design, technology, energy,
operational or other(provide details of
“other”)

1 Proposal The preferred proposal is for the development of a filling

station on Portion 101 (a portion of Portion 82) of the Farm
Langlaagte 186-IR, located at the intersection of Jacobs Street
(R42) and the unnamed cemetery road located north of the N3
Highway off-ramp in Heidelberg.
The site will be developed with two(2) x 46m3 and one (1) x
23m3 underground fuel storage tanks, with a total capacity of
115m3. The filling station will include fuel dispensing islands,
with associated pumps, cut-off valves and sub-surface
pipework. The facility will include a convenience shop with
the associated infrastructure (e.g. access roads and parking
facilities).
A stormwater management system, including an oil-water
separator, will be installed for the separation and
management of run-off from the forecourt area, as per
industry standards.
Automatic tank gauging and the installation of tank
monitoring wells in the tank farm are standard requirements
for the installation of filling stations and will form part of the
proposed development.
The proposed project site is currently vacant. It is understood
that various “quick service” restaurants are proposed on the
property to the west of the proposed filling station, however,
these do not form part of this application. This Environmental
Authorisation application is for the development of the filling
station only.

2 Alternative 1 No alternatives have been considered for the environmental impact

assessment. Motivation is provided below.
The No-Go option has been considered and assessed in Sections
E2 and E5 of this report.

3 Alternative 2

Etc.

In the event that no alternative(s) has/have been provided, a motivation must be included in the table below.

The development proposal is for the construction of a filling station on Portion 101 (a portion of Portion 82) of
the Farm Langlaagte 186-IR. The applicant also owns the land portion. No alternatives have been considered
for this application for the following reasons:
i. Alternative Property
The applicant is the current landowner of the property described. The proposed location of the filling station at
this property is considered strategic as it falls within an area earmarked and designated by the municipality for
nodal and corridor growth and development. Alternative properties have thus not been considered for this
5
specific application.
ii. Alternative Activity
The applicant is an oil company and is in the business of developing and operating filling stations. Alternative
activities have not been considered for this application.
iii. Alternative Site on the Property / Layout
The proposed layout is optimal from an operational, economic and practical (user-friendly) perspective. Access
from the unnamed (cemetery) road also restricts potential layout alternatives as safety considerations dictate
the layout. There are no specific environmental sensitivities on the site that would influence the proposed
layout.
iv. Alternative Technology
The construction of filling stations must conform to strict design standards and have to meet various stringent
specifications in terms of the SANS standards. The proposed filling station will incorporate the latest
technology as provided by the Oil Company. Alternative technologies have, for this reason, not been
considered in this impact assessment.

4. PHYSICAL SIZE OF THE ACTIVITY

Indicate the total physical size (footprint) of the proposal as well as alternatives. Footprints are to include all new
infrastructure (roads, services etc), impermeable surfaces and landscaped areas:
Size of the activity:
Proposed activity (Total environmental (landscaping, parking, etc.) 2
and the building footprint) ~ 4 500 m
Alternatives:
Alternative 1 (if any) Not applicable
Alternative 2 (if any) Not applicable
Ha/ m2

or, for linear activities:

Length of the activity:
Proposed activity
Alternatives:
Alternative 1 (if any)
Alternative 2 (if any)
m/km

Indicate the size of the site(s) or servitudes (within which the above footprints will occur):
Size of the site/servitude:
Proposed activity ~
1,4617 ha
Alternatives:
Alternative 1 (if any)
Alternative 2 (if any)
Ha/m2

5. SITE ACCESS
Proposal
Does ready access to the site exist, or is access directly from an existing road? YES X NO
If NO, what is the distance over which a new access road will be built m
Describe the type of access road planned:

Access to the development site will be constructed along the northeastern boundary of the site. Access to the
site will be gained from the Unnamed Road (cemetery road) via Jacobs Street (R42).
Include the position of the access road on the site plan (if the access road is to traverse a sensitive feature the impact
thereof must be included in the assessment).

Alternative 1
Does ready access to the site exist, or is access directly from an existing road? YES NO
If NO, what is the distance over which a new access road will be built m
Describe the type of access road planned:

Not applicable

6
Include the position of the access road on the site plan. (if the access road is to traverse a sensitive feature the impact
thereof must be included in the assessment).

Alternative 2
Does ready access to the site exist, or is access directly from an existing road? YES NO
If NO, what is the distance over which a new access road will be built m
Describe the type of access road planned:

Not applicable
Include the position of the access road on the site plan. (if the access road is to traverse a sensitive feature the impact
thereof must be included in the assessment).

PLEASE NOTE: Points 6 to 8 of Section A must be duplicated

where relevant for alternatives
Section A 6-8 has been duplicated 0 Number of times
(only complete when applicable)

6. LAYOUT OR ROUTE PLAN

A detailed site or route (for linear activities) plan(s) must be prepared for each alternative site or alternative activity. It must
be attached to this document. The site or route plans must indicate the following:
 the layout plan is printed in colour and is overlaid with a sensitivity map (if applicable);
 layout plan is of acceptable paper size and scale, e.g.
o A4 size for activities with development footprint of 10sqm to 5 hectares;
o A3 size for activities with development footprint of ˃ 5 hectares to 20 hectares;
o A2 size for activities with development footprint of ˃20 hectares to 50 hectares);
o A1 size for activities with development footprint of ˃50 hectares);

 The following should serve as a guide for scale issues on the layout plan:
o A0 = 1: 500
o A1 = 1: 1000
o A2 = 1: 2000
o A3 = 1: 4000
o A4 = 1: 8000 (±10 000)
 shapefiles of the activity must be included in the electronic submission on the CD’s;
 the property boundaries and Surveyor General numbers of all the properties within 50m of the site;
 the exact position of each element of the activity as well as any other structures on the site;
 the position of services, including electricity supply cables (indicate above or underground), water supply pipelines,
boreholes, sewage pipelines, septic tanks, storm water infrastructure;
 servitudes indicating the purpose of the servitude;
 sensitive environmental elements on and within 100m of the site or sites (including the relevant buffers as prescribed by
the competent authority) including (but not limited thereto):
o Rivers and wetlands;
o the 1:100 and 1:50 year flood line;
o ridges;
o cultural and historical features;
o areas with indigenous vegetation (even if it is degraded or infested with alien species);
 Where a watercourse is located on the site at least one cross section of the water course must be included (to allow the
position of the relevant buffer from the bank to be clearly indicated)

FOR LOCALITY MAP (NOTE THIS IS ALSO INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION FORM REQUIREMENTS)

 the scale of 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 locality map and all other maps must be in colour;
 locality map must show property boundaries and numbers within 100m of the site, and for poultry and/or piggery, locality
map must show properties within 500m and prevailing or predominant wind direction;
 for gentle slopes the 1m contour intervals must be indicated on the map and whenever the slope of the site exceeds
1:10, the 500mm contours must be indicated on the map;
 areas with indigenous vegetation (even if it is degraded or infested with alien species);
 locality map must show exact position of development site or sites;
 locality map showing and identifying (if possible) public and access roads; and
 the current land use as well as the land use zoning of each of the properties adjoining the site or sites.

7. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

7
Colour photographs from the center of the site must be taken in at least the eight major compass directions with a
description of each photograph. Photographs must be attached under the appropriate Appendix. It should be supplemented
with additional photographs of relevant features on the site, where applicable.

8. FACILITY ILLUSTRATION
A detailed illustration of the activity must be provided at a scale of 1:200 for activities that include structures. The illustrations
must be to scale and must represent a realistic image of the planned activity. The illustration must give a representative
view of the activity to be attached in the appropriate Appendix.

8
SECTION B: DESCRIPTION OF RECEIVING
ENVIRONMENT
Note: Complete Section B for the proposal and alternative(s) (if necessary)
Instructions for completion of Section B for linear activities
1) For linear activities (pipelines etc) it may be necessary to complete Section B for each section of the site that has a
significantly different environment.
2) Indicate on a plan(s) the different environments identified
3) Complete Section B for each of the above areas identified
4) Attach to this form in a chronological order
5) Each copy of Section B must clearly indicate the corresponding sections of the route at the top of the next page.

Section B has been duplicated for sections of the route Not applicable times

Instructions for completion of Section B for location/route alternatives

1) For each location/route alternative identified the entire Section B needs to be completed
2) Each alterative location/route needs to be clearly indicated at the top of the next page
3) Attach the above documents in a chronological order

Section B has been duplicated for location/route alternatives times (complete only
0 when appropriate)

Instructions for completion of Section B when both location/route alternatives and linear
activities are applicable for the application

Section B is to be completed and attachments order in the following way

• All significantly different environments identified for Alternative 1 is to be completed and attached in a chronological
order; then
• All significantly different environments identified for Alternative 2 is to be completed and attached chronological order,
etc.

Section B - Section of Route N/A (complete only when appropriate for above)

Section B – Location/route Alternative No. N/A (complete only when appropriate for above)

1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

Property description: (Including

Physical Address and Farm name, Portion 101 (a portion of Portion 82) of the Farm Langlaagte 186-IR
portion etc.)
(corner of Jacobs Street (R42) and unnamed cemetery road)

2. ACTIVITY POSITION
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 decimal degrees. The degrees should have at least six decimals to ensure adequate
accuracy. The projection that must be used in all cases is the WGS84 spheroid in a national or local projection.

Alternative: Latitude (S): Longitude (E):

-26.489836o S 28.374622o E
In the case of linear activities:
Alternative: Latitude (S): Longitude (E):
o o
• Starting point of the activity
o o
• Middle point of the activity
o o
• End point of the activity

For route alternatives that are longer than 500m, please provide co-ordinates taken every 250 meters along the route and
attached in the appropriate Appendix

Addendum of route alternatives attached N/A

9
The 21 digit Surveyor General code of each cadastral land parcel
PROPOSAL T 0 I R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 6 0 0 1 0 1
ALT. 1
ALT. 2
etc.

3. GRADIENT OF THE SITE

Indicate the general gradient of the site.

Flat 1:50 – 1:20 1:20 – 1:15 1:15 – 1:10 1:10 – 1:7,5 1:7,5 – 1:5 Steeper than 1:5

4. LOCATION IN LANDSCAPE

Indicate the landform(s) that best describes the site.

Side slope of Undulating

Ridgeline Plateau Valley Plain River front
hill/ridge plain/low hills

5. GROUNDWATER, SOIL AND GEOLOGICAL STABILITY OF THE SITE

a) Is the site located on any of the following?

Shallow water table (less than 1.5m deep) YES NO X

Dolomite, sinkhole or doline areas YES NO X
Seasonally wet soils (often close to water bodies) YES NO X
Unstable rocky slopes or steep slopes with loose soil YES NO X
Dispersive soils (soils that dissolve in water) YES NO X
Soils with high clay content (clay fraction more than 40%) YES NO X
Any other unstable soil or geological feature YES X NO
An area sensitive to erosion YES NO X

(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).

A geotechnical investigation was carried out for the proposed new filling station development on Portion 101
(a portion of Portion 82) of the Farm Langlaagte 186-IR. The study results indicate that the sandy colluvium
is potentially highly collapsible and slightly compressible.
Although no ground water seepages were encountered, indications of a seasonal perched water table
occurring on top of the very dense ferruginised horizon is evident and the design and construction of buried
tanks should take cognizance of the phenomenon.
The entire site classifies as a Site Class “C2/S/H” according to the guidelines of the NHBRC Standards and
Guidelines of 1999. In view of the prominent horizon of potentially highly collapsible foundation soils, the
specialist provides several foundation solutions that can be implemented on site.
The specialist concludes that Portion 101 (a portion of Portion 82) of Langlaagte 186-IR should be suitable
for the proposed filling station development provided that due cognizance is taken of the geotechnical
factors in the report. A copy of the Geotechnical Report is included in Appendix G.
[Johann van der Merwe (Pty) Ltd Consulting Applied Earth and Environmental Scientists, 2018. Report on a
geotechnical investigation carried out for: Proposed new filling station development on Portion 101 (a
portion of Portion 82) of the Farm Langlaagte 186-IR, Gauteng Province. Report No.M18/3747]

b) are any caves located on the site(s) YES NO X

10
If yes to above provide location details in terms of latitude and longitude and indicate location on site or route map(s)
Latitude (S): Longitude (E):
o o

c) are any caves located within a 300m radius of the site(s) YES NO X
If yes to above provide location details in terms of latitude and longitude and indicate location on site or route map(s)
Latitude (S): Longitude (E):
o o

d) are any sinkholes located within a 300m radius of the site(s) YES NO X
If yes to above provide location details in terms of latitude and longitude and indicate location on site or route map(s)
Latitude (S): Longitude (E):
o o

If any of the answers to the above are “YES” or “unsure”, specialist input may be requested by the Department

6. AGRICULTURE

Does the site have high potential agriculture as contemplated in the Gauteng Agricultural
YES NO X
Potential Atlas (GAPA 4)?

Please note: The Department may request specialist input/studies in respect of the above.

The GAPA 4 database designates the land as having LOW agricultural potential.

7. GROUNDCOVER

To be noted that the location of all identified rare or endangered species or other elements should be accurately indicated on
the site plan(s).

Indicate the types of groundcover present on the site and include the estimated percentage found on site

Natural veld - good Natural veld with Natural veld with Veld dominated by Landscaped
condition scattered aliens heavy alien infestation alien species (vegetation)
%= % = 100 %= %= %=
Paved surface Building or other
Sport field Cultivated land Bare soil
(hard landscaping) structure
%= %= %=
%= %=

Please note: The Department may request specialist input/studies depending on the nature of the groundcover and potential
impact(s) of the proposed activity/ies.

Are there any rare or endangered flora or fauna species (including red list species) present on
the site YES NO X

If YES, specify and explain:

Not applicable

Are there any rare or endangered flora or fauna species (including red list species) present within
a 200m (if within urban area as defined in the Regulations) or within 600m (if outside the urban
YES NO X
area as defined in the Regulations) radius of the site.

If YES, specify and explain:

11
Based on the assessment of Gauteng C-Plan, the location of the site outside C-Plan conservation categories
(CBA and ESA areas) was confirmed. The presence of the following C-Plan conservation categories towards
the north (200m) of the site is however noted:
• Orange List Plant Habitat;
• Red List Plant Habitat;
• Red List Bird Habitat;
• Red List Invertebrate Habitat;
• Primary Vegetation; and
• Ecological Support Areas.
(Excerpt from comments on the status of vegetation on the proposed Heidelberg Filling Station Site, Bathusi
Environmental Consulting).

Are there any special or sensitive habitats or other natural features present on the site? YES NO X
If YES, specify and explain:

Not applicable

The specialist provides the following comments based on a brief site investigation:
• A comprehensive assessment of the vegetation is currently not possible as the veld was recently
burnt and the vegetation was found to be (mostly) still in a dormant status, with the exception of a
few forb species. The evaluation of vegetation was therefore restricted to / based on the presence
of ‘early flowering’ bulbs and other plants, as well as possible identifications from remaining
vegetation on the site. A detailed evaluation of the compositional and structural aspects of the
vegetation will only be possible subsequent to sufficient rain and development of vegetative and
reproductive characteristics of the vegetation.
• The presence of several geophyte species and herb species within the site provides evidence of,
at least, minor elements of natural grassland, albeit a disproportional (low) abundance levels. It
also provides evidence that historic impacts on the site did not include destructive or disruptive
agricultural practices (ploughing), which is known to result in the disappearance of geophyte
species and most herb species.
• The vegetation is likely to comprise a Hyparrhenia hirta-dominate grassland that has been
subjected to long-term and persistent impacts, notably severe grazing pressure and inappropriate
burning regimes, which resulted in the disappearance of most species associated with the regional
ecological types.
• A moderate to poor floristic diversity is anticipated for the site.
• Localised surface impacts, diggings, and the presence of litter and rubble also detracts from the
status of the site.
• Ultimately, the conspicuous absence of most species associated with the Soweto Highveld
Grassland as well as atypical abundance / dominance of certain species led to the conclusion that
the vegetation of the site (taking cognizance of survey limitations) will likely not constitute a pristine
example of the regional ecological type.
Further considerations that should be taken into account include:
• The site is not included in a C-Plan conservation category (CBA, ESA);
• The site is small (<0.5 ha).
It is also anticipated that a botanical impact assessment of the effects of the proposed activity will indicate
moderate to low impacts on the floristic receiving environment, despite the endangered status of the
regional ecological type.

Was a specialist consulted to assist with completing this section YES X NO

If yes complete specialist details

12
Name of the specialist: Johann van der Merwe
Johann van der Merwe (Pty) Ltd Consulting Applied Earth and
Environmental Scientists
Qualification(s) of the specialist: MSc (Eng Geol); Pr.Sci.Nat.; MAEG; MSAIEG; MIAEG
Postal address: P.O. Box 95562, Waterkloof
Postal code: 0145
Telephone: 012 347 8467 Cell: 082 570 2222
E-mail: jovdm@iafrica.com Fax: 086 685 8369
Are any further specialist studies recommended by the specialist? YES NO X
If YES, specify: Not applicable
If YES, is such a report(s) attached? YES NO
If YES list the specialist reports attached below

The Geotechnical Investigation Report is included in Appendix G of this Basic Assessment.

Signature of specialist: Signed on page 5 of the report Date: September 2018

Name of the specialist: Riaan Robbeson

Bathusi Environmental Consulting
Qualification(s) of the specialist: MSc (Botany); Pr.Sci.Nat.
Postal address: P.O. Box 77448, Eldoglen, Centurion
Postal code: 0171
Telephone: 012 658 5579 Cell: 082 376 5933
E-mail: riaan@bathusi.org Fax: 086 636 5455
Are any further specialist studies recommended by the specialist? YES NO X
If YES, specify: Not applicable
If YES, is such a report(s) attached? YES NO
If YES list the specialist reports attached below

The Brief comments on the status of vegetation on the proposed Heidelberg Filling Station site, Gauteng
Province is included in Appendix G of this Basic Assessment.

Signature of specialist: Signed on page 3 of the document Date: 16 September 2019

Please note; If more than one specialist was consulted to assist with the filling in of this section then this table must be
appropriately duplicated

8. LAND USE CHARACTER OF SURROUNDING AREA

Using the associated number of the relevant current land use or prominent feature from the table below, fill in the position of
these land-uses in the vacant blocks below which represent a 500m radius around the site

2. River, stream, 3. Nature conservation 5. Koppie or

1. Vacant land 4. Public open space
wetland area ridge
8. Low density 9. Medium to high 10. Informal
6. Dam or reservoir 7. Agriculture
residential density residential residential
14. Commercial &
11. Old age home 12. Retail 13. Offices 15. Light industrial
warehousing

13
 16. Heavy industrialAN 17. Hospitality facility 18. Church 19. Education facilities 20. Sport facilities
21. Golf course/polo N 23. Train station or N 25. Major road (4
22. Airport 24. Railway line
fields shunting yardN lanes or more)N
26. Sewage treatment 27. Landfill or waste 30. Archeological
28. Historical building 29. Graveyard
plantA treatment siteA site
32. Underground 33.Spoil heap or slimes
31. Open cast mine 34. Small Holdings
mine damA
Other land uses
(describe):

NOTE: Each block represents an area of 250m X 250m, if your proposed development is larger than this please
use the appropriate number and orientation of hashed blocks

NORTH
1 1, 5, 29 1 1 1

1, 25 1, 5 1 1 1

WEST 1, 25 1, 25 8, 25 8, 25
EAST
1, 25 25 25 1, 25 1, 8
1, 12,
12 12 1, 8 1, 8
25

SOUTH

Note: More than one (1) Land-use may be indicated in a block

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. Specialist reports that look at health & air quality and noise impacts
may be required for any feature above and in particular those features marked with an “A“ and with an “N” respectively.

Have specialist reports been attached YES NO X

If yes indicate the type of reports below

Not applicable

9. SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT
Describe the existing social and economic characteristics of the area and the community condition as baseline information to
assess the potential social, economic and community impacts.

The proposed project site is located within the jurisdiction of the Lesedi Local Municipality, which falls within
the Sedibeng District Municipality. Lesedi spans an area of ±1 430km2, which is largely rural, with two
towns situated within it, namely Heidelberg / Ratanda in the western part, and Devon / Impumelelo on its
eastern edge. The area can be described as mostly agricultural, with Heidelberg and Devon being the
primary service centres for the surrounding agricultural areas.
As far as its sub-regional context is concerned, Lesedi is situated approximately 56km southeast of
Johannesburg and is traversed by two national roads, namely the N17 and the N3, which create future
development potential. The city of Heidelberg is located along the N3 Highway between Johannesburg and
Durban. The Heidelberg / Ratanda area is the major urban concentration in a primarily rural area.
According to the 2011 Census, the population of Lesedi was estimated at 99 520. Approximately 74.9% of
the total population of Lesedi resides in the urban areas of Heidelberg / Ratanda and Devon / Impumelelo.
About 85% of the dwellings within the municipality are made up of formal structures and approximately 15%

14
informal structures.
The unemployment rate among the economically active sector of the community is approximately 25.9%.
The GGP of Lesedi Local Municipality is largely dependent on manufacturing (38.8%), community services
(29.4%) and financial services (18.6%), and collectively these three sectors constitute 86.8% of GGP of
Lesedi Local Municipality.
A large integrated medical facility is proposed for the property immediately east of the proposed project site
(IDP). The development is envisaged for the construction of a university hospital that will use alternative
healing therapy based on eastern medicine and methods, such as acupuncture and herbal cures.
The proposed project site falls within the area demarcated as the primary node in the Lesedi Local
Municipality Spatial Development Framework and adjacent to the demarcated R42 corridor. The N3
Highway is identified as a major development corridor and the R42 (Jacobs Street) designated as a
secondary development corridor. The Gauteng Provincial Environmental Management Framework also
designates the site as Zone 1 – Urban Development Zone, which facilitates infill, densification and
concentration of urban development.
A feasibility report was compiled for the development of the proposed filling station. The surrounding trade
area to the south of the proposed filling station and east of the freeway is made up of well-developed
suburbs (Bergsig and Mountain View), and the undeveloped veld to the north (which has been earmarked
for a large integrated medical facility). The trade market is identified as mostly transient traffic between
Heidelberg and Nigel, with residential traffic from the suburbs southeast of the property. The highway acts
as a physical barrier through the trade area. Within the trade area there are no opposition filling stations
east of the freeway, but several occur west of the freeway. Six competitor stations have been identified west
of the freeway, and none to the east. The findings of the feasibility report conclude that although the
opposition stations are expected to lose some fuel sales to the proposed new development, none of them
are expected to become unprofitable.
[Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES], 2019. Feasibility Report – Proposed Filling Station on
Portion 101 (a portion of Portion 82) of the Farm Langlaagte 186, Sedibeng District Municipality. Report
No: 001-18]

10. CULTURAL/HISTORICAL FEATURES

Please be advised that if section 38 of the National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999 is applicable to your proposal or
alternatives, then you are requested to furnish this Department with written comment from the South African Heritage
Resource Agency (SAHRA) – Attach comment in appropriate annexure

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, powerline, 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;
(c) 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.

Are there any signs of culturally (aesthetic, social, spiritual, environmental) or historically significant
elements, as defined in section 2 of the National Heritage Resources Act, 1999, (Act No. 25 of 1999), YES NO X
including archaeological or palaeontological sites, on or close (within 20m) to the site?
If YES, explain:

A memorial stone is located more than 100 metres northwest of the proposed filling station, along the
unnamed road leading to the cemetery. The stone was erected in remembrance of the Heidelberg black
15
and white concentration camps associated with the Anglo Boer / South African War (1899 – 1902). The
camps were located on the Farm Klippoortje, the adjacent farm approximately 1.4 kilometres north of the
proposed project site. The memorial stone was unveiled by the Gauteng MEC Sport, Recreation, Arts and
Culture on the 4th of May 2001.

The Heidelberg Cemetery is located more than 600 metres northwest of the project site.
It is noted here that the proposed development of a filling station on Portion 101 (a portion of
Portion 82) of the Farm Langlaagte 186-IR will have no impact on the identified memorial stone or
the cemetery.

If uncertain, the Department may request that specialist input be provided to establish whether there is such a
feature(s) present on or close to the site.

Briefly explain the findings of the specialist if one was already appointed:

Not applicable

Will any building or structure older than 60 years be affected in any way? YES NO X
Is it necessary to apply for a permit in terms of the National Heritage Resources Act, 1999
YES NO X
(Act 25 of 1999)?
If yes, please attached the comments from SAHRA in the appropriate Appendix

16
SECTION C: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (SECTION 41)
1. The Environmental Assessment Practitioner must conduct public participation process in
accordance with the requirement of the EIA Regulations, 2014.

2. LOCAL AUTHORITY PARTICIPATION

Local authorities are key interested and affected parties in each application and no decision on any application will
be made before the relevant local authority is provided with the opportunity to give input. The planning and the
environmental sections of the local authority must be informed of the application at least thirty (30) calendar days
before the submission of the application to the competent authority.

Was the draft report submitted to the local authority for comment? YES X NO

If yes, has any comments been received from the local authority? YES X NO

If “YES”, briefly describe the comment below (also attach any correspondence to and from the local authority to this
application):

The Lesedi Local Municipality and the Sedibeng District Municipality were identified as a key stakeholders for
this project. Notification letters for the undertaking of the Basic Assessment process for the proposed
development of a filling station were sent to both the Local and District Municipality.
The Draft Basic Assessment Report was circulated for a period of 30 days (14 August 2019 to 13 September
2019) for review and comment. No comments on the draft BAR have been received from the Lesedi Local
Municipality to date. Comments were received from the Sedibeng District Municipality.
The Sedibeng Municipality commented that it had no objection to the proposed development, and that the
project is supported provided that the recommendations provided were adhered to. The following
recommendations were provided:
1. The soil erosion to be managed and re-vegetation where necessary.
2. Dust to be controlled and run-off to avoid stormwater contamination.
3. Waste management to be handled as per the outlined Norms and Standards in particular construction
demolition waste.
4. Environmental management plan to be implemented as outlined.

If “NO” briefly explain why no comments have been received or why the report was not submitted if that is the case.

Not applicable

3. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER STAKEHOLDERS

Any stakeholder that has a direct interest in the activity, site or property, such as servitude holders and service providers,
should be informed of the application at least thirty (30) calendar days before the submission of the application and be
provided with the opportunity to comment.

Has any comment been received from stakeholders? YES X NO

If “YES”, briefly describe the feedback below (also attach copies of any correspondence to and from the stakeholders to this
application):

17
Notification letters informing key I&APs of the BA process for the proposed development of a filling station
were delivered via e-mail or by hand to the following identified key stakeholders on 23 January 2019:
• Department of Water and Sanitation
• Local Ward Councillor (Ward 10)
• Adjacent properties
A site notice was placed at the project site and the proposed activity was advertised in the Heidelberg Nigel
Heraut newspaper on 23 January 2019 to notify any additional interested and/or affected parties. The Draft
Basic Assessment Report was circulated for a 30-day period (14 August 2019 to 13 September 2019) for
review and comment. After comments were received from GDARD, the Draft BAR was also circulated to
SANRAL, Gautrans and a query was submitted to SAHRA regarding the necessity for a heritage impact
assessment. Comments on the Draft BAR were received from the Department of Water and Sanitation.
The Department of Water and Sanitation did not have any objection to the proposed development of a filling
station on Portion 101 (a portion of Portion 82) of the Farm Langlaagte 186-IR, provided the stipulated
conditions are complied with. Various conditions were provided for the various phases of the project
(construction, operational, closure and decommissioning). All the conditions have been included in the
Comments and Responses Report provided in Appendix E.

If “NO” briefly explain why no comments have been received

Not applicable

4. GENERAL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS

The Environmental Assessment Practitioner must ensure that the public participation process is adequate and must
determine whether a public meeting or any other additional measure is appropriate or not based on the particular nature of
each case. Special attention should be given to the involvement of local community structures such as Ward Committees
and ratepayers associations. Please note that public concerns that emerge at a later stage that should have been addressed
may cause the competent authority to withdraw any authorisation it may have issued if it becomes apparent that the public
participation process was flawed.

The EAP must record all comments and respond to each comment of the public / interested and affected party before the
application report is submitted. The comments and responses must be captured in a Comments and Responses Report as
prescribed in the regulations and be attached to this application.

5. APPENDICES FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

All public participation information is to be attached in the appropriate Appendix. The information in this Appendix is to be
ordered as detailed below
Appendix 1 – Proof of site notice
Appendix 2 – Written notices issued as required in terms of the regulations
Appendix 3 – Proof of newspaper advertisements
Appendix 4 –Communications to and from interested and affected parties
Appendix 5 – Minutes of any public and/or stakeholder meetings
Appendix 6 - Comments and Responses Report
Appendix 7 –Comments from I&APs on Basic Assessment (BA) Report
Appendix 8 –Comments from I&APs on amendments to the BA Report
Appendix 9 – Copy of the register of I&Aps

18
SECTION D: RESOURCE USE AND PROCESS
DETAILS
Note: Section D is to be completed for the proposal and alternative(s) (if necessary)

Instructions for completion of Section D for alternatives

1) For each alternative under investigation, where such alternatives will have different resource and process details
(e.g. technology alternative), the entire Section D needs to be completed
4) Each alterative needs to be clearly indicated in the box below
5) Attach the above documents in a chronological order

0
Section D has been duplicated for alternatives times (complete only
when appropriate)

Section D Alternative No. Not applicable (complete only when appropriate for above)

1. WASTE, EFFLUENT, AND EMISSION MANAGEMENT

Solid waste management

Will the activity produce solid construction waste during the construction/initiation phase? YES X NO
If yes, what estimated quantity will be produced per month? Unknown m3
How will the construction solid waste be disposed of (describe)?

Solid waste generated during construction will be stored temporarily on site in waste skips and
collected, removed and disposed of by a contracted service provider to the nearest registered landfill
site permitted to receive construction waste. Building rubble and general waste shall be stored
separately.

Where will the construction solid waste be disposed of (describe)?

The municipality does not operate a licensed landfill in the Heidelberg area. All waste must be hauled to
the Platkop landfill site in Ekurhuleni. The Contractor will be accountable for the cost thereof and will be
required to keep records of proof of disposal at a registered landfill.

Will the activity produce solid waste during its operational phase? YES X NO
If yes, what estimated quantity will be produced per month? Maximum 6m3
per month

How will the solid waste be disposed of (describe)?

During the operational phase, all general waste generated on the site must be disposed of through
authorised waste disposal streams, i.e. rubbish bins collected by the local council or nominated service
provider. The site operator will be responsible for waste management at the site.
Limited quantities of hazardous waste will also be generated, including empty oil cans, hydrocarbon-
contaminated rags, saturated absorbents from spill clean-up, etc. Hazardous waste is to be stored
separately from general waste in designated containers and removed from site by a specialist sub-
contractor for recycling or for disposal at the appropriate hazardous waste site. Proof of appropriate
disposal / recycling should be kept on file.

Has the municipality or relevant service provider confirmed that sufficient air space exists for
YES NO X
treating/disposing of the solid waste to be generated by this activity?
Where will the solid waste be disposed if it does not feed into a municipal waste stream (describe)?

If the general waste is not collected with the municipal waste stream, the site operator shall arrange for
the general waste to be collected, removed and appropriately disposed of by an independent service
provider.

19
Note: If the solid waste (construction or operational phases) will not be disposed of in a registered landfill site or be
taken up in a municipal waste stream, the applicant should consult with the competent authority to determine whether
it is necessary to change to an application for scoping and EIA.

Can any part of the solid waste be classified as hazardous in terms of the relevant legislation? YES X NO
If yes, inform the competent authority and request a change to an application for scoping and EIA.

Limited quantities of hazardous waste will be generated on site. This will include empty oil cans,
hydrocarbon-contaminated rags, absorbent materials used to clean up any accidental spills, etc.
Hazardous waste is to be stored separately from general waste in designated containers and removed
from site by a registered service provider as needed.

Is the activity that is being applied for a solid waste handling or treatment facility? YES NO X
If yes, the applicant should consult with the competent authority to determine whether it is necessary to change to an
application for scoping and EIA.

Describe the measures, if any, that will be taken to ensure the optimal reuse or recycling of materials:

Management measures stipulating the separation and recycling of solid waste materials both during the
construction and operational phases will be incorporated into the EMPr.

Liquid effluent (other than domestic sewage)

Will the activity produce effluent, other than normal sewage, that will be disposed of in a municipal
YES NO X
sewage system?
If yes, what estimated quantity will be produced per month? Not applicable
m3
If yes, has the municipality confirmed that sufficient capacity exist for treating / disposing of the
YES NO
liquid effluent to be generated by this activity(ies)?

Will the activity produce any effluent that will be treated and/or disposed of on site? YES NO X
If yes, what estimated quantity will be produced per month? N/A

If yes describe the nature of the effluent and how it will be disposed.

Not applicable
Note that if effluent is to be treated or disposed on site the applicant should consult with the competent authority to
determine whether it is necessary to change to an application for scoping and EIA

Will the activity produce effluent that will be treated and/or disposed of at another facility? YES NO X
If yes, provide the particulars of the facility:
Facility name: N/A
Contact person: N/A
Postal address: N/A
Postal code: N/A
Telephone: N/A Cell:
E-mail: N/A Fax:

Describe the measures that will be taken to ensure the optimal reuse or recycling of waste water, if any:

A Stormwater Management Plan for the proposed filling station development in Heidelberg has been
compiled by a suitably qualified professional. The Stormwater Management Plan (attached in Appendix F)
will be submitted to the local council for approval prior to commencement of the proposed filling station.
Clean stormwater will be diverted around the facility, whilst stormwater falling on the site in areas where
there is potential for contamination (e.g. forecourt, filler area, etc.) must be directed to a separator.
The stormwater runoff from the proposed development area will be drained to the south of the proposed
development with underground pipe systems, which will drain into an attenuation pond. The attenuation
pond will be designed to accommodate the post-development flows for the 1:5 and 1:25 year storm events
and discharge the pre-development flows into the north side of the N3 Highway and west side of Jacob
Street.
Water saving technologies such as dual flush toilet systems can be specified during the detailed design
phase of the project. Landscaping of the site will consist of indigenous vegetation specific to the floristic

20
region of the area, which should require less water than exotic species.

Liquid effluent (domestic sewage)

Will the activity produce domestic effluent that will be disposed of in a municipal sewage system? YES X NO
If yes, what estimated quantity will be produced per month? Peak flow is
estimated at
1.518m3 per
day
If yes, has the municipality confirmed that sufficient capacity exist for treating / disposing of the
YES NO X
domestic effluent to be generated by this activity(ies)?

There is an existing municipal sewer reticulation line located on the north side of Tulpe Street. A connection
can be made at a position approved by the local council. Please refer to the Services report prepared for
the proposed filling station (included in Appendix F).

Will the activity produce any effluent that will be treated and/or disposed of on site? YES NO X
If yes describe how it will be treated and disposed off.

Not applicable

Emissions into the atmosphere

Will the activity release emissions into the atmosphere? YES X NO
If yes, is it controlled by any legislation of any sphere of government? YES NO X
If yes, the applicant should consult with the competent authority to determine whether it is
necessary to change to an application for scoping and EIA.
If no, describe the emissions in terms of type and concentration:
A relatively small quantity of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) may be released into the atmosphere
when fuel is dispensed to motor vehicles. This impact will be localized and is expected to have an
impact of very low significance on air quality. A vapour recovery system is usually installed in new filling
stations for when fuel is unloaded to the underground storage tanks, which will prevent VOCs from
being released into the atmosphere during operations. This option will be investigated by the developer.

2. WATER USE

Indicate the source(s) of water that will be used for the activity
Directly from river, stream, dam or
municipal groundwater other the activity will not use water
water board lake

If water is to be extracted from groundwater, river, stream, dam, lake or any other natural feature, please indicate
the volume that will be extracted per month: N/A liters

If Yes, please attach proof of assurance of water supply, e.g. yield of borehole, in the appropriate Appendix
Does the activity require a water use permit from the Department of Water Affairs? YES NO
If yes, list the permits required

Not applicable

If yes, have you applied for the water use permit(s)? YES NO
If yes, have you received approval(s)? (attached in appropriate appendix) YES NO

Currently no bulk water services are available on the proposed development site. It is recommended that
water to service the proposed filling station will be drawn from the existing 110mm diameter pipe in Jacobs
Street (R42) and a water meter will be installed at an approved position by the local council. The new water
line will be ±100m in length. Please refer to the Services Report provided in Appendix F.

21
3. POWER SUPPLY

Please indicate the source of power supply eg. Municipality / Eskom / Renewable energy source

Municipality

If power supply is not available, where will power be sourced from?

Not applicable. Back-up generators may be provided on site during the construction and/or operational
phases of the development.

4. ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Describe the design measures, if any, that have been taken to ensure that the activity is energy efficient:

Energy efficient design measures will be considered during the detailed design phase of the project.

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 considered at this stage.

22
SECTION E: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The assessment of impacts must adhere to the minimum requirements in the EIA Regulations, 2014, and should take
applicable official guidelines into account. The issues raised by interested and affected parties should also be addressed in
the assessment of impacts as well as the impacts of not implementing the activity (Section 24(4)(b)(i).

1. ISSUES RAISED BY INTERESTED AND AFFECTED PARTIES

Summarise the issues raised by interested and affected parties.

Comments on the Draft Basic Assessment Report were received from the Gauteng Department of Agriculture
and Rural Development. The following summarises the issues raised:
i. The site falls inside sensitive environmental areas as identified through the Gauteng Conservation
Plan (orange listed plant habitat, primary vegetation and threatened ecosystem).
ii. A site inspection confirmed the existence of indigenous vegetation – a vegetation assessment is
required.
iii. An existing memorial stone within 100m of the proposed site and a graveyard 300m away from the
site have been identified. A Heritage Impact Assessment and comments from SAHRA are required.
iv. The proposed site is more than 1 hectare, therefore Activity 27 of Listing Notice 1 and Activity 12 of
Listing Notice 3 must be included in the application.
v. The EMPr must emphasise enforcement.
vi. The Gauteng Department of Roads and transport, South African National Roads Agency and Lesedi
Local Municipality roads and stormwater division must be consulted and provide comment on the
proposed filling station.
vii. The local authority must be consulted for the approval of the stormwater management plan.
The full comments have been documented in the Comments and Responses Report (Appendix E-6) and a
copy of the correspondence is included in Appendix E-7.
Comments have been received from both the Sedibeng District Municipality and the Department of Water and
Sanitation. Both support the project provided that the stipulated conditions and mitigation measures will be
implemented.

Summary of response from the practitioner to the issues raised by the interested and affected parties (including the manner
in which the public comments are incorporated or why they were not included)
(A full response must be provided in the Comments and Response Report that must be attached to this report):

A summary of the responses to the comments from GDARD highlighted above is provided herewith:
i. The sensitivity map included in Appendix A shows that the site does not fall within any Critical
Biodiversity Areas or Ecological Support Areas as identified by the Gauteng Conservation Plan and
therefore the statement above is disputed.
ii. The site is also located in Zone 1 – Urban Development Zone in terms of the Gauteng Environmental
Management Framework, 2015. The proposed development is less than 1 hectare in extent
(~4 500m2) and therefore a vegetation assessment is not required for this project.
iii. It is believed that section 38 of the NHRA is not applicable to the proposed development as the
development footprint is less than 5 000m2. There are also no heritage features on or close (within
20m) to the site. The requirement to undertake a specialist heritage impact assessment is not justified
according to GDARD’s documentation and as section 38 of the NHRA is not applicable to the project,
it is not considered necessary to conduct a heritage impact assessment or to obtain comments from
SAHRA. As a precautionary measure, a procedure for chance finds has been included in the EMPr.
iv. The proposed development footprint is only 4 500m2 in extent. Activity 27 of Listing Notice 1 is thus
not triggered for this project. The site does not fall within a designated CBA or ESA as identified in the
GDARD C-Plan. The project site does however fall within a designated threatened ecosystem and,
therefore, Activity 12 of Listing Notice 3 has been included in the application.

23
 v. The EMPr will be checked to ensure that mitigation and management measures emphasise
enforcement and the requirement to comply.
vi. The only access to the site will be from the unnamed road located northeast of the site. The National
Road (N3) will not be impacted by the proposed development and the development will not abut the
national road. The proposed accesses from the unnamed road and upgrades to Jacobs Street
(R42/K179) must be approved by the local authority. This approval is sought as part of the town
planning process which is a parallel, but separate process to this environmental authorisation
process.
vii. The stormwater management plan must be approved by the local authority prior to commencement of
the activity. This is undertaken as part of the site development plan approval process. This
requirement has been included in the Pre-Planning Phase requirements of the EMPr.
The mitigation measures and conditions provided by the Sedibeng District Municipality and the Department of
Water and Sanitation have, where relevant, been included in the Environmental Management Programme
attached as Appendix H to this report.
The full responses have been documented in the Comments and Responses Report (Appendix E-6).
Correspondence in this regard is included in Appendix E-7.

2. IMPACTS THAT MAY RESULT FROM THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL PHASE

Briefly describe the methodology utilised in the rating of significance of impacts

Assessment of impacts is based on a synthesis between the Department of Environmental Affairs’ (DEAT)
Integrated Environmental Management Information (IEM) Series Guideline Documents, and the ISO14001
principle of activities, aspects and impacts.
• Activities are the physical activities that are carried out during design, construction, operations and
decommissioning of the proposed development;
• Environmental aspects are elements of the activities that interact with the environment and include
biophysical and socio-economic aspects;
• Impacts are defined as changes in the biophysical or socio-economic environment as a result of
activities altering existing environmental aspects.
Each impact identified within the assessment phase of the study is given a significance rating, assuming that
no management or mitigation measures are implemented. The significance rating is obtained by implementing
the following equation:
Significance = (Consequence of impact) x (Probability of impact)
The consequence of an impact is the sum of extent, duration, severity and degree of irreplaceable loss
(sensitivity) of the resource. The significance of an impact can be positive or negative, and is indicative of the
level of management and/or mitigation which needs to be implemented to either reduce the impact significance
of adverse impacts to acceptable levels, or to enhance the significance of positive impacts.
If an impact is rated as “unacceptable impact” it may deem the development impracticable if the impact cannot
be mitigated to acceptable levels. Once the initial significance of a potential impact has been determined,
mitigation measures are proposed for those impacts that are significant. The impacts are then rated again,
assuming that mitigation is implemented successfully.
There is some level of risk that the mitigation proposed will not be implemented by a developer / applicant /
contractor, (due to lack of funds, communication gaps, ignorance etc.). A risk factor has therefore been
included in the impact assessment, which evaluates the risk of mitigation not being implemented, based on the
complexity and expense of implementing the mitigation measures, and whether or not the mitigation measure
is common practice. It is important to note that the mitigation measures included in this impact assessment
have been incorporated into the EMPr, which will become legally binding on the applicant upon approval.
The holder of the authorization shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with the conditions of the EMPr
and environmental authorization by any person acting on his or her behalf, including but not limited to an
agent, subcontractor, employee or person rendering a service to the holder of the authorization.
The significance of the impacts will be determined through a synthesis of the criteria below:

Description Score

24
 Extent: Describes the physical footprint of the impact
Activity footprint or site only. 1
Impacts on neighbouring properties (within 100 meters of the site). 2
Impacts on the entire neighbourhood or town. 3
City-wide impact. 4
Impacts beyond the administrative boundary 5
Duration: describes the lifetime of the impact
Immediate short-term (less than 3 months) 1
Construction or decommissioning period (less than 1 year). 2
More than 1 but less than 5 years. 3
For the life of the operation 4
Permanent – the impact cannot be considered transient. 5
Intensity of impact on resource (Magnitude)
Natural processes are not affected 1
Environmental aspect is altered, but functions and processes continue in a modified way. 2
Function and/or processes of the affected environment is disturbed to an extent where it
temporarily ceases 3
Function and/or processes of the affected environment is disturbed to an extent where it
permanently ceases, but with no severe consequence. 4
Function and/or processes of the affected environmental aspect is disturbed to an extent where
consequences are disastrous. 5
Sensitivity of the environmental aspect
Not sensitive - widespread, intact, not of concern to I&APs 1
Somewhat sensitive: not totally unique, of value to some I&APs but not the majority, 2
Moderately sensitive: Contains unique features, under threat and/or of value to some stakeholders 3
Moderate to highly sensitive: pristine, rare, under threat and valuable to the community 4
Highly sensitive: protected by legislation, pristine, unique, valued by community 5
Probability: describes the likelihood that the impact would occur
Improbable 1
Possible but unlikely 2
Probable 3
Highly probable 4
Definite 5

Once the impact has been assessed using the above significance categories, a rating is calculated. The rating
indicates the significance of the impact as illustrated by the table below.
Impact Ratings and Significance

Score Significance
>80 Fatal flaw (unacceptable impact)
60 to 79 High significance
Negative Impact 40 to 59 Moderate significance
20 to 39 Low significance
19 to 0 Insignificant
0 to 29 Low significance
Positive Impact 30 to 59 Moderate significance
>60 High significance
Risk Assessment
There is some level of risk that the mitigation proposed will not be implemented by a developer / applicant /
contractor, (due to lack of funds, communication gaps, ignorance, etc.). A risk factor has therefore been
included in the impact assessment, which evaluates the risk of mitigation not being implemented, based on the
complexity and expense of implementing the mitigation measures, and whether or not the mitigation measure
is common practice. It is important to note that the mitigation measures included in this impact assessment
have been incorporated into the EMPr, which will become legally binding on the applicant upon approval.
The holder of the authorization shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with the conditions of the EMPr
and environmental authorization by any person acting on his or her behalf, including but not limited to an
agent, subcontractor, employee or person rendering a service to the holder of the authorization.
The following classification of risk is used:
25
 Low The mitigation proposed is standard practice in the industry.
The mitigation proposed is not standard practice or is often
Medium ignored by Contractors, but is not difficult or complicated to
implement.
The mitigation proposed is expensive, not standard practice
High
and/or complicated.

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 construction phase for the various
alternatives of the proposed development. This must include an assessment of the significance of all impacts.

26
Proposal: Proposed development of a filling station on Portion 101 (a portion of Portion 82) of the Farm Langlaagte 186-IR, Heidelberg, Lesedi Local
Municipality.

CONSTRUCTION PHASE
The proposed construction site is currently vacant. The construction phase will include activities such as site clearing, earthworks and foundations, and the installation of 2 x 46m3 and
1 x 23m3 underground storage tanks and the associated pump and tank infrastructure. A convenience store will be constructed as part of the facility and a stormwater management
system, including an oil and water separator will be installed. Associated issues and potential impacts resulting from the proposed construction phase are described and assessed
below, along with the proposed management and mitigation measures. The management and mitigation measures are also included in the Environmental Management Programme
(Appendix H).
Risk of the
Significance Significance impact and
Environmenta
Potential impacts: rating (positive Proposed mitigation: rating after mitigation not
l Aspects
or negative): mitigation: being
implemented
Loss of The proposed project site comprises natural Moderate (52) All construction activities should be confined to Low (33) Medium.
habitat and grassland habitat. The study site is situated within Negative the demarcated project site. No vehicles, Negative The mitigation
biodiversity the Mesic Highveld Grassland Bioregion. The veld material storage, lay-down areas, etc. should proposed is
type in which the site is found is known as be allowed outside the designated development standard practice
Blesbokspruit Highveld Grassland. footprint. but is often
The project site was considered in terms of the It is recommended that only indigenous ignored by
GDARD C-Plan, which confirmed that the project site vegetation be used for any landscaping contractors. It is
does not fall within any designated Critical purposes on the site. not difficult or
Biodiversity Areas or Ecological Support Areas. Exotic and invader species which are likely to complicated to
Impacts resulting from construction activities will become established on bare soils during the implement.
include loss of existing vegetation and habitat within construction phase should be managed and
the development footprint as a result of vegetation removed to prevent them from becoming
clearance for construction of facilities and internal established and spreading to adjacent
roads. Moreover, impacts could include exacerbated properties.
encroachment of invasive, exotic and encroacher The provision of additional indigenous trees
vegetation species. and shrubs in the landscaping will provide
habitat for birds, insects and small terrestrial
animals.
Impact on The study area falls within the Upper Vaal Water Moderate (48) During the construction phase of the Low (30) Medium.
surface water Management Area (Quaternary Catchment C21F). Negative development, temporary silt fences can be Negative The mitigation

27
(runoff) There are no surface water bodies on or adjacent to
the proposed project site. Existing concrete
stormwater channels are located southeast and
southwest of the project site (along Jacobs Street
and the N3 Highway respectively). Currently the
stormwater from the proposed development drains
into these concrete stormwater channels by means
of overland flow.
Construction activities could potentially result in
surface water quality deterioration if potentially
polluting substances used during the construction
process (e.g. oil, diesel, cement, etc.) are not
properly managed.
These substances could result in pollution of water
resources through spillages, leakage, accidents or
incorrect disposal of used containers or waste.
In addition, sediment carried in surface water runoff
is also considered as resulting in the deterioration of
water quality by increasing the sediment load.
Pollution of stormwater may also occur as a result of
unmanaged litter or waste generated on site during
the construction period.
erected to prevent silt from the construction proposed is
process contaminating the pre-development standard practice
stormwater runoff routes and pre-existing but is often
stormwater systems. The silt fence is installed ignored by
on site before soil disturbance begins, and is contractors. It is
placed down-slope from the disturbance area. not difficult or
A stormwater management plan has been complicated to
developed for the proposed project site. The implement.
stormwater runoff from the proposed
development area will be drained towards the
south of the site with underground pipe
systems, which will drain into an attenuation
pond. The attenuation pond will be designed to
accommodate the post-development flows for
the 1:5 and 1:25 year storm events and
discharge the pre-development flows into the
north side of the N3 Highway and west side of
Jacob Street (R42).
The stormwater management plan is included
in Appendix F.
The use of potentially polluting substances on
site should be strictly controlled and only
handled in designated areas under the
supervision of competent and trained
personnel. Diesel and oil should be stored in a
way that will allow any spillages to be contained
(e.g. impermeable bund areas), and spills
should be cleaned up with approved absorbent
materials. These should be kept in sufficient
quantities on site to deal with small spills.
Absorbent material and contaminated soil
should be disposed of at a registered
hazardous waste site.
During construction, maintenance of vehicles
and machinery must be undertaken off-site at a
recognized workshop. In the event of fuel or oil
spillage, appropriate steps must be taken to
remove all hydrocarbon product. All fueling of
vehicles must be undertaken on an
impermeable surface or over drip trays.
28

Impact on The site is underlain by transported sandy and
groundwater gravelly soils which are underlain by ferruginised
colluvial soils developed over quartzite bedrock
belonging to the Turffontein Subgroup, Central Rand
Group, Witwatersrand Supergroup.
The water table, whether perched or permanent, was
not encountered during the geotechnical
investigation which was carried out towards the end
of the wet season.
Potential impact on groundwater may occur during
construction activities if substances, such as
hydrocarbons associated with the usage of
machinery and equipment are allowed to leak onto
soil and potentially leach into the ground.
Geotechnical A Geotechnical Investigation of the study site was
stability conducted. The site is underlain by transported
sandy and gravelly soils which are underlain by
In addition, measures should be taken to
ensure no sediment leaves the site. Such
measures could include silt nets along low-lying
areas to capture any sediment caught in
stormwater runoff. Points of ingress and egress
onto public roads must be cleared of any dust
or mud. Stormwater kerb inlets down-gradient
from the construction site should be protected.
Should cement be used on site, the following
guidelines apply: Carefully control all on-site
operations that involve the use of cement and
concrete mixing to single sites where possible;
use plastic trays or liners when mixing cement
and concrete – do not mix cement and concrete
directly on the ground; dispose of all visible
remains of excess cement and concrete after
the completion of tasks; dispose of in the
approved manner (solid waste concrete may be
treated as inert construction rubble, but wet
cement and slurry, as well as cement powder
must be treated as hazardous waste).
Low (36) All development activities must remain within Low (22) Low.
Negative the demarcated construction area. Mitigation Negative The mitigation
and management measures include the safe proposed is
handling of all hydrocarbon products as standard practice
stipulated in the EMPr. Any hazardous in the industry.
materials must be appropriately stored in a
bunded containment area. In addition, no
cement mixing is to occur directly on the
ground, and any cement or hydrocarbon spills
should be cleared away immediately.
Spills should be cleaned up with approved
absorbent materials. These should be kept in
sufficient quantities on site to deal with small
spills. Absorbent material and contaminated soil
should be disposed of at a registered
hazardous waste site.
Low (21) Foundation designs and installation must take Negligible (10) Low.
Negative cognizance of the foundation solutions provided Negative The mitigation
in Section 7 of the Geotechnical Investigation proposed is
29
 ferruginised colluvial soils developed over quartzite
bedrock belonging to the Turffontein Subgroup,
Central Rand Group, Witwatersrand Supergroup. No
rock outcrops were encountered during the
investigation.
The water table, whether perched or permanent, was
not encountered during the geotechnical
investigation which was carried out towards the end
of the wet season.
The entire site classifies as a Site Class “C2/S/H”
according to the guidelines of the NHBRC Standards
and Guidelines of 1999. The prominent horizon is of
potential highly collapsible foundation soils.
The engineering geologist concludes that Portion
101 (portion of Portion 82) of the Farm Langlaagte
186-IR should be suitable for the proposed filling
station development, provided that due cognizance
is taken of the geotechnical factors identified in
Section 7 of the Geotechnical Investigation Report
(Attached in Appendix G).
Soil pollution Soil erosion, loss of topsoil and deterioration of soil
and erosion quality are the main potential impacts that could be
caused during the construction of the proposed filling
station. Clearing of vegetation and increases in the
quantity, velocity and concentration of surface runoff
across the study site may result in erosion of
exposed soil surfaces, especially along preferential
flow pathways.
In addition to causing damage on site, eroded
sediments can be transported to waterways where
they settle in dams and other attenuation facilities,
reducing capacity over time and causing
deterioration in water quality by increasing the
sediment load.
Soil pollution may occur where hydrocarbons or
other chemicals are not adequately managed during
storage and handling and are allowed to spill into the
soil. In addition, the mixing of cement or concrete
directly on the ground will also result in soil
contamination.
Report. standard practice
The NHBRC soil classes on the site are in the industry.
tentative and should be verified during
construction by a competent person. A
competent person must inspect all foundation
excavations.
The potentially collapsible nature of the
blanketing site soils should be taken into
consideration in the design and construction of
surface beds, roads and paved areas.
The placement of the engineered fills must be
controlled with suitable field tests to ensure that
the required densities are achieved during
compaction, and that the quality of fill material
is within specification.
Low to To minimize the risk of erosion, the extent of Low (21) Medium.
Moderate (36) disturbed vegetation and soil should be kept to Negative The mitigation
Negative a minimum. It is recommended that prior to the proposed is
commencement of construction activities, the standard practice
entire construction servitude, including lay but is often
down areas and stockpile areas, etc. be fenced ignored by
off and clearly demarcated. All construction contractors, but is
activities should be contained within this not difficult or
demarcated servitude. Silt nets should be complicated to
installed along the low-lying areas to capture implement.
any sediment caught in stormwater runoff.
Points of ingress and egress onto public roads
must be cleared of any dust or mud.
Stormwater kerb inlets down-gradient from the
construction site should be protected.
Reduce flow velocities and promote diffuse flow
at all stormwater outlet points. Make use of
energy dissipating structures between
outlets/culverts and the receiving environment
where applicable.
30

Air quality Dust will be generated during normal construction
activities and has the potential to create nuisance.
The effect on air quality is expected to be localized
and minor, as well as of short duration as the
construction phase is temporary.
The contribution of emissions caused by exhaust
fumes from the associated construction equipment
and vehicles will be negligible.
Noise The construction phase will result in a temporary
disturbance increase in noise levels due to moving machinery
and other construction activities.
Storage of potential pollutants such as fuel, oil,
cement, etc. should be confined to a sealed
surface with a bund wall to prevent soil
contamination from accidental leaks or spills.
The EMPr includes recommendations for
handling of hydrocarbons on site, as well as
mitigation measures in the event of accidental
leakage or spillage. Cleaning of cement on
equipment or tools must be done using
appropriate cleaning trays.
Following the completion of construction
activities, any remaining disturbed areas should
be ripped, scarified, landscaped to the original
landscape profile and revegetated with suitable
indigenous grass species that will aid in soil
stabilization.
Low to Stockpiles of construction material and spoils Low (21) Low.
Moderate (36) should be positioned such that they are not Negative The mitigation
Negative exposed to wind erosion or drainage lines. proposed is
Construction vehicles transporting materials standard practice
that can be blown off must be covered with in the industry.
tarpaulin.
Points of ingress and egress onto public roads
must be cleared of any dust or mud. Emissions
caused by exhaust fumes can be minimized by
ensuring regular maintenance of construction
vehicles and equipment, and ensuring that they
are in good working order.
The application of best management practices
for dust suppression during the construction
phase will also aid in reducing air pollution.
Dust control can be achieved by means of the
periodic dampening on open sandy surfaces
and temporary dirt roads.
Low (27) Construction activities will take place during the Negligible (14) Low.
Negative day time. No construction activities must occur Negative The mitigation
on Sundays or public holidays. The developer proposed is
should ensure that all machinery / equipment standard practice
31
 The proposed project site is located across Jacobs used are regularly maintained to reduce in the industry.
Street (4-lane major road) from an existing potential noise disturbance. Where applicable,
residential area. The residential suburb is considered muffling devices should be fitted to vehicles
a sensitive receptor and it is expected that the noise and machinery to prevent excessive noise
generated during the construction phase may be generation.
considered as a nuisance by the residents. All construction activities must comply with the
Construction related noise will however not be relevant by-laws and the OH&S Act.
excessive and will be of temporary duration. Construction camps and laydown areas must
be carefully positioned so as to least impact on
surrounding areas.
Traffic impact The construction activities will require the movement Low (24) Construction vehicle movement should be Negligible (16) Low.
of construction vehicles and machinery on local road Negative restricted so as not to coincide with peak traffic Negative The mitigation
networks to access the development site. The periods, thereby reducing the potential impact proposed is
movement of construction vehicles may impact on on other road users. standard practice
local traffic movements. This will, however, be only in the industry.
of a temporary nature during the construction phase. Appropriate signage should be erected
informing motorists of any potential diversions,
Moreover, mud and sand in the roads, as well as if required. If necessary, an employee should
potholes, are a safety hazard to other road users and be used to divert traffic away (red flag).
must be taken into consideration to ensure that
construction activities do not place motorists at risk. Ensure that mud and sediment is regularly
swept from the access and surrounding roads
are kept clear of soil, mud and potholes.
Visual impact The proposed filling station will be constructed on a Low (24) The entire construction site should be fenced Negligible (12) Low.
corner site, fully visible from all sides. The property is Negative and screened from the surrounding areas. Negative
adjacent to the N3 Highway and Jacobs Street Temporary ablution facilities must be screened The mitigation
(R42). Visibility is desirable for a filling station, as it and not visible to surrounding public. proposed is
encourages consumers to use the facility. During Good housekeeping must be implemented on standard practice
construction, however, construction activities present site and the property must be kept tidy and in the industry.
an undesirable visual impact on the surrounding land clean (no litter).
uses.
This impact would be limited in duration. The
following temporary construction activities are
generally considered in terms of visual impact:
• Presence of storage and stockpile areas;
• Construction camps; and
• Movement of construction machinery and
vehicles on local roads.
It is not expected that the construction activities will

32
 impact on the aesthetic nature of the surrounding
properties.
Safety The use of construction equipment, including the Moderate (40) To limit the risk of accidents, safety procedures Low (27) Low.
movement of construction workers and machinery, Negative must be put in place and enforced by the site Negative
increases the risk to safety of the people working on manager to ensure that vehicles and machinery The mitigation
the construction site. The potential for accidents are only operated by trained and authorized proposed is
among operators exists if machinery is not handled employees. standard practice
properly. The lack of enforcement of health and in the industry.
safety regulations could impact negatively on The site and workers are to be managed in
construction workers. strict accordance with the OH&S Act and the
National Building Regulations. Ensure that the
There will be minimal potential impact to the safety of correct PPE is issued to, and used by,
the public as a result of the proposed construction employees.
activity. It will be the duty of the site manager to
compile and enforce a health and safety plan that The site should be completely fenced off prior
should encompass the effective management of the to the commencement of construction activities
construction site. and the areas of no access should be
demarcated. Warning signs identifying the
location as a construction site and prohibiting
unauthorized access should be placed on the
perimeter fence. Access to the site should be
limited to the workforce only. Open excavations
must be clearly marked and barricaded.
In addition, the workforce must be restricted to
the confines of the construction site during
working hours and be prohibited from entering
private property surrounding the construction
site.
Cultural or A memorial stone is located approximately 120 Low (24) There are no known cultural or historical Negligible (12) Medium.
historical metres northwest of the proposed project site, along Negative features on the site. However, the provisions of Negative The mitigation
sites the unnamed road leading to the cemetery. The the National Heritage Resources Act will apply. proposed is
stone was erected in remembrance of the Heidelberg If any sign of a heritage or cultural site is standard practice
black and white concentration camps associated with unearthed during excavations, then all activity but is often
the Anglo Boer / South African War (1899 – 1902). must cease until a heritage specialist has been ignored by
The camps were located on the Farm Klippoortje, the consulted and had the opportunity to contractors, but is
adjacent farm approximately one kilometre northeast investigate such finds. not difficult or
of the proposed project site. The memorial stone was complicated to
unveiled by the Gauteng MEC Sport, Recreation, implement.
th
Arts and Culture on the 4 of May 2001.
The Heidelberg Cemetery is located 650 metres

33
 north of the project site.
It is noted here that the proposed development of a
filling station on Portion 101 (a portion of Portion 82)
of the Farm Langlaagte 186-IR will have no impact
on the identified memorial stone or cemetery.
It is not possible to know until excavations occur
whether any sub-surface heritage sites are located
on site.
Waste The proposed construction will result in the Moderate (44) Ensure that rubble and construction waste is Low (24) Medium.
generation generation of several waste streams. Solid waste Negative sorted on site and that recyclable material is Negative The mitigation
that is not correctly managed may result in pollution separated from disposable waste. Sufficient proposed is
of water, air, as well as soil resources. containers must be made available on site to standard practice
handle litter, general waste and builder’s but is often
rubble. Waste must be removed on a regular ignored by
basis and disposed of at an approved and contractors, but is
permitted landfill site. Recyclable materials not difficult or
(such as wood, paper or plastics) should be complicated to
taken to a registered recycler. implement.
Waste manifests and records of quantities of
waste must be kept on site. Environmental
awareness training should include a section on
the impacts of waste generation and improper
waste management.
Socio- The proposed development will provide employment Negligible (14) The extent to which the local municipality would Low (24) Medium.
economic opportunities during the construction phase and Positive benefit from construction phase spending Positive The mitigation
would thus provide opportunities in terms of skills would depend on the extent to which proposed is
development and training. construction goods and labour are sourced standard practice
from local suppliers and communities. but is often
Accommodation for labourers will not be provided on Opportunities should be provided for local ignored by
site, labourers will commute to and from the site on a people to be employed on the project. contractors, but is
daily basis. It is not expected that the workforce will not difficult or
create nuisance problems for surrounding land uses. The Contractor must actively discourage complicated to
potential vagrants, or transient job seekers, etc. implement.
from congregating around the site. Fencing off
the site at the commencement of activities will
assist in preventing unauthorised persons from
entering the area.

34
Proposal: Proposed development of a filling station on Portion 101 (a portion of Portion 82) of the Farm Langlaagte 186-IR, Heidelberg, Lesedi Local
Municipality.

OPERATIONAL PHASE
The operational phase is expected to be long-term and will include the delivery of product to site by road tanker, and the dispensing of product to customers. A convenience store will
also allow for retail activities on site. Several potential impacts have been identified and are discussed below.
Significance Significance Risk of the impact
Environmental
Potential impacts: rating (positive Proposed mitigation: rating after and mitigation not
Aspects
or negative): mitigation: being implemented
Impact on During the operational phase, stormwater runoff from Moderate (42) A stormwater management plan has been Low (26) Low.
surface water impermeable surfaces such as buildings, paved Negative designed by suitably qualified engineers. The Negative
(runoff) areas and access roads may lead to water quality stormwater management plan must be The mitigation
deterioration within the receiving water resource. approved by the Local Council and must be proposed is
implemented during the operational phase of standard practice
Stormwater runoff may contain contaminants if good the development. Attenuation must be in the industry.
housekeeping is not implemented on the site. designed and constructed in accordance with
Contamination of stormwater can also occur through local municipality requirements.
accidental spills and leaks.
The construction of the filling station will have
If erosion is prevalent, then sedimentation may also included the installation of a stormwater
result in surface water pollution, as would litter lying management system that includes an oil-water
around if picked up by the surface water runoff. separator system for the separation and
A formal stormwater reticulation system will be management of run-off from the forecourt area,
constructed within the development’s boundaries, as per industry standards. In addition, the tank
separating dirty water from the contact areas (e.g. filler points will be situated on a spill
forecourt and filler areas) from the stormwater that containment slab which also discharges to the
falls on the rest of the site. separator system.
Good housekeeping must be implemented and
any spills of raw materials or products must be
immediately cleaned to prevent potential
pollution of surface runoff.
Enough litter bins should be placed strategically
around the development to encourage
utilisation thereof and to prevent litter from
being carried via runoff to the water resource.
Impact on soils The soil around the tank farm, pipework, pump Low to Moderate The construction of the forecourt must ensure Low (22) Low.

35
 and islands, filler points and vents could be impacted by
groundwater fuel leakage, either on surface or sub-surface.
Moreover, if contaminated surface water from the
filling station is allowed to infiltrate the underlying
soil, it may also result in groundwater and soil
contamination. The risk of contamination to soils and
groundwater is considered low and would have long
term implications.
Noise During operation, the noises that may be associated
disturbance with the filling station may include music broadcast
over speakers in the forecourt, staff talking amongst
one another, and vehicles revving as they leave the
filling station.
The proposed project site is generally isolated from
surrounding neighbours. The only residential
neighbours are located approximately 130m
southeast of the proposed filling station, across
Jacobs Road (R42). The traffic on the adjacent roads
(39) that surface liquids are not able to infiltrate into Negative The mitigation
Negative the underlying soils. The underground fuel proposed is
tanks should be manufactured in accordance standard practice
with the SANS requirements. The tank farm in the industry.
should incorporate tank monitoring wells that
will assist in the early detection of a tank or
pipework leak through monthly inspections.
Regular stock reconciliation of the product
delivered, sold and remaining should be
undertaken, and any discrepancy must be
accounted for by the person in charge and
reported to the oil company immediately.
Automatic tank gauging is a standard
requirement for the installation.
If a leak is suspected, an integrity test must be
done and thereafter a risk-based contamination
assessment to determine the extent of the
contamination and appropriate remediation
steps.
Regular training on product handling and facility
operations must be provided to all staff to
prevent accidental spills and leaks. Training on
what should be done should there be a spill
must be provided to all staff.
All fuelling should only be conducted on the
surfaces provided for this purpose and spill
control procedures must be available and
implemented.
Negligible (18) Ensure that no loud / amplified music is played Negligible (8) Low.
Negative on site and that staff are provided awareness Negative
training regarding noise pollution. The mitigation
proposed is
A grievance procedure should be established standard practice
whereby noise complaints can be received, in the industry.
recorded and responded to appropriately.
Local by-laws for noise levels must be adhered
to.
36
 will generate more noise than the filling station.
It is not expected that the operation of a filling station
at this location will contribute significantly to the
ambient noise levels in the area.
Visual impact In order for the service station to attract customers, Low (30) To maintain a positive visual impact, ongoing Low (20) Low.
housekeeping on site is required. Building and
there is a need for identifiable corporate and Negative Negative The mitigation
direction signage, most of which will be illuminated at landscaping should receive on-going
night. maintenance. proposed is
External lighting should be confined to the standard practice
The lighting used for signage will increase the visual dispensing forecourt, the convenience store in the industry.
impact of the facility during the night time for both and other essential areas. Signage related to
neighbours and road users. the enterprise should be restricted to the tower,
canopy and entrances.
Air quality The fuel stored in the underground tanks displaces Low (24) The underground storage tanks must be Negligible (12) Low.
hydrocarbon vapours during the tank filling. Negative designed and installed in accordance with the Negative The mitigation
Hydrocarbon vapours are denser than air and, SABS 089-3 Code of practice – The Petroleum
although they can be dispersed safely by a light Industry, Part 3 – The installation of proposed is
breeze, a concentration may remain in a still underground storage tanks, pumps/dispenser standard practice
atmosphere. According to SANS 089-3, breather and pipework at service station and consumer in the industry.
pipes or vents are to be used to direct vapours from installations. SANS standards adequately
the underground tank vertically upwards or address various potential air quality impacts via
horizontally into open air. The use of vents in this the implementation of required engineering
way inevitably results in the loss of vapourised fuel, measures.
albeit in small volumes. It is noted again that the
proposed filling station location will have no direct Vent pipes must be positioned on the site away
neighbours, with the closest located approximately from adjacent properties and ensure free air
130m away across a divided four-lane road. flow to avoid the accumulation of vapours.

Traffic impact Unlike many other developments, filling stations are Low (30) The detailed design of the filling station should Low to Negligible Low.
developments that intercept trips rather than Negative adhere to the prescribed specifications (and (20)
The mitigation
generate trips. It is not expected that the location of subsequent approval) of the applicable road Negative proposed is
the proposed filling station is going to have a authorities.
significant impact on traffic. standard practice
Appropriate signage and traffic measures in the industry.
The current design indicates two access points from should be implemented to ensure safe and
the unnamed road located east of the site. The convenient access for customers.
southern access will be only for entry, while the
northern access will provide access and exit from the Road conditions near the access and egress
property. points should be monitored by the developer
and any deterioration should be reported to the

37

Waste Filling stations produce both general waste and
generation hazardous waste streams. General waste will include
packaging materials, foods, office paper and other
domestic types of waste associated with the
operation of the convenience store.
Limited quantities of hazardous waste is generated
from the clean-up of accidental spills or leaks, as
well as the empty oil cans/bottles generated on site
when customers require oil for their vehicles.
Where waste management is not appropriately
implemented, pollution may occur.
Safety – Fires The handling of pumps, dispensers and general
or Explosions fittings must be undertaken in such a way to ensure
the safe handling and storage of petroleum
hydrocarbons. The incorrect handling and dispensing
of petroleum products can increase the risk of fire or
explosion, and pollution of the surrounding
environment.
Socio- A feasibility report was compiled for the development
economic of the proposed filling station. The surrounding trade
local authority so that it can be attended to.
All entry points must be kept clear of any
obstructions. The proposed ingress and egress
from the site must be designed by qualified
engineers and approved by the Lesedi
Municipality Roads Department. On-site
parking should be provided in accordance with
the Lesedi Municipality parking requirements.
Moderate (44) A waste management plan or policy must be Low (27) Low.
Negative compiled, describing the proposed waste
Negative
management methods for all the waste streams The mitigation
generated on site during the operational phase. proposed is
Where possible, the plan should incorporate standard practice
the principles of the waste hierarchy, i.e. in the industry
reduce, reuse and recycle with disposal as a
last option. Where possible, waste streams
should be separated at source (e.g. separate
hazardous and general waste, separate
cardboard boxes, etc.).
Low (30) Employees of the filling station must be Negligible (14)
Negative adequately trained in the handling and storage
Negative
of petroleum hydrocarbons and must be
educated regarding the dangers associated
with the product. Employees must also be
trained in emergency procedures, such as fire
control and spill management.
Fire extinguishers must be placed around the
forecourt to control any breakout of fire. Fire
extinguishers must be regularly serviced and
record must be kept of maintenance and expiry
dates. Proper signage must be posted around
the site informing the public of the potential
hazards associated with a filling station. The
site must be inspected by a local fire service
department and an emergency response plan
must be available and kept on site.
Moderate (48) No mitigation measures necessary. N/A N/A
38
 area to the south of the proposed filling station and Negative
east of the freeway is made up of well-developed
suburbs (Bergsig and Mountain View), and the
undeveloped veld to the north (which has been
earmarked for a large integrated medical facility).
The trade market is identified as mostly transient
traffic between Heidelberg and Nigel, with residential
traffic from the suburbs southeast of the property.
The highway acts as a physical barrier through the
trade area. Within the trade area there are no
opposition filling stations east of the freeway, but
several occur west of the freeway. Six competitor
stations have been identified west of the freeway,
and none to the east. The findings of the feasibility
report conclude that although the opposition stations
are expected to lose some fuel sales to the proposed
new development, none of them are expected to
become unprofitable.

Alternative 1 (REPEAT THIS TABLE FOR EACH ALTERNATIVE)

Significance Significance Risk of the impact

Environmental
Potential impacts: rating (positive Proposed mitigation: rating after and mitigation not
Aspects
or negative): mitigation: being implemented
No alternatives have been investigated for this project. Refer to Section A3.

No Go Alternative
Should the No-Go alternative be identified as the preferred alternative, the development of the proposed filling station will not be allowed as is. However, even though the proposed
development of the filling station is not allowed, it would not mean that the property would remain undeveloped. It is understood that at least two quick service food chains will be

39
constructing facilities adjacent to the proposed project site, just to the west / northwest of the proposed filling station. Any potential future developments on the property must consider
the regulations and also the GPEMF. Should the proposed filling station not be approved, it is possible that the applicant may decide to continue with the proposed filling station, only
changing the proposed cumulative capacity so that it falls below the threshold of 80m3. Development of a filling station with a cumulative storage and handling capacity less than 80m3
would not require an environmental authorization.
The potential impacts for the No-Go alternative would, therefore, be the same as for the preferred alternative, without the proposed management and mitigation measures. Although
an environmental management plan (EMP) is generally part of the requirement for obtaining a site license, there would be no legal incentive to implement the management and
mitigation measures provided in such an EMP.
When an Environmental Authorisation has been issued, both the Environmental Authorisation and the Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) become legally binding to the
applicant and there are legal consequences if the authorisation holder does not implement the management and mitigation measures on site.
Significance Significance Risk of the impact
Environmental
Potential impacts: rating (positive Proposed mitigation: rating after and mitigation not
Aspects
or negative): mitigation: being implemented
NO-GO CONSTRUCTION PHASE
Loss of The proposed project site comprises natural Moderate (52) No mitigation or management measures can be Moderate (52) High
habitat and grassland habitat. The study site is situated within Negative enforced if such activities continue. Negative
biodiversity the Mesic Highveld Grassland Bioregion. The veld No mitigation
type in which the site is found is known as possible.
Blesbokspruit Highveld Grassland.
The project site was considered in terms of the
GDARD C-Plan, which confirmed that the project site
does not fall within any designated Critical
Biodiversity Areas or Ecological Support Areas.
Impacts resulting from construction activities will
include loss of existing vegetation and habitat within
the development footprint as a result of vegetation
clearance for construction of facilities and internal
roads. Moreover, impacts could include exacerbated
encroachment of invasive, exotic and encroacher
vegetation species.
Impact on The study area falls within the Upper Vaal Water Moderate (48) No mitigation or management measures can be Moderate (48) High
surface water Management Area (Quaternary Catchment C21F). Negative enforced if such activities continue. Negative
(runoff) There are no surface water bodies on or adjacent to No mitigation
the proposed project site. Existing concrete possible.
stormwater channels are located southeast and
southwest of the project site (along Jacobs Street
and the N3 Highway respectively). Currently the
stormwater from the proposed development drains

40
 into these concrete stormwater channels by means
of overland flow.
Construction activities could potentially result in
surface water quality deterioration if potentially
polluting substances used during the construction
process (e.g. oil, diesel, cement, etc.) are not
properly managed.
These substances could result in pollution of water
resources through spillages, leakage, accidents or
incorrect disposal of used containers or waste.
In addition, sediment carried in surface water runoff
is also considered as resulting in the deterioration of
water quality by increasing the sediment load.
Pollution of stormwater may also occur as a result of
unmanaged litter or waste generated on site during
the construction period.
Impact on The site is underlain by transported sandy and Low (36) No mitigation or management measures can be Low (36) High
groundwater gravelly soils which are underlain by ferruginised Negative enforced if such activities continue. Negative
colluvial soils developed over quartzite bedrock No mitigation
belonging to the Turffontein Subgroup, Central Rand possible.
Group, Witwatersrand Supergroup.
The water table, whether perched or permanent, was
not encountered during the geotechnical
investigation which was carried out towards the end
of the wet season.
Potential impact on groundwater may occur during
construction activities if substances, such as
hydrocarbons associated with the usage of
machinery and equipment are allowed to leak onto
soil and potentially leach into the ground.
Geotechnical A Geotechnical Investigation of the study site was Low (21) No mitigation or management measures can be Low (21) High
stability conducted. The site is underlain by transported Negative enforced if such activities continue. Negative
sandy and gravelly soils which are underlain by No mitigation
ferruginised colluvial soils developed over quartzite possible.
bedrock belonging to the Turffontein Subgroup,
Central Rand Group, Witwatersrand Supergroup. No
rock outcrops were encountered during the
investigation.
The water table, whether perched or permanent, was

41
 not encountered during the geotechnical
investigation which was carried out towards the end
of the wet season.
The entire site classifies as a Site Class “C2/S/H”
according to the guidelines of the NHBRC Standards
and Guidelines of 1999. The prominent horizon is of
potential highly collapsible foundation soils.
The engineering geologist concludes that Portion
101 (portion of Portion 82) of the Farm Langlaagte
186-IR should be suitable for the proposed filling
station development, provided that due cognizance
is taken of the geotechnical factors identified in
Section 7 of the Geotechnical Investigation Report
(Attached in Appendix G).
Soil pollution Soil erosion, loss of topsoil and deterioration of soil Low to No mitigation or management measures can be Low to High
and erosion quality are the main potential impacts that could be Moderate (36) enforced if such activities continue. Moderate (36)
caused during the construction of the proposed filling Negative Negative No mitigation
station. Clearing of vegetation and increases in the possible.
quantity, velocity and concentration of surface runoff
across the study site may result in erosion of
exposed soil surfaces, especially along preferential
flow pathways.
In addition to causing damage on site, eroded
sediments can be transported to waterways where
they settle in dams and other attenuation facilities,
reducing capacity over time and causing
deterioration in water quality by increasing the
sediment load.
Soil pollution may occur where hydrocarbons or
other chemicals are not adequately managed during
storage and handling and are allowed to spill into the
soil. In addition, the mixing of cement or concrete
directly on the ground will also result in soil
contamination.
Air quality Dust will be generated during normal construction Low to No mitigation or management measures can be Low to High
activities and has the potential to create nuisance. Moderate (36) enforced if such activities continue. Moderate (36)
The effect on air quality is expected to be localized Negative Negative No mitigation
and minor, as well as of short duration as the possible.
construction phase is temporary.

42
 The contribution of emissions caused by exhaust
fumes from the associated construction equipment
and vehicles will be negligible.
Noise The construction phase will result in a temporary Low (27) No mitigation or management measures can be Low (27) High
disturbance increase in noise levels due to moving machinery Negative enforced if such activities continue. Negative
and other construction activities. No mitigation
possible.
The proposed project site is located across Jacobs
Street (4-lane major road) from an existing
residential area. The residential suburb is considered
a sensitive receptor and it is expected that the noise
generated during the construction phase may be
considered as a nuisance by the residents.
Construction related noise will however not be
excessive and will be of temporary duration.
Traffic impact The construction activities will require the movement Low (24) No mitigation or management measures can be Low (24) High
of construction vehicles and machinery on local road Negative enforced if such activities continue. Negative
networks to access the development site. The No mitigation
movement of construction vehicles may impact on possible.
local traffic movements. This will, however, be only
of a temporary nature during the construction phase.
Moreover, mud and sand in the roads, as well as
potholes, are a safety hazard to other road users and
must be taken into consideration to ensure that
construction activities do not place motorists at risk.
Visual impact The proposed filling station will be constructed on a Low (24) No mitigation or management measures can be Low (24) High
corner site, fully visible from all sides. The property is Negative enforced if such activities continue. Negative
adjacent to the N3 Highway and Jacobs Street No mitigation
(R42). Visibility is desirable for a filling station, as it possible.
encourages consumers to use the facility. During
construction, however, construction activities present
an undesirable visual impact on the surrounding land
uses.
This impact would be limited in duration. The
following temporary construction activities are
generally considered in terms of visual impact:
• Presence of storage and stockpile areas;
• Construction camps; and

43
 • Movement of construction machinery and
vehicles on local roads.
It is not expected that the construction activities will
impact on the aesthetic nature of the surrounding
properties.
Safety The use of construction equipment, including the Moderate (40) No mitigation or management measures can be Moderate (40) High
movement of construction workers and machinery, Negative enforced if such activities continue. Negative
increases the risk to safety of the people working on No mitigation
the construction site. The potential for accidents possible.
among operators exists if machinery is not handled
properly. The lack of enforcement of health and
safety regulations could impact negatively on
construction workers.
There will be minimal potential impact to the safety of
the public as a result of the proposed construction
activity. It will be the duty of the site manager to
compile and enforce a health and safety plan that
should encompass the effective management of the
construction site.
Cultural or A memorial stone is located approximately 120 Low (24) No mitigation or management measures can be Low (24) High
historical metres northwest of the proposed project site, along Negative enforced if such activities continue. Negative
sites the unnamed road leading to the cemetery. The No mitigation
stone was erected in remembrance of the Heidelberg possible.
black and white concentration camps associated with
the Anglo Boer / South African War (1899 – 1902).
The camps were located on the Farm Klippoortje, the
adjacent farm approximately one kilometre northeast
of the proposed project site. The memorial stone was
unveiled by the Gauteng MEC Sport, Recreation,
th
Arts and Culture on the 4 of May 2001.
The Heidelberg Cemetery is located 650 metres
north of the project site.
It is noted here that the proposed development of a
filling station on Portion 101 (a portion of Portion 82)
of the Farm Langlaagte 186-IR will have no impact
on the identified memorial stone or cemetery.
It is not possible to know until excavations occur
whether any sub-surface heritage sites are located

44
 on site.
Waste The proposed construction will result in the Moderate (44) No mitigation or management measures can be Moderate (44) High
generation generation of several waste streams. Solid waste Negative enforced if such activities continue. Negative
that is not correctly managed may result in pollution No mitigation
of water, air, as well as soil resources. possible.

Socio- The proposed development will provide employment Negligible (14) No mitigation or management measures can be Negligible (14) High
economic opportunities during the construction phase and Positive enforced if such activities continue. Positive
would thus provide opportunities in terms of skills No mitigation
development and training. possible.

Accommodation for labourers will not be provided on

site, labourers will commute to and from the site on a
daily basis. It is not expected that the workforce will
create nuisance problems for surrounding land uses.

NO-GO OPERATIONAL PHASE

Impact on During the operational phase, stormwater runoff from Moderate (42) No mitigation or management measures can be Moderate (42) High
surface water impermeable surfaces such as buildings, paved Negative enforced if such activities continue.
Negative
(runoff) areas and access roads may lead to water quality No mitigation
deterioration within the receiving water resource. possible.

Stormwater runoff may contain contaminants if good

housekeeping is not implemented on the site.
Contamination of stormwater can also occur through
accidental spills and leaks.
If erosion is prevalent, then sedimentation may also
result in surface water pollution, as would litter lying
around if picked up by the surface water runoff.
A formal stormwater reticulation system will be
constructed within the development’s boundaries,
separating dirty water from the contact areas (e.g.
forecourt and filler areas) from the stormwater that
falls on the rest of the site.
Impact on soils The soil around the tank farm, pipework, pump Low to Moderate No mitigation or management measures can be Low to Moderate High
and islands, filler points and vents could be impacted by (39) enforced if such activities continue. (39)
groundwater fuel leakage, either on surface or sub-surface.
Negative Negative
No mitigation
Moreover, if contaminated surface water from the possible.
filling station is allowed to infiltrate the underlying
soil, it may also result in groundwater and soil

45
 contamination. The risk of contamination to soils and
groundwater is considered low and would have long
term implications.
Noise During operation, the noises that may be associated Negligible (18) No mitigation or management measures can be Negligible (18) High
disturbance with the filling station may include music broadcast Negative enforced if such activities continue.
Negative
over speakers in the forecourt, staff talking amongst No mitigation
one another, and vehicles revving as they leave the possible.
filling station.
The proposed project site is generally isolated from
surrounding neighbours. The only residential
neighbours are located approximately 130m
southeast of the proposed filling station, across
Jacobs Road (R42). The traffic on the adjacent roads
will generate more noise than the filling station.
It is not expected that the operation of a filling station
at this location will contribute significantly to the
ambient noise levels in the area.
Visual impact In order for the service station to attract customers, Low (30) No mitigation or management measures can be Low (30) High
enforced if such activities continue.
there is a need for identifiable corporate and Negative Negative No mitigation
direction signage, most of which will be illuminated at
night. possible.

The lighting used for signage will increase the visual

impact of the facility during the night time for both
neighbours and road users.
Air quality The fuel stored in the underground tanks displaces Low (24) No mitigation or management measures can be Low (24) High
hydrocarbon vapours during the tank filling. Negative enforced if such activities continue. Negative No mitigation
Hydrocarbon vapours are denser than air and,
although they can be dispersed safely by a light possible.
breeze, a concentration may remain in a still
atmosphere. According to SANS 089-3, breather
pipes or vents are to be used to direct vapours from
the underground tank vertically upwards or
horizontally into open air. The use of vents in this
way inevitably results in the loss of vapourised fuel,
albeit in small volumes. It is noted again that the
proposed filling station location will have no direct
neighbours, with the closest located approximately

46
 130m away across a divided four-lane road.

Traffic impact Unlike many other developments, filling stations are No mitigation or management measures can be High
developments that intercept trips rather than enforced if such activities continue.
generate trips. It is not expected that the location of No mitigation
the proposed filling station is going to have a possible.
significant impact on traffic.
The current design indicates two access points from
the unnamed road located east of the site. The
southern access will be only for entry, while the
northern access will provide access and exit from the
property.
Waste Filling stations produce both general waste and Moderate (44) No mitigation or management measures can be Moderate (44) High
generation hazardous waste streams. General waste will include Negative enforced if such activities continue.
Negative
packaging materials, foods, office paper and other No mitigation
domestic types of waste associated with the possible.
operation of the convenience store.
Limited quantities of hazardous waste is generated
from the clean-up of accidental spills or leaks, as
well as the empty oil cans/bottles generated on site
when customers require oil for their vehicles.
Where waste management is not appropriately
implemented, pollution may occur.
Safety – Fires The handling of pumps, dispensers and general Low (30) No mitigation or management measures can be Low (30) High
or Explosions fittings must be undertaken in such a way to ensure
Negative enforced if such activities continue.
Negative
the safe handling and storage of petroleum No mitigation
hydrocarbons. The incorrect handling and dispensing possible.
of petroleum products can increase the risk of fire or
explosion, and pollution of the surrounding
environment.

List any specialist reports that were used to fill in the above tables. Such reports are to be attached in the appropriate Appendix.

Geotechnical Investigation, 2018 (Appendix G)

47
Comments on the vegetation status of the site (Appendix G)
Feasibility Report, 2019 and Traffic Count, Sept 2018 (Appendix D)
Services Report, 2018 (Appendix F)
Stormwater Management Plan (Appendix F)

Describe any gaps in knowledge or assumptions made in the assessment of the environment and the impacts associated with the proposed development.

This Basic Assessment Report has been prepared on the strengths of the information available, from site visits, desktop studies and information provided by the applicant at the time of
the assessment. In undertaking this investigation and compiling the Basic Assessment Report, the following has been assumed:
• The information provided by the applicant is accurate.
• Evaluation of the impacts is based on the assumption that authorization for the proposed development is granted and that the proposed development proceeds as planned.
• Estimation of pre-mitigation impact significance does not take any specific mitigation measures into account.
• Should the project be authorized, the applicant will implement any recommendations and mitigation measures outlined in the BAR and Environmental Authorisation into the
detailed design and construction contract specifications of the proposed project.
• It is also assumed that the civil engineering services and service agreements will be approved by the Local Council.

3. IMPACTS THAT MAY RESULT FROM THE DECOMISSIONING 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 for the various alternatives of the proposed development. This must include an assessment of the significance of all impacts.

Proposal: Proposed development of a filling station on Portion 101 (a portion of Portion 82) of the Farm Langlaagte 186-IR, Heidelberg, Lesedi Local
Municipality.

48
 DECOMMISSIONING PHASE
The proposed filling station will be a long-term operation. It is not expected that the facility will be decommissioned in the foreseeable future. However, should the
site be closed and decommissioned, the expected impacts will be similar to those of the construction phase. The decommissioning of the site will include
construction activities necessary for the removal of the underground fuel storage tanks, pumps and associate infrastructure.
It should be noted that at the time that the filling station might be due for closure, legislation for the decommissioning and closure of a filling station may have
changed. Additionally, the surrounding environment will almost certainly have changed. Therefore legislation should be re-evaluated and the mitigation measures
and the EMPr should be amended in order to implement the relevant legislation.
Significance Significance Risk of the impact and
Environmental
Potential impacts: rating (positive Proposed mitigation: rating after mitigation not being
Aspects
or negative): mitigation: implemented
Noise and Dust The decommissioning activities will result in a Low (27) Demolition work should take place during the Negligible (18) Low.
temporary increase in noise levels from moving daytime. No demolition activities should be
Negative Negative The mitigation
machinery and demolition processes. It is allowed on Sundays or public holidays. All
expected that the intensity of the noise generated demolition activities must comply with the proposed is standard
during the decommissioning phase will not be relevant by-laws and the OH&S Act. practice in the
excessive. The impact of noise generation is industry.
expected to be of low significance. Restrict vehicle movement to necessary trips.
Dust suppression to be carried out according
Dust will be generated during the course of the to prevailing site specific conditions.
decommissioning activities, particularly during Refueling to be done off-site or over
excavations. The effect on air quality is expected appropriate drip trays. Vehicles and
to be localized and minor, as well as of short machinery to be properly maintained to
duration as the decommissioning phase is reduce noise and emissions generated.
temporary. The contribution of emissions caused
by exhaust fumes from the associated Stockpiles of excavated materials or spoils
construction equipment and vehicles will be should be positioned such that they are not
negligible. exposed to wind erosion or drainage lines.
Construction vehicles transporting materials
that can be blown off must be covered with
tarpaulin.
Points of ingress and egress onto public
roads must be cleared of any dust or mud.
Emissions caused by exhaust fumes can be
minimized by ensuring regular maintenance
of vehicles and equipment, and ensuring that
they are in good working order.

49
 Impact on Excavations on site to remove the underground
Surface Water structures will result in exposed soils. Stormwater
Runoff
runoff can be contaminated as a result of
sedimentation from the site. During the removal
of the tanks and associated pipework, it is also
potentially possible that some of remaining fuel
(petrol or diesel) may spill from the tanks or
pipework. Hydrocarbon spills may also result in
the contamination of stormwater runoff from the
site.
Impact on There could potentially be some impact on
Groundwater groundwater during the decommissioning
activities if a tank tears or there is some other
accidental spillage from the tanks and pipework
being removed. The hydrocarbons could leach
into the soil and if the contamination is not
cleaned up, could affect groundwater resources.
Low (36) Measures should be implemented to ensure Low (20) Medium.
that no sediment leaves the site. Such
Negative Negative The mitigation
measures could include silt nets along the
low-lying areas to capture any sediment proposed is standard
caught in stormwater runoff. Temporary practice but is often
protection of external stormwater drains ignored by
should also be investigated. contractors. It is not
difficult or complicated
Place caps on all pipe connections attached to implement.in the
to the tank to prevent spills during handling. industry
Ensure the correct handling of all tank and
infrastructure during their dismantling, when
they are being moved, and/or during their
excavation. Should any leakage from the tank
occur, the spill should be contained and
cleaned to prevent potential contamination of
runoff.
In addition, a contamination assessment will
be conducted after the removal of the tanks to
confirm whether or not historic contamination
is present. Should it be required, remediation
measures will be implemented prior to the
excavations being backfilled.
Moderate (42) Place caps on all pipe connections attached Low (28) Low.
to the tank to prevent spills during handling.
Negative Ensure the correct handling of all tank and Negative The mitigation
infrastructure during their dismantling, when proposed is standard
they are being moved, and/or during their practice in the
excavation. Should any leakage from the tank industry.
occur, the spill should be contained and
cleaned to prevent potential contamination of
groundwater resources.
In addition, a contamination assessment will
be conducted after the removal of the tanks to
confirm whether or not historic contamination
is present. Should it be required, remediation
measures will be implemented prior to the
excavations being backfilled.
50
 Soil pollution may occur where hydrocarbons Low (30)
(fuels from tanks and pipes) are not adequately
Negative
managed or handled and are allowed to spill into
the soil. Moreover, during the moving of the tanks
from the excavations and/or onto the flat-bed
transportation vehicles, fuel/sludge may leak
Soil Pollution from the tank. Although the tank has been
drained and closed off, it is not always possible
to remove all of the fuel present in the storage
tank and thus a small amount of fuel may still be
present in the tank. This represents a potential
hazard should the tank be damaged or dropped
during its removal.
Place caps on all pipe connections attached Low (20) Low.
to the tank to prevent spills during handling.
Negative The mitigation
Ensure the correct handling of all tank and
infrastructure during their dismantling, when proposed is standard
they are being moved, and/or during their practice in the
excavation. Should any leakage from the tank industry.
occur, with hydrocarbons falling onto the bare
soil, this area should be noted and form part
of the contamination assessment that is
conducted upon removal of the tanks from
site.

The decommissioning of the filling station will Low (30) Ensure that all waste generated on site is Low (21) Medium.
result in several solid waste streams, including contained and disposed of in an appropriate
Negative Negative The mitigation
building rubble, metals, tanks, pipework, etc. manner at an authorized waste disposal site.
All recyclable materials must be extracted for proposed is standard
Generation of Solid waste that is not correctly managed may recycling or reuse. practice but is often
Waste result in pollution of water, air, as well as soil ignored by
resources. Waste manifests and records of quantities of contractors. It is not
waste must be kept on site. difficult or complicated
to implement.in the
industry.

Traffic Impact At the time of decommissioning, waste and Low (24) The expected impact of the decommissioning Negligible (14) Low.
infrastructure is to be removed from the site. activities on traffic will be local but only of a
Negative Negative The mitigation
Heavy vehicles may be required which may temporary nature. Demolition vehicle
result in temporary disruptions to local traffic flow. movement should be restricted so as not to proposed is standard
coincide with peak traffic periods, thereby practice in the
reducing the potential impact on other road industry.
users.
Appropriate signage should be erected
informing motorists of any potential
diversions, if required.

Safety The use of demolition equipment, including the Low (24) To limit the risk of accidents, safety Negligible (16) Low.
movement of workers and machinery, increases procedures must be put in place and enforced
Negative Negative The mitigation
the risk to the safety of the people working on the by the site manager to ensure that vehicles
demolition site. The potential for accidents and machinery are only operated by trained proposed is standard
among operators exists if machinery is not practice in the

51
 handled properly. The lack of enforcement of and authorized employees. industry.
health and safety regulations could impact
negatively on workers. The site and workers are to be managed in
strict accordance with the OH&S Act.
It will be the duty of the site manager to compile
and enforce a health and safety plan that should The site should be completely fenced off prior
encompass the effective management of the to the commencement of the
demolition site. decommissioning activities and areas of no
access should be clearly demarcated.
Warning signs identifying the location as a
demolition site and prohibiting unauthorized
access should be placed on the perimeter
fence. Access to the site should be limited to
the workforce only.

Residual During the decommissioning phase, the impact of Low (33) Care must be taken to ensure the Low (27) Low.
Contamination residual contamination must be determined. underground fuel storage tanks and pipes are
Negative removed according to strict environmental Negative The mitigation
Residual contamination may impact on local soil
and groundwater resources. measures to prevent soil and groundwater proposed is standard
contamination. practice in the
industry.
It is recommended that a contamination
assessment be undertaken to identify and
determine the extent and potential
significance of any hydrocarbon
contamination present on site.

Alternative 1

Significance Significance Risk of the impact and

Environmental
Potential impacts: rating (positive Proposed mitigation: rating after mitigation not being
Aspects
or negative): mitigation: implemented

No alternatives have been investigated for this project. Refer to Section A3.

Alternative 2

52
 Potential impacts: Significance Proposed mitigation: Significance Risk of the impact and
rating of impacts rating of impacts mitigation not being
(positive or after mitigation: implemented
negative):

List any specialist reports that were used to fill in the above tables. Such reports are to be attached in the appropriate Appendix.

None

Where applicable indicate the detailed financial provisions for rehabilitation, closure and ongoing post decommissioning management for the negative environmental impacts.

Not applicable

53
4. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Describe potential impacts that, on their own may not be significant, but is significant when added to the impact of other
activities or existing impacts in the environment. Substantiate response:

Impacts of a cumulative nature during the construction phase are typically restricted to loss of habitat and
biodiversity and include the increased disturbance of natural resources, and increasing habitat fragmentation
and isolation, which ultimately adds to the cumulative impact on local / regional and even national
conservation targets and obligations.
The proposed construction of the filling station may contribute to the cumulative impact of increased
stormwater runoff as well as noise impacts (although only temporarily during the construction phase).
However, with the implementation of the proposed management and mitigation measures, it is not expected
that the proposed construction of the filling station will contribute significantly to any cumulative impacts.
The operation of the proposed filling station will be undertaken in accordance with specific standards. It is
possible that the operation of the facility may result in soil or water contamination as a result of accidental
leaks or spills of hydrocarbon products. However, if the appropriate procedures are implemented, it is not
expected that the facility will contribute significantly to the cumulative impact in this regard. In addition, the
presence of volatile organic compounds may contribute to local air pollution, however, with the appropriate
vapour reduction strategies in place, the significance is rated as low. Noise generation on site is not expected
to add significantly to the cumulative impact of noise disturbance to nearby residential properties. It is not
expected that surface run-off will be increased to such an extent that it will add to the cumulative impact of
surface run-off from the site. River. Appropriate stormwater management will be implemented on site and the
post-development runoff is expected to remain the same as the pre-development runoff rate. If excessive
lighting is haphazardly placed on site, it could add to the cumulative impact of light pollution in the area,
however, this is not expected as specific design requirements exist that specify the positioning of appropriate
lighting on site (i.e. to minimise disturbance to surrounding properties).
It is not expected that the decommissioning of the proposed filling station will contribute to any cumulative
impacts in the area. On the contrary, removing aged infrastructure will prevent potential pollution incidents
from happening in the future. The decommissioning of the filling station (i.e. removal of underground fuel
storage tanks and associated infrastructure) is undertaken in accordance with very specific guidelines and
standards.

5. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Taking the assessment of potential impacts into account, please provide an environmental impact statement that sums up
the impact that the proposal and its alternatives may have on the environment after the management and mitigation of
impacts have been taken into account with specific reference to types of impact, duration of impacts, likelihood of potential
impacts actually occurring and the significance of impacts.

Proposal: Proposed development of a filling station on Portion 101 (a portion of Portion 82) of the
Farm Langlaagte 186-IR, Heidelberg, Lesedi Local Municipality.

This Environmental Authorisation Application and Basic Assessment Report are being submitted for the
proposed development of a filling station on Portion 101 (a portion of Portion 82) of the Farm Langlaagte
186_IR, Heidelberg. The proposed development will include the installation of 2 x 46m3 and 1 x 23m3
underground fuel storage tanks, pump islands, pipework and associated infrastructure, along with a
convenience store. The proposed project site is currently vacant and covered with field grass. No wetlands or
any other surface water bodies were identified on site.
Environmental aspects such as biodiversity, surface and groundwater, air, soil, noise and traffic impacts,
among others, were considered during the impact assessment. Due to the existing nature of the site and
proposed future use of site, the significance of the construction phase impacts on the receiving environment
have been identified as having low to moderate significance. After the recommended management and
mitigation measures have been implemented, the significance of all the identified potential impacts for the
construction phase will be reduced to negligible to low.

54
The operational phase of the filling station will potentially have an impact of moderate significance on surface
water due to the potential risk of hydrocarbon spillages or leakages. Waste management has also been
assessed as having an impact of moderate significance if no mitigatory measures are implemented. However,
the implementation of the recommended mitigation and management measures will reduce the significance of
these potential impacts.
The majority of the potential impacts associated with the decommissioning phase have been assessed as
being of low significance. After the recommended management and mitigation measures have been
implemented, the significance of all the identified potential impacts for the decommissioning phase will be
reduced to negligible to low.
The identified environmental impacts associated with the proposed development of a filling station on Portion
101 (a portion of Portion 82) of the Farm Langlaagte 186-IR can be mitigated to an acceptable level if the
contents of the EMPr are made binding on all contractors, sub-contractors and operators. There are no
impacts that prevent the proposed development of the filling station from proceeding. An impact summary for
the proposal is provided below.

Alternative 1

No alternatives have been investigated in this environmental impact assessment for the reasons provided in
Section A(3) of this report.

Alternative 2

No-go (compulsory)

Should the No-Go alternative be identified as the preferred alternative, the development of the proposed filling
station will not go ahead. However, even though the proposed development of the filling station is not allowed,
it would not mean that the property would remain undeveloped. It is understood that at least two quick service
food chains will be constructing facilities on the property, just to the west / southwest of the proposed filling
station. The construction of the quick service food outlets do not require environmental authorization and are
likely to take place regardless of whether the filling station is developed or not. Moreover, should the proposed
filling station not be approved, it is possible that the applicant may decide to continue with the development of
a filling station, only changing the proposed cumulative capacity so that it falls below the threshold of 80m3.
Development of a filling station with a cumulative storage and handling capacity less than 80m3 would not
require an environmental authorization.
The potential impacts for the No-Go alternative would, therefore, be the same as for the preferred alternative,
without the proposed management and mitigation measures, i.e. low to moderate during the construction
phase and low to moderate during the operational phase. Although an environmental management plan (EMP)
is generally part of the requirement for obtaining a site license, there would be no legal incentive to implement
the management and mitigation measures provided in such an EMP. An impact summary for the No-Go option
is provided below.
The No-Go Option is not recommended.

55
6. IMPACT SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSAL OR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Proposal: Proposed development of a filling station on Portion 101 (a portion of Portion 82) of the
Farm Langlaagte 186-IR, Heidelberg, Lesedi Local Municipality.

Activity Aspect Impact Significance

IMPACT IMPACT
BEFORE AFTER
IMPACT DESCRIPTION MITIGATION MITIGATION
CONSTRUCTION PHASE IMPACTS
Loss of habitat
Construction Activities Loss of habitat quality / ecological processes
and Moderate Low
(Site clearing) and ecosystem services.
biodiversity
Construction Activities
(Site clearing, building, Surface water Contamination of water resources Moderate Low
etc)
Construction Activities
(Site clearing, building, Groundwater Contamination / Water quality Low Low
etc)
Construction Activities
Geotechnical Potentially collapsible soils could result in
(Site clearing, building, Low Negligible
stability structural damage.
etc)
Construction Activities
Soil pollution Contamination, erosion, quality / quantity /
(Site clearing, building, Low Low
and Erosion Sedimentation of wetland
etc)
Construction Activities
(Site clearing, building, Air Quality Dust / nuisance Low Low
etc)
Construction Activities
Noise
(Site clearing, building, Noise nuisance, nearby residential areas Low Negligible
Disturbance
etc)
Construction Activities
(Site clearing, building, Traffic Impact Traffic delays, Safety Low Negligible
etc)
Construction Activities
(Site clearing, building, Visual Impact Impact on aesthetic nature of the area Low Negligible
etc)
Construction Activities
(Site clearing, building, Safety Workers and Public Safety Moderate Low
etc)
Construction Activities
Cultural or
(Site clearing, building, Heritage items Low Negligible
Historical Sites
etc)
Construction Activities
Waste
(Site clearing, building, Pollution of air, soil and water resources Moderate Low
Generation
etc)
Construction Activities
Socio- Negligible Low
(Site clearing, building, Employment
Economic Positive Positive
etc)
OPERATIONAL PHASE IMPACTS
Operation of filling
Surface Water Pollution / Sedimentation Moderate Low
station
Soils and
Operation of filling Groundwater
Pollution / Erosion Low Low
station Pollution and
Erosion

56
 Operation of filling
Noise Noise Disturbance Negligible Negligible
station

Operation of filling
Visual Impact Impact on aesthetic nature of area Low Negligible
station

Operation of filling
Air Pollution Contamination / Air Quality Low Negligible
station

Operation of filling
Traffic Impact Traffic flow Low Negligible
station
Operation of filling Waste
Pollution Moderate Low
station Generation
Operation of filling
Safety Fires and explosions Low Negligible
station
Operation of filling Socio-
Impact on opposition stations Moderate N/A
station Economic

DECOMMISSIONING PHASE IMPACTS

Decommissioning and
Noise and
removal of structures Nuisance Low Negligible
Dust
and infrastructure

Decommissioning and
removal of structures Surface Water Contamination of surface water run off Low Negligible
and infrastructure

Decommissioning and
removal of structures Groundwater Contamination of groundwater Moderate Low
and infrastructure

Decommissioning and
removal of structures Soil Pollution Contamination of soil resources Low Low
and infrastructure

Decommissioning and
Waste
removal of structures Pollution Low Low
Generation
and infrastructure
Decommissioning and
removal of structures Traffic Impact Traffic Flow / Safety Low Negligible
and infrastructure

Decommissioning and
removal of structures Safety Injuries / Safety Low Negligible
and infrastructure

57
Decommissioning and
Residual
removal of structures Pollution Low Low
contamination
and infrastructure

NO-GO ALTERNATIVE:

Activity Aspect Impact Significance

IMPACT IMPACT
BEFORE AFTER
IMPACT DESCRIPTION MITIGATION MITIGATION
CONSTRUCTION PHASE IMPACTS

Construction Activities Loss of habitat Loss of habitat quality / ecological

Moderate Moderate
(Site clearing) and biodiversity processes and ecosystem services.

Construction Activities
(Site clearing, building, Surface water Contamination of water resources Moderate Moderate
etc)
Construction Activities
(Site clearing, building, Groundwater Contamination / Water quality Low Low
etc)
Construction Activities
Geotechnical Potentially collapsible soils could result in
(Site clearing, building, Low Low
stability structural damage.
etc)
Construction Activities
Soil pollution Contamination, erosion, quality / quantity
(Site clearing, building, Low Low
and Erosion / Sedimentation of wetland
etc)
Construction Activities
(Site clearing, building, Air Quality Dust / nuisance Low Low
etc)
Construction Activities
Noise
(Site clearing, building, Noise nuisance, nearby residential areas Low Low
Disturbance
etc)
Construction Activities
(Site clearing, building, Traffic Impact Traffic delays, Safety Low Low
etc)
Construction Activities
(Site clearing, building, Visual Impact Impact on aesthetic nature of the area Low Low
etc)
Construction Activities
(Site clearing, building, Safety Workers and Public Safety Moderate Moderate
etc)
Construction Activities
Cultural or
(Site clearing, building, Heritage items Low Low
Historical Sites
etc)
Construction Activities
Waste
(Site clearing, building, Pollution of air, soil and water resources Moderate Moderate
Generation
etc)
Construction Activities
(Site clearing, building, Socio-Economic Employment Negligible Negligible
etc)
OPERATIONAL PHASE IMPACTS
Operation of filling
Surface Water Pollution / Sedimentation Moderate Moderate
station
Soils and
Operation of filling Groundwater
Pollution / Erosion Low Low
station Pollution and
Erosion

58
 Operation of filling
Noise Noise Disturbance Negligible Negligible
station

Operation of filling
Visual Impact Impact on aesthetic nature of area Low Low
station

Operation of filling
Air Pollution Contamination / Air Quality Low Low
station

Operation of filling
Traffic Impact Traffic flow Low Low
station
Operation of filling Waste
Pollution Moderate Moderate
station Generation
Operation of filling
Safety Fires and explosions Low Low
station

DECOMMISSIONING PHASE IMPACTS

Decommissioning and
removal of structures Noise and Dust Nuisance Low Low
and infrastructure

Decommissioning and
removal of structures Surface Water Contamination of surface water run off Low Low
and infrastructure

Decommissioning and
removal of structures Groundwater Contamination of groundwater Moderate Moderate
and infrastructure

Decommissioning and
removal of structures Soil Pollution Contamination of soil resources Low Low
and infrastructure

Decommissioning and
Waste
removal of structures Pollution Low Low
Generation
and infrastructure
Decommissioning and
removal of structures Traffic Impact Traffic Flow / Safety Low Low
and infrastructure

Decommissioning and
removal of structures Safety Injuries / Safety Low Low
and infrastructure

Decommissioning and
Residual
removal of structures Pollution Low Low
contamination
and infrastructure

59
Having assessed the significance of impacts of the proposal and alternative(s), please provide an overall summary and
reasons for selecting the proposal or preferred alternative.

This Environmental Authorisation and Basic Assessment Report is for the proposed development of a filling
station at the intersection of Jacobs Road (R42) and the unnamed cemetery road located north of the N#
Highway in Heidelberg, Lesedi Local Municipality, Gauteng Province. The proposed development will
comprise 2 x 46m3 and 1 x 23m3 underground fuel storage tanks, pump islands, pipework and the
associated infrastructure. The proposed development will also include a convenience store.

Environmental Authorisation in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998), as
amended, is required for the proposed development as fuel storage will be 115m3 (above the 80m3
threshold). The proposed activity triggers Activity 14 of Listing Notice 1 (Regulation 983 of 2014).

The identified environmental impacts associated with the proposed development of a filling station on
Portion 101 (a portion of Portion 82) of the Farm Langlaagte 186-IR can be mitigated to an acceptable level
if the contents of the EMPr are made binding on all contractors, sub-contractors and operators. There are
no impacts that prevent the proposed development of the filling station from proceeding. An impact
summary for the proposal is provided below.

Stakeholder engagement has been undertaken in accordance with the stipulated requirements.

The potential impacts of the proposed development can be kept to an acceptable level if the recommended
mitigation and management measures are implemented.

The EMPr provides mitigation and management measures to reduce any potential impacts on the receiving
environment. The EMPr includes specifications for monitoring and implementation of the mitigation
measures during the various phases of the proposed facility

7. SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT TOOLS

Indicate the application of any spatial development tool protocols on the proposed development and the outcome thereof.

The Gauteng C-Plan was considered in compiling this report. The study site does not include any specific C-
Plan conservation categories.
In addition, the Gauteng Provincial Environmental Management Framework (GPEMF) was consulted. The
property falls within Zone 1 – Urban Development Zone. The intention with Zone 1 is to streamline urban
development activities in it and to promote development infill, densification and concentration of urban
development within the urban development zone.

8. RECOMMENDATION OF THE PRACTITIONER

Is the information contained in this report and the documentation attached hereto sufficient to
make a decision in respect of the activity applied for (in the view of the Environmental
Assessment Practitioner as bound by professional ethical standards and the code of conduct of YES X NO
EAPASA).

If “NO”, indicate the aspects that require further assessment before a decision can be made (list the aspects that require
further assessment):

Not applicable

If “YES”, please list any recommended conditions, including mitigation measures that should be considered for inclusion in
any authorisation that may be granted by the competent authority in respect of the application:

An EMPr has been compiled for responsible environmental management during construction and upgrading,
as well as the operational phase of the project. The EMPr should be approved by GDARD and compliance
with the management and mitigation measures stipulated in the EMPr should be listed as a condition of the

60
Environmental Authorisation.

It is recommended that a suitably qualified Environmental Control Officer be appointed by the applicant to
oversee strict implementation of the EMPr during the construction phase.

The Stormwater Management Plan must be approved by the Local Council prior to the commencement of
activities on site.

An alien and invasive plant species management plan should be developed and implemented.

An emergency contingency plan must be developed for the operational phase of the facility.

9. THE NEEDS AND DESIRABILITY OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (as per notice 792
of 2012, or the updated version of this guideline)

The N3 Highway is classified as a Class 1 principal arterial route. The N3 Highway is located to the southwest
of the development site. The N3 is a major transport link between Gauteng Province and eThekwini (Durban).
Jacobs Street (R42) falls under the jurisdiction of the Lesedi Local Municipality and is classified as a Class 2
Major Arterial route. The road is located to the south of the development site. Jacobs Street runs east-west
through Midvaal and links Meyerton with Heidelberg and the N17 Highway. Jacobs Street (R42) is also
considered as a transit corridor for mini-bus taxis.
The proposed project site falls within the area demarcated as the primary node in the Lesedi Local Municipality
Spatial Development Framework and adjacent to the demarcated R42 corridor. The N3 Highway is identified
as a major development corridor and the R42 (Jacobs Street) designated as a secondary development
corridor. The Gauteng Provincial Environmental Management Framework also designates the site as Zone 1 –
Urban Development Zone, which facilitates infill, densification and concentration of urban development.
Several fast food restaurants are proposed immediately west of the proposed filling station. The proposed
filling station will provide a convenient stopping point for through traffic moving along the N3 Highway or
Jacobs Street (R42), where motorists will be able to fill up on fuel as well as meals at the adjacent
development.
The study concludes that the proposed filling station fills a gap in the market and that the development will be
feasible as well as profitable.

10. THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION IS REQUIRED

(CONSIDER WHEN THE ACTIVITY IS EXPECTED TO BE CONCLUDED)

• The construction phase of the project should commence within 5 years of the authorisation being
granted.
• The construction phase should not exceed a period of 12 months.
• The operational phase of the development is indefinite.

11. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME (EMPr) (must include post

construction monitoring requirements and when these will be concluded.)

If the EAP answers “Yes” to Point 7 above then an EMP is to be attached to this report as an Appendix

EMPr attached YES

61
SECTION F: APPENDIXES
The following appendixes must be attached as appropriate (this list is inclusive, but not exhaustive):

It is required that if more than one item is enclosed that a table of contents is included in the appendix

Appendix A: Site plan(s) – (must include a scaled layout plan of the proposed activities overlain on
the site sensitivities indicating areas to be avoided including buffers)

Appendix B: Photographs

Appendix C: Facility illustration(s)

Appendix D: Route position information

Appendix E: Public participation information

Appendix F: Water use license(s) authorisation, SAHRA information, service letters from
municipalities, water supply information

Appendix G: Specialist reports

Appendix H: EMPr

Appendix I: Other information

CHECKLIST
To ensure that all information that the Department needs to be able to process this application, please check that:

 Where requested, supporting documentation has been attached;

 All relevant sections of the form have been completed.

62
 APPENDIX A

Site plan(s)

Appendix A-1: Locality Map

Appendix A-2: Aerial Image
Appendix A-3: Layout Plan
Appendix A-4: C-Plan
Appendix A-5: GPEMF Map
Appendix A-6: Threatened Ecosystems Map
 GAUTENG PROVINCIAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

Sedibeng

4
LEGEND
0 0.10.2 0.4 0.6
Km
0.8

Agricultural HoldingsEnvironmental Management Zones

Farm Portions Zone 1

District Municipalities Zone 2

Special Control Zones Zone 3

Zone 4
Zone 5
APPENDIX B:

Photographs
 SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Photographs of the project site for the proposed development of a filling station on Portion 101 (a
portion of Portion 82) of the Farm Langlaagte 186-IR, located north of the intersection of the N3
Highway and Jacobs Street (R42) in Heidelberg, Lesedi Local Municipality. Photographs have been
taken from the centre of the proposed project site in the eight major compass directions.

Photograph 1: Photograph across the project site facing Photograph 2: Photograph looking northeast across the site,
north. The pine trees line the paved road leading to the towards the unnamed road from which access to the site will
cemetery. be gained.

Photograph 3: View towards the east across the site, where Photograph 4. View from the centre of the project site towards
the unnamed road joins with Jacobs Street (R42). the southeast. The site is bounded by Jacobs Street (R42)
along the southern and southeastern boundaries.
Photograph 5: Photograph looking south across the site. The Photograph 6: This photograph towards the southwest
southern boundary is formed by Jacobs Street (R42) that illustrates the characteristic vegetation on site. The corner of
runs between the towns of Heidelberg and Nigel. the property is located along the intersection of the N3
Highway and Jacobs Street (R42).

Photograph 7: Photograph across the site towards the west. Photograph 8: Photograph looking northwest across the
The off-ramp from the N3 Highway to Jacobs Street (R42) is project site.
located west of the property.

Photograph 9: Existing concrete stormwater channel Photograph 10: Existing concrete stormwater channel
between the site and Jacobs Street (R42). leading to large culvert at intersection between N3 Highway
off-ramp and Jacobs Street (R42).
 APPENDIX C:

Facility illustration(s)

None to date
 APPENDIX D

Route Position Information

Appendix D-1: Feasibility Report

SHELL HEIDELBERG
FILLING STATION
PROPOSED FILLING STATION ON PORTION 101 (A
PORTION OF PORTION 82) OF THE FARM LANGLAAGTE
186, SEDIBENG DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY

REPORT: CONFIDENTIAL
PROJECT NO: 001-18
DATE: NOVEMBER 2018

TYPE OF DOCUMENT: CONFIDENTIAL

PROJECT NO: 001-18

DATE: FEBRUARY 2019

 Page |1

Feasibility Report
Proposed Filling Station on Portion 101 (A
Portion of Portion 82) of the Farm Langlaagte
186, Sedibeng District Municipality

CLIENT:
SHELL SOUTH AFRICA ENERGY (Pty) LTD
The Campus, Twickernham Building,
57 Sloane Street, Epsom Downs
Bryanston
2021

ATTENTION:
Name: Viloshni Moodley
E-mail: viloshni.moodley@shell.com
Mobile: 083 629 3131
Office

ENGINEER:
Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd
PO Box 90760
Garsfontein
0042

RESPONSIBILITY:
Kholosa Magwa
e-mail: kholosa.magwa@designedes.co.za
Mobile: 083 515 6184

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Feasibility Report
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine March 2019
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 SHELL Heidelberg FS
 Page |2

Issue/Revision
Issue 1 Revision 1 Revision 2

Remarks
Submitted to Client

Date March 2019

Prepared by Tom Hannay

Checked by Kholosa Magwa

Signature

Authorised by

Signature

Project Number
001 – 18

File Reference

Kholosa Magwa
Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd
Mobile: 083 515 6184

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Feasibility Report
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine March 2019
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 SHELL Heidelberg FS
 Page |3

1 Contents

2 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 6

2.1 Background ............................................................................................................................. 6

2.2 Study Area............................................................................................................................... 6

2.3 Traffic Growth within the Study Area ...................................................................................... 7

2.4 Future Roads........................................................................................................................... 8

3 EVALUATION OF STUDY SITE ..................................................................................................... 9

3.1 Physical Attributes ................................................................................................................ 9

3.2 Visibility.................................................................................................................................. 9

3.3 Proposed Access .................................................................................................................. 9

3.4 Trading Market..................................................................................................................... 10

3.5 Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................................... 10

3.6 Competitor Investigation .................................................................................................... 10

4 IMPACT ON EXISTING SITES ..................................................................................................... 11

4.1 Competitor Sites .................................................................................................................... 11

4.2 Catchment Markets ............................................................................................................... 11

4.3 Competitor Sites Investigation .............................................................................................. 11

4.3.1 FBM Motors; Engen: ....................................................................................................... 11

4.3.2 Suikerbos Service Station; Sasol: ................................................................................. 12

4.3.3 Kloofsig Service Station; Shell: ..................................................................................... 12

4.3.4 Total Heidelberg: ............................................................................................................. 12

4.3.5 Heidelberg Filling Station; Engen: ................................................................................ 12

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Feasibility Report
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine March 2019
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 SHELL Heidelberg FS
 Page |4

4.3.6 Norvic Motors; Caltex: .................................................................................................... 12

4.3.7 Rensburg Filling Station; Engen: .................................................................................. 12

4.3.8 Station Rebuild; Sasol: ................................................................................................... 13

4.3.9 Other Stations: ................................................................................................................ 13

4.4 Conclusions on Competitor Stations ..................................................................................... 13

5 SHARED TRAFFIC VOLUMES .................................................................................................... 15

5.1 Shared Traffic in the Study Area ........................................................................................... 15

5.2 Moving Market Factor between Filling Stations .................................................................... 15

5.3 Present Estimated Fuel Sale Volume ................................................................................... 16

5.4 Moving Market Factor ........................................................................................................... 16

5.5 Lost Fuel Sales if Development is built ................................................................................. 17

5.6 (Present Fuel Sales) – (Lost Fuel) ........................................................................................ 17

5.7 3-Year Future Sales from Lost Fuel sales ............................................................................ 17

6 VOLUME CALCULATIONS .......................................................................................................... 18

6.1 Assumptions used in the Volume Calculations ............................................................... 18

6.1.1 Vehicles Passing the Site per Day................................................................................. 18

6.1.2 The ‘Average Fill’............................................................................................................. 18

6.1.3 Percentage of Pass-By Traffic (Or Interception Rate) ................................................. 19

6.1.4 Normal Trading Days in a Month ................................................................................... 21

6.2 Traffic Demand (ADT) ........................................................................................................... 22

7 ESTIMATED FUEL AND SHOP SALES OF THE PROPOSED STATION .................................. 23

7.1 Expected Monthly Fuel Sales ................................................................................................ 23

7.2 Expected Monthly Shop Sales .............................................................................................. 24

8 FEASIBILITY OF PROPOSED SITE ............................................................................................ 25

9 ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................................ 26

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Feasibility Report
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine March 2019
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 SHELL Heidelberg FS
 Page |5

10 FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................................... 27

11 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 29

12 PROFITABILITY ............................................................................................................................ 30

Table 8: Approximate Net Monthly Profit ...................................................................................... 31

13 DISCLAIMER / INDEMNITY .......................................................................................................... 33

14 FIGURES ....................................................................................................................................... 34

14.1 Figure 1: Locality Plan ........................................................................................................... 34

14.2 Figure 2: Competitor Sites .................................................................................................... 34

15 DRAWINGS ................................................................................................................................... 35

15.1 Drawing 001: Proposed Site and Access Layout .................................................................. 35

16 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................ 36

16.1 Photos ................................................................................................................................... 36

16.2 Traffic Count Report .............................................................................................................. 36

Table’s in Report

Table 1: Expected Shared Traffic ......................................................................................................... 15

Table 2: Moving Market Factor ............................................................................................................. 16

Table 3: Loss of Sales ........................................................................................................................... 17

Table 4: Expected Interception Rate ................................................................................................. 21

Table 5: Potential Fuel Sale Volumes ................................................................................................... 23

Table 6: Typical approximate cost of new filling station ........................................................................ 25

Table 8: Approximate Net Monthly profit

Graph’s in the Report

Graph 1: Interception Rate .................................................................................................................... 20

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Feasibility Report
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine March 2019
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 SHELL Heidelberg FS
 Page |6

2 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Background
Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd was appointed to investigate a site for the possible
development and operating of a filling station at the intersection of the R42 and Cemetery Road just
east of the N3 Freeway in Heidelberg in the Gauteng Province of South Africa.

It is planned that a modern filling station with a canopy-covered forecourt be developed on the property
in conjunction with three fast food facilities and that the filling station will have a modern convenience
store and full petrol and diesel fuelling facilities.

This study will determine if the development of the proposed station is feasible. It will take into account
the traffic accessible to the property, the additional traffic generated by the fast food facilities and the
impact that opposition stations in the area will have on the proposed station. The study will assume that
the facility will be efficiently operated and will provide all the normal facilities available at a modern
contemporary service station.

2.2 Study Area

Heidelberg is a medium-sized town with around 40’000-50’000 inhabitants, roughly 50 kms south of
Johannesburg and just west of the N3 Freeway between Johannesburg and Durban. The town grew
from a humble trading store into a town that was briefly the capital of the Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek,
which at that time, during the second half of the 19th century, was an independent Boer-ruled country.
It has a rich history and a number of historic buildings still exist, including the Heidelberg Transport
Museum, while the Dutch Reformed Church is a provincial heritage site.

The town consists mostly of old-style buildings surrounded by residences ranging from low to upper-
middle income with a light industrial area to the south of town. The N3 (Johannesburg – Durban)
Motorway passes just to the east of town with the Old Durban Road passing on the west. One of the
main CBD streets, Jacobs Street, leaves town in an easterly direction and becomes the R42, the main
route between Heidelberg and the town of Nigel, 15 kms away.

The proposed development will be located alongside this R42 just east of the N3 Freeway, but it will be
accessible only off Cemetery Road leading off the R42.

The surrounding trade area to the south of the proposed filling station and east of the Freeway is made
up of well-developed suburbs (Bergsig and Mountain View) but has barren un-developed veld to the
north. The highway acts as a physical barrier through the trade area, west of which is the very large

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Feasibility Report
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine March 2019
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 SHELL Heidelberg FS
 Page |7

Heidelberg Mall, various suburbs and the CBD of Heidelberg itself. To the north however, the trade area
comprises barren veld.

Within the trade area, there are no opposition stations east of the freeway, but a number occur west of
the freeway, all of which are described in detail in a paragraph below with photographs of these stations
and the target property shown in the Appendices.

2.3 Traffic Growth within the Study Area

It is typical to consider a 7-year period for the potential growth within a study area, but precise traffic
growth patterns were not analysed nor calculated in depth for this report.

When there is insufficient historic data or data quality is poor and adequate information to calculate
expected traffic growth in a study is not available, typical growth rates may be obtained from
recommendations by the Committee of Transport Officials (COTO). However, during the site inspection,
a high number of black motorists were observed passing the target property, indicating a good potential
for increased vehicle ownership as it is this income sector that presently has the highest growth in
vehicle ownership.

An overseas based market analysis company predicts that over the stations’ forecast period, incomes
in the country will grow at a steady rate just above inflation, resulting in an increase in purchasing power
in real terms and an increase in fuel needs. Inflation is predicted to average 5.2% in the period 2018-
2022, but household disposable incomes will grow by 6.5% pa over the same period, helped by a rise
in the minimum wage, indicating a positive future for the proposed station.

However, the current economic downturn in the country has resulted in tepid growth in the economy
and this, combined with high unemployment, continues to constrain current growth and will continue in
the short term into 2019. Consumer confidence has improved significantly but due to high levels of
economic uncertainty this isn't translating into higher retail and fuel sales, the latter exacerbated by the
recent rise in fuel prices.

Analysts predict that income growth will outpace the rate of inflation over the next five years so, as
economic growth picks up, this outlook is likely to improve going into 2019 and beyond. Based on this,
traffic growth for the proposed station is assumed at 3.0% pa for the next five years.

The initial 3-Year annual forecast, the potential growth and estimated monthly sales for the proposed is
set out in Table 5 of this report.

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Feasibility Report
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine March 2019
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 SHELL Heidelberg FS
 Page |8

2.4 Future Roads

Considering that there is a major interchange on the R42 in close proximity to the target property (<200
metres), it can be concluded that there will be no changes to the road alignment that will have a negative
impact on the proposed filling station. The only expected change could be an upgrade of Cemetery
Road, which will have a positive effect on the station as an upgrade of this road will only happen when
the veld area north of the station becomes developed. Presently, Cemetery Road carries minimal traffic.

For the initial life cycle of the proposed station, it is assumed therefore that there will be no changes to
the immediate road network.

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Feasibility Report
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine March 2019
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 SHELL Heidelberg FS
 Page |9

3 EVALUATION OF STUDY SITE

The study site was investigated on a weekday in March 2019 with a qualitative assessment of the most
important service station attributes being assessed on the following scale:

Very Poor Poor Average Good Very Good

Visibility: Very Good

Access: Average. Only off the secondary road.

Trading Market: Average, mostly transient traffic between Heidelberg and Nigel with residential traffic
from the suburbs south east of the property.

Traffic Volumes: Good. An ADT in excess of 17’000 vpd.

Competitor Stations: Average. Six stations west of the freeway, none to the east.

3.1 Physical Attributes

The property is flat and level and will pose no development problems. The property is large enough to
allow development of ancillary fast food offerings, with a McDonalds, Kentucky Fried Chicken and an
Ocean Basket planned. With access only off the secondary Cemetery Road, the internal road layout
has been designed to take motorists exiting the forecourt past the fast food outlets, which will optimise
their accessibility. See Photos 1 – 3 of the target properties.

3.2 Visibility

With no impeding buildings or trees before or after the proposed development, the visibility is described
as VERY GOOD. Visibility for motorists along the freeway however will not be good as the forecourt will
face the R42 and not be readily visible from the freeway. See Photos 1 – 3.

3.3 Proposed Access

The proposed station will have a separate entrance and exit off Cemetery Road, not really convenient
but access off the R42 is not possible owing to the proximity of the interchange. In any event, the
stations’ intended trade will come from vehicles passing along the R42 and not from the freeway as
motorists along the freeway will have other more convenient stations, such as the double-sided Total

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Feasibility Report
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine March 2019
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 SHELL Heidelberg FS
 P a g e | 10

station just 16 kms to the north and the Copa Cobana Total Truck Port to the south. See Access
Diagram.

3.4 Trading Market

The stations’ trade market will be the residential trade from the middle-income homes south east of the
property and the transient trade along the R42 between Heidelberg and Nigel.

3.5 Traffic Volumes

The traffic study completed on Wednesday 5th September 2018 showed that 17’665 vehicles passed
the proposed station that day, a GOOD flow especially as many vehicles passing the proposed station
and travelling onto the freeway will not find any of the opposition stations to the west at all convenient.

Paragraph 6.2 below gives the breakdown of the count and the vehicles that will be able to access the
station.

3.6 Competitor Investigation

As mentioned above, there are seven opposition stations in the stations’ greater trade area, all on the
west of the freeway. The stations in Nigel are all off the R42 and 12 kms away from the proposed station
so are not considered to be opposition threats, while the six to the west of the freeway are all old-
fashioned and non-contemporary, again not considered being of major threat. These are described in
detail below.

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Feasibility Report
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine March 2019
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 SHELL Heidelberg FS
 P a g e | 11

4 IMPACT ON EXISTING SITES

4.1 Competitor Sites

To determine the impact on surrounding filling stations in a suburban environment, it is typical to look
at all existing filling stations within a 3 km distance of the proposed station, but a greater distance along
main or arterial routes. Although the proposed station will be accessible to some transient traffic
between Heidelberg and Nigel, there are no competitor stations for a considerable distance towards
Nigel, so can be considered to be a purely suburban station. A distance of 3 kms is thus investigated
and all stations within this distance are the taken into account.

The competitor sites are described in Paragraph 4.3 below and photographs of the sites are attached
as Annexure A.

4.2 Catchment Markets

The nearby N3 Freeway will act as a physical barrier, cutting the trade area in half, but as the R42
crosses the freeway nearby, it acts as a ‘funnel’ directing a lot of transient traffic past the property. The
traffic accessible to the station is divided into the following markets:

A: The local residential market from the suburbs south of the target property and east of the
freeway, and

B: The transient traffic passing along the R42 between Heidelberg and Nigel. Some of this traffic
will have come off the N3, will be en-route to Nigel and will not have passed any of the
competitor stations.

4.3 Competitor Sites Investigation

4.3.1 FBM Motors; Engen:

This small non-contemporary site, lying adjacent to and almost directly on Jacobs Street, at
S26o29’57.87 and E28o21’28.73 has a small forecourt with one island parallel to the street and
accommodating four duo-nozzle pumps in front of an old building with no shop. There is an alley to
one side of the forecourt leading through to the back of the station which may lead to a workshop. It
had an average fill of only 14,4 litres when visited and is estimated to pump around 220’000 litres per
month. Photo 6.

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Feasibility Report
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine March 2019
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 SHELL Heidelberg FS
 P a g e | 12

4.3.2 Suikerbos Service Station; Sasol:

This service station lies around the corner from the above station at S26o29’56.78 and E28o21’25.80
on the corner of Voortrekker and Hospital Streets and is probably the highest pumper in Heidelberg
with an average fill of 19,1 litres when surveyed and is estimated to pump around 450’000 litres per
month. It has a carwash, KFC and the large 24-hr Gewels Convenience Centre adjacent to the
forecourt, which has four 8-nozzle pumps under a tollgate layout canopy. Photo 7.

4.3.3 Kloofsig Service Station; Shell:

This site, at S26o29’49.69 and E28o21’17.01 on the corner of Voortrekker and Marais Streets, has a
four-island tollgate forecourt with four 8-nozzle pumps under canopy and in front of a Shell Select
shop and a Torrador Pizza outlet. It had an average fill of 17,9 litres and is expected to pump around
300’000 litres per month. Photo 8.

4.3.4 Total Heidelberg:

Situated further south along Voortrekker Street, at S26o30’18.87 and E28o21’45.96 this is a
fairly clean and modern station (Total’s new image) and was very busy when surveyed. It had
an average fill of 19 litres and is felt will pump around 380’000 litres per month. It has a four-
square forecourt layout with four 6-nozzle pumps and a normal Total convenience shop.
Photo 9.

4.3.5 Heidelberg Filling Station; Engen:

At S26o30’26.40 and E28o21’33.34, this station lies on the corner of Schoeman and Marais Streets
and has two islands parallel to the street with two 6-nozzle pumps, one remote diesel pump and the
Kina’ Ole Convenience Shop. It had an average fill of only 15 litres when visited and is not expected
to pump more than around 260’000 lpm. Photo 10.

4.3.6 Norvic Motors; Caltex:

Situated at S26o31’15.63 and E28o21’31.90, this station is south of Heidelberg on the Old Durban
Road and old and non-contemporary, with no shop. It has a four-square forecourt with four 6-nozzle
pumps and had an average fill of 20,2 litres and probably pumps around 260’000 lpm. It will have very
little if any effect on the proposed filling station. Photo 11.

4.3.7 Rensburg Filling Station; Engen:

This station, situated at S26o31’13.50 and E28o21’17.36, will also have very little influence on the
proposed filling station, but does lie within the 3 km radius of influence as mentioned in 4.1 above. It
lies on the corner of AG Visser and Suttman Streets and has four 6-nozzle pumps under a four-square

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Feasibility Report
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine March 2019
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 SHELL Heidelberg FS
 P a g e | 13

canopy and a non-standard Engen shop. With an average fill of 19 litres when surveyed, it is felt to
pump around 370’000 lpm. Photo 12.

4.3.8 Station Rebuild; Sasol:

An old BP station on the corner of Schoeman Street and the Heidelberg-Balfour Road (Old Durban
Road), at S26o30’52.00 and E28o21’23.18, currently being rebuilt by Sasol. The station will have a
prime location on the southern periphery of town and is likely to capture most of the trade into
Heidelberg from that direction. It will have no influence on the proposed station. Photo 13.

4.3.9 Other Stations:

Three other opposition stations may possibly have some effect on the proposed development:

a. Flash Fuels Diesel. An informal diesel station situated 3,5 kms from the proposed station towards
Nigel at S26o28’32.44 and E28o24’21.21. It has two diesel pumps out with no canopy and built in
conjunction with the Kaydale Supermarket, and a pub and grill. Has rudimentary toilet and shower
truckers’ facilities. Not attractive. Photo 14.

b. Copa Cabana Total situated 8,5 kms south of Heidelberg on the Heidelberg-Balfour Road where it
crosses the N3 Freeway at S26o33’42.02 and E28o23’31.28. With three single nozzle and three duo
nozzle pumps in front of a shop and tyre repair facility. Photo 15.

c. Total Petroport, situated 16 kms north of Heidelberg on the N3 Freeway at S26o23’34.63 and
E28o15’18.01. Has full Service and Rest Area facilities.

4.4 Conclusions on Competitor Stations

The sites listed 4.3.1 to 4.3.3 are felt will be the most affected by the proposed service station, with the
others 4.3.4 to 4.3.8 being further away and of lesser and limited influence.

However, considering the location of the proposed filling station on the eastern side of the N3 Freeway,
it will have its own unique trade market, considered to be the residential suburbs of Bergsig and
Mountain View together with the transient traffic travelling between Heidelberg and Nigel. Also, as it will
be similar to a freeway-type Service and Rest Area and will be modern and contemporary with a good
food and convenience offering, it can be expected to have a good average fill (probably reduced a little
by the proximity of the two mentioned suburbs, which have a mix of low and lower-middle income
housing). This good average fill and the limited number opposition stations nearby, give the station
VERY GOOD potential. There is also ample space for future residential growth.

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Feasibility Report
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine March 2019
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 SHELL Heidelberg FS
 P a g e | 14

Much of the proposed stations’ projected volume will come from the stations in town, none of
which will become unprofitable.

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Feasibility Report
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine March 2019
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 SHELL Heidelberg FS
 P a g e | 15

5 SHARED TRAFFIC VOLUMES

5.1 Shared Traffic in the Study Area

To assess the impact of the proposed filling station on other filling stations, the shared traffic streams
were examined, with shared volumes being determined from other impact studies, the shared volumes
being summarised below

Table 1: Expected Shared Traffic

TRAFFIC SHARED
ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF
WITH NEW FILLING
FILLING STATION POTENTIAL PASS-BY TOTAL TRAFFIC GENERAL COMMENT
STATION
TRAFFIC (VEH/DAY) SHARED (%)
(VEH/DAY)

Serves portion of
1 FBM Motors; Engen 14’000 4’200 30% market

Suikerbos Motors; Serves portion of

2 Sasol
20’000 4’000 20% market

Kloofsig Filling Serves portion of

3 Station: Shell
18'000 2’700 15% market

Serves minor portion of

4 Total Heidelberg 8'000 800 10% market

Heidelberg Filling Serves minor portion of

5 Station; Engen
6'000 600 10% market

Norvic Motors; Serves very minor

6 Caltex
10’000 500 5% portion of market

Rensburg Filling Serves very minor

7 Station; Engen
6’000 300 5% portion of market

Note: The traffic shared between existing stations and the study site does not imply the same or
proportional decrease in fuel sales. Passing road users are more likely to purchase fuel or turn into a
filling station based on the factors discussed in Section 6.1.3 below:

5.2 Moving Market Factor between Filling Stations

Limited knowledge is available on what determines where a motorist fills up, but it is influenced by the
same factors determining the interception rate mentioned in this report. The number of filling stations in
an area determines the impact a new filling station will have on the other filling stations. For example,
if there is only one filling station in an area, another station built nearby will take away a large percentage
of its customers. However, if there are a number of other filling stations in an area, a new filling station
will take a much smaller percentage from the other existing stations’ markets. If an existing filling station

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Feasibility Report
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine March 2019
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 SHELL Heidelberg FS
 P a g e | 16

has an interception rate of say 3% from its passing traffic and another site is built nearby which also
captures 3%, they will not capture the same 3%. There will be an overlap or ‘moving market’ and it is
this that influences what fuel will be pumped by the new filling station and what will be lost by the other
existing station(s).

Research indicates several factors that influence the ‘moving market’ between competing filling
stations. Most important is location (‘convenience’), followed by the total customer experience (such as
‘service’ and ‘convenience store prices’) and then, only third, comes ‘brand preference’, which is
therefore comparatively unimportant.

In short, it is the station that is the most convenient and delivers the best overall customer
experience that outperforms competitors.

1
M M Molefe. Consumer Motivations in Forecourt Convenience Retail Shopping in South Africa. University of Pretoria 2006.

Limited statistics are available on what percentage of traffic will move but the following guideline is
proposed and summarised Error! Reference source not found.

Table 2: Moving Market Factor

DESCRIPTION MOVING MARKET FACTOR

New Filling Station is much better located with good accesses and many more
20-40%
facilities

Similar location, access and services than those in area 10-20%

New Site has poor access, no additional facilities, located far away from
existing filling stations. Typically for sites not located in the same local market 10%
or transient route as the proposed site.

In combining the different aspects described in this Chapter, an assessment can be made on the impact
the new filling station will have on certain opposition filling stations, an assessment of which is
summarised in Table 3, which consists of 4 columns of calculated values, as follows:

5.3 Present Estimated Fuel Sale Volume

This value represents how many litres of fuel per month the site in question currently sells, without
considering the effect of the proposed filling station. This value is calculated by considering the
number of passing vehicles, the number of trading days per month, the average fill at relevant
sites in the trade area and the average interception rate (draw off) from passing traffic.

5.4 Moving Market Factor

Refer to Table 2. The values used in Table 2 are then transferred into Table 3.

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Feasibility Report
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine March 2019
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 SHELL Heidelberg FS
 P a g e | 17

5.5 Lost Fuel Sales if Development is built

This value represents how many litres of fuel per month the site in question will lose if the
proposed filling station is built. It is calculated by multiplying the moving market factor with the
present sale volumes;

5.6 (Present Fuel Sales) – (Lost Fuel)

This value is the estimated fuel sales volume of the site in question when the ‘moving market
factor’ is taken into account;

5.7 3-Year Future Sales from Lost Fuel sales

This value is the estimated fuel sales volume of the site in question when the ‘moving market
factor’ is taken into account;

Table 3: Loss of Sales

ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
MOVING (PRESENT FUEL 5 YEAR FUTURE
FUEL SALES DECREASE IN
FILLING STATION MARKET SALES) - (SALE SALES AFTER
POTENTIAL SALES IF SITE IS
FACTOR [%] DECREASE) [LPM] IMPACT [LPM]
[LPM] DEVELOPED

FBM Motors;
1 Engen
220’000 20% 44’000 176’000 275’907

Suikerbos
2 Motors; Sasol
450’000 20% 90’000 360’500 213’306

Kloofsig Filling
3 Station: Shell
300’000 20% 60’000 240’000 78’830

4 Total Heidelberg 380’000 15% 57’000 323’000 278’225

Heidelberg
5 Filling Station; 260’000 10% 26’000 234’000 278’225
Engen

Norvic Motors;
6 Caltex
260’000 10% 28’000 252’000 185’483

Rensburg Filling
7 station; Engen
370’000 5% 18’500 351’500 396’471

Litreage estimated will be taken from opposition stations 323’500

Table 3 above shows that approximately 323’500 litres per month will be obtained from the opposition
fuel sites in Heidelberg.

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Feasibility Report
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine March 2019
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 SHELL Heidelberg FS
 P a g e | 18

6 VOLUME CALCULATIONS

The following formula is used by the fuel industry to calculate the expected average litres of fuel to be
sold in a month:

𝐿 = 𝐴𝐷𝑇 × 𝐹̅ × 𝑝 × 𝑑

Litres per month (L) = [Vehicles per day passing the site (ADT)] x

[Average fuel fill per vehicle (𝐹̅ )] x

[Percentage vehicles of pass-by traffic turning into the site (p)] x

[Average full normal trading days in a month (d)]

6.1 Assumptions used in the Volume Calculations

6.1.1 Vehicles Passing the Site per Day

The number of vehicles passing any proposed filling station is critical when determining the projected
volume the station is expected to pump and therefore critical in determining its feasibility.

A total of 17’665 vehicles were counted passing the target property on the day of the count All vehicles
will be able to access the station, all of which will have to leave the R42 and enter Road A to access
the station. Different interception rates are applied to the different flows, either directly off the R42 or
along Road A as detailed in paragraph 6.1.3 below

6.1.2 The ‘Average Fill’

The estimated average fill expected for the subject site was based on the following:

• Location of the site (middle-income area);

• Type of traffic to be served (local and transient); and
• Average fills recorded over a reasonable period at other filling stations in the area.

During a site inspection mid- to late-morning on a Tuesday, most of the vehicles passing the property
appeared to be middle-income residential-type vehicles with a high percentage driven by black

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Feasibility Report
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine March 2019
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 SHELL Heidelberg FS
 P a g e | 19

motorists. As such motorists historically had a lesser fill than more affluent motorists the average fill will
be less than for normal residential vehicles but more than for low-income residential vehicles.

The nearest opposition stations along the R42 are FBM Motors, Engen and Suikerbos Motors, Sasol,
which had an average between them of 16,75 litres per fill, but FBM Motors is probably a bad example
owing to its old and dilapidated state. The proposed station will cater for similar clientele but with a
higher percentage of transient vehicles and will have newer and more modern facilities including three
popular fast food outlets, it is assumed that its average fill will be similar to the Sasol stations’ but
brought down slightly by the proximity of the two lower affluence suburbs, so is set at 18 litres per fill.

6.1.3 Percentage of Pass-By Traffic (Or Interception Rate)

The turn-in percentages (interception rates) are determined by a number of factors, the most important
of which is the convenience of the station to passing motorists. No motorist will make a specific trip to
buy fuel (unless for special reasons) but will rather buy fuel when taking a trip for another reason, such
as to do the monthly shopping or to travel to and from work. Service stations are thus ‘traffic
interceptors’ rather than ‘traffic generators. The most important factor determining the interception rate
is therefore ‘convenience’.

Other factors were described in Paragraph 3 above, including visibility, accessibility, services provided,
station design and even whether the station is on the home or work bound side of the road.

From previous experiences with filling station developments, DES has determined the relationship
between the interception rate and the passing traffic volumes of a site. This relationship is illustrated by
the following graph and is used as a general guideline for estimating the interception rates expected for
the subject site. The interception rates indicated on the graph are tabulated in Table 4. It must be noted
however that the estimation is based mainly on traffic streams and surrounding land and commercial
uses and is not an exact method of measurement.

Although the graph is based on a traffic flow of around only 5’000 vpd as opposed to the actual 17’000,
the high interception rate can be attributed to the fact that the R42 becomes double-carriageway at the
site location and there is a break in the median to allow traffic from both sides of the double-carriageway
at access the station. This will allow a higher interception rate than from a normal traffic flow of 17’000
vpd from a single-carriageway road. The reduction in traffic down to the suggested 5’000 vpd has been
a purely subjective one, but is considered to be realistic.

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Feasibility Report
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine March 2019
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 SHELL Heidelberg FS
 P a g e | 20

y = 885.92x-0.6293
R2 = 0.3972
15
Interception Rate vs ADT

12
Interception Rate (%)

0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000
ADT (veh/day)

Graph 1: Interception Rate

The interception rate can be assumed to be similar to the percentages from studies for similarly located
stations, which have rates of around 4% for positive middle-income residential traffic but up to 12% for
lower income and transient traffic. The country’s growing black middle-class population increases the
potential for household spending on non-food items, such as clothing and consumer goods, which
consequently increases the number of trips and fuel usage.

With an increasing disposable income in the lower-income sector, their average fills are increasing
leading to a less frequent need to seek fuel and therefore a corresponding reduction in the interception
rate, down to around 8% - 10% for positive vehicles. However, the recent increases in the fuel price
have negated this and the interception rates have not decreased as much as expected, probably
stabilising at around 10%.

With six opposition stations nearby, they will have some influence on the interception rate so an average
rate must be assumed for the mix between the lower- and middle-income and the transient traffic,
assumed here to be 6% for positive flow vehicles and 3% percent for the negative flow, the latter due
to negative vehicles having to cross oncoming positive vehicles and the fact that the station is on the
opposite side of the road from the main trade area (the area on the same side comprises barren veld).

The traffic count diagram shows that the negative flow lanes (5 and 6) have very inconvenient access
(crossing oncoming traffic) and are likely to have lower interception rates than from lanes 7 and 9, which
will have slightly less troublesome access, but this has been carefully considered and the overall
negative interception rate of 3% is applied in the volume calculations below.

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Feasibility Report
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine March 2019
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 SHELL Heidelberg FS
 P a g e | 21

These interception rates are adopted based on the scarcity of other convenient stations on the same
side of the N3 Freeway and that the proposed station will be modern with contemporary facilities and
have a good fuel and food offering.

The three fast food facilities have been taken into account when determining the expected interception
rate, as without these and the six other opposition stations nearby, the interception rates would have
been severely compromised.

Heavy traffic was included in the counts so is included in the volume calculations below but the
somewhat inconvenient access for such vehicles will keep the interception rate low, together with the
fact that there is an independent heavy vehicle diesel depot only 3,5kms along the R42 towards Nigel.
An interception rate of only 1% is therefore adopted from this traffic.

It should be noted also, that the similarity between the positive and negative heavy vehicle flows (688
versus 695) could indicate that there has been double-counting ie: the same vehicle being counted
travelling in each direction. As the counts are so similar, this is assumed to have been the case, so only
one direction of heavy vehicle movement is considered below.

Table 4: Expected Interception Rate

Average Daily Traffic (ADT) = 17’665 vpd

Vehicles per day Assumed interception rate
Positive Flow 8’238 6%
Negative flow 8’001 4%
Heavy vehicles (one direction) 688 1%

6.1.4 Normal Trading Days in a Month

As the proposed development will be similar to a typical suburban station with higher commuter traffic
during the week than over weekends, a 27-day month is assumed for light vehicles and 25 for heavy
vehicles. Transient traffic is not expected to increase substantially over weekends.

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Feasibility Report
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine March 2019
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 SHELL Heidelberg FS
 P a g e | 22

6.2 Traffic Demand (ADT)

A traffic count was conducted on Wednesday 5th September 2018 showing a total of 17’665 vehicles
through the intersection that day, broken down as follows;

POSITIVE TRAFFIC: (lanes 10 and 11):

8’238 light vehicles and taxis

688 heavy vehicles.

NEGATIVE TRAFFIC: (lanes 5, 6, 7 and 9):

8’001 light vehicles and taxis

695 heavy vehicles (possible double-counting, so ignored)

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Feasibility Report
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine March 2019
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 SHELL Heidelberg FS
 P a g e | 23

7 ESTIMATED FUEL AND SHOP SALES OF THE

PROPOSED STATION

7.1 Expected Monthly Fuel Sales

It is generally found that service stations only reach 80-95% of their projected volume during the first
two years and only achieve full mature volume at the end of year three.

Also, diesel sales normally make up 5 – 15% of the total fuel sales as there are other competitors that
cater for the diesel market and heavy vehicles are often tied to a specific brand through Oil Company
Diesel Cards. However, the average fill on diesel is higher than that of petrol, but the profit per litre is
less, so for purposes of this report, it is assumed that the profit on diesel transactions will be similar to
the profit on petrol transactions.

The estimated fuel sales are calculated in Table 5 below;

Table 5: Potential Fuel Sale Volumes

PROPOSED FILLING STATION at the intersection of R42 and un-named Road A

MONTHLY SALES POTENTIAL PETROL PETROL DIESEL DIESEL

Positive Negative Positive Negative

R42 and R42 and R42 and R42 and

Road A Road A Road A Road A
Traffic Flow (Veh/day) 8238 8001 688 0
Average Fill (Litres/Veh) 18 18 100
Trading Days (Days/Month) 27 27 25
Interception Rate (%) 6.0% 3.0% 1.00%
Monthly Fuel Sale Volume (LPM) 240,220 116,655 17,200
SUB-
TOTAL 240,220 116,655 17,200 0
Total Estimated Monthly Sales Potential (1 Year) 374,075

The calculations above show that 374’075 petrol and diesel can be expected once the proposed station
opens for business, with the table below showing the estimated approximate monthly fuel sales of
408’761 litres for the stations’ third year of operation. It must be noted that conservative estimates of
average fill and interception rates have been adopted in the calculations and that the calculated volume
could well be exceeded.

PERIOD POTENTIAL GROWTH ESTIMATED LITRES TOTAL

Percentage Growth LITRES
YEAR PETROL DIESEL
of Potential Rate PER MONTH
1 2019 85% 3.00% 312,444 15,059 327,502
2 2020 95% 3.00% 359,678 17,335 377,013
3 2021 100% 3.00% 389,967 18,795 408,761

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Feasibility Report
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine March 2019
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 SHELL Heidelberg FS
 P a g e | 24

Additional volume from the Fast Food Outlets: The attraction of the three proposed fast food outlets has
been considered and taken into account when arriving at the expected 6% interception rate above. Without
the effect of these facilities, the interception rate would have been around the norm for low- and middle-
income residential communities, at around 4% for positive vehicles and down to about 2% for negative. .

Table 3 showed that approximately 323’500 litres of the petrol volume would be gained from the
competitor filling stations surveyed, with the remainder of about 50’575 litres being gained from stations
outside the study area, mainly in Nigel and off the freeway and turning toward Nigel.

7.2 Expected Monthly Shop Sales

It has been established that there is a relationship between the fuel sales and the sales from the
convenience store at a service station. Based on historic studies and using examples from other
similar suburban stations, a ratio of shop sales to fuel sales of R1,40 per litre is normal but, with three
fast food facilities alongside the filling station that would also provide some convenience goods, this
ratio is reduced to R1,20/litre.

The proposed filling stations’ estimated Year-3 average Monthly Shop Sales is therefore;

408’761 litres per month x 1.2 = R490’513.

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Feasibility Report
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine March 2019
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 SHELL Heidelberg FS
 P a g e | 25

8 FEASIBILITY OF PROPOSED SITE

DES has extensive experience in consulting for filling station developers. Considering the costings
from numerous new filling station developments, Table 7 below provides a summary of the typical
costs associated with a new, modern filling station development located on a site roughly similar to
the proposed site. These costs exclude additional amenities such as a car wash, restaurant or the
planned fast food facility.

Table 6: Typical approximate cost of new filling station

COST ITEM COST SUB-TOTAL COST

1. ZONED PROPERTY R2 000 000,00

1.1 Rights, EIA, Licences, etc. R500 000,00

1.2 Land Cost

1.3 Developer Profit R750 000,00

1.4 Bulk Service Contribution R750 000,00

2. CIVIL ENGINEERING CONTRACT R5 500 000,00

R2 900
2.1 Access (External Roads)
000,00

R1 900
2.2 Internal Roads (incl. paving & kerbs)
000,00

2.3 Earthworks R500 000,00

2.4 Services R200 000,00

3. BUILDER’S CONTRACT R9 800 000,00

R6 300
3.1 Building
000,00

R1 500
3.2 Canopy
000,00

3.3 Signage R400 000,00

3.4 Shop Fitting R900 000,00

3.5 Computer & CCTV System R500 000,00

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Feasibility Report
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine March 2019
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 SHELL Heidelberg FS
 P a g e | 26

3.6 Generator R200 000,00

4. OTHER R1 800 000,00

4.1 Franchise Fee R400 000,00

4.2 Professional Fees R900 000,00

4.3 Gardens, Irrigation and Fencing R500 000,00

TOTAL R19 100 000,00

The variation in costs of a filling station development is largely influenced by the cost of the zoned
property and the civil engineering works (earthworks and accesses).

As the property is flat and appears to have no development problems, the development cost of the
proposed filling station will not differ greatly from the costs given above.

9 ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS

The engineering requirements for the development of the station will not pose a problem. The high
traffic flow passing the property, both during and after construction, will be accommodated by carefully
designed entrance and exit roads adhering to BB2 design standards and the delivery tanker will be
routed through the property to maximise ease of delivery but minimise inconvenience to customers.

Proper signage before and on the property itself will ensure that all engineering considerations will be
adequately catered.

The site is large enough to accommodate all minimum distances required.

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Feasibility Report
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine March 2019
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 SHELL Heidelberg FS
 P a g e | 27

10 FINDINGS
Following the property evaluation, the following findings were arrived at:

• While South Africa has many similar characteristics to developed international markets in terms of
political institutions and economic openness, its demographics are more similar to African markets.
The total population is growing at a rapid rate and while it is getting older, it is still young compared
with developed markets and is much more on par with African countries where young adults will
represent the largest group over the period 2015-2050. Young educated adults, an important slice
of the population, is the market that has the fastest growing percentage of vehicle ownership and
although the immediate Heidelberg trade area is relatively well developed, the high number of black
motorists passing the property augers well for future volume growth.

• The station will be at the junction of the R42 and the un-named Road A, a short distance east of the
main intersection of the R42 Heidelberg-Nigel Road and the N3 Freeway. The predominant trade
will be from the well-developed suburb south of the property and the transient vehicles passing
between Heidelberg and Nigel, many of which will turn onto the N3 without passing any of the
opposition stations.

• There are seven (soon to become eight) opposition stations in the wider area of influence, all on
the opposite side of the N3 freeway, which does form a barrier in the trade area. The proposed
station however will be located adjacent to the R42 which is the main and shortest route between
the two towns.

• The seven opposition stations are expected to lose approximately 323’500 litres per month to the
new development, but none will be a real threat as they are on the opposite side of the freeway. In
spite of the volume’s losses, none of the opposition stations will become unprofitable

• The position of the target property is such that the proposed filling station will have a superior
location and better facilities than any of the opposition stations mentioned.

• The proposed station will be accessible to both positive and negative traffic off the R42. While
Road A presently carries very little traffic as the area beyond the filling station is undeveloped, this
will change in time.

• The planned fast food outlets (McDonalds, KFC and Ocean Basket) to be built in conjunction with
the service station will be traffic generators and will bring additional traffic to the property, traffic that
was not included in the 2018 count. While the influence of these facilities has been included in the
estimated interception rates used in the volume calculations, the additional traffic has not. In time,
this will improve estimated volume throughput.

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Feasibility Report
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine March 2019
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 SHELL Heidelberg FS
 P a g e | 28

• The expected fuel sales for the proposed station is summarised in Table 5 with expected sales in
its third year of operation estimated at around 408’761 litres of petrol and diesel.

• In spite of the planned fast food facilities adjacent to the filling station, Year-3 monthly shop sales
should reach around R490’513.

• If developed, the proposed station will take approximately 323’500 litres of fuel per month from the
surveyed competitor stations with the difference of 50’575 litres being gained from stations outside
the study area.

• Oil companies generally consider a site to be justifiable if projected fuel sales achieve a minimum
of 300’000 litres per month. Calculations in Table 5 show projected volumes are expected to
achieve this.

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Feasibility Report
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine March 2019
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 SHELL Heidelberg FS
 P a g e | 29

11 CONCLUSION

• The 408’761 litres of combined petrol and diesel for the proposed stations 3 rd year of operation is
well above the normally assumed benchmark of 300’000 litres per month. Considering the current
price of fuel and the depressed state of the National Economy, this normally assumed benchmark
should probably be 350’000 litres per month, which the proposed station well exceeds anyway.

• Estimated monthly shop sales of approx. R490’513 is also an attractive shop turnover.

It is concluded that the proposed filling station development is indeed FEASIBLE.

But, what does FEASIBLE imply and how does it translate into PROFITABILITY? The following
Chapter examines this relationship.

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Feasibility Report
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine March 2019
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 SHELL Heidelberg FS
 P a g e | 30

12 PROFITABILITY
Basically, profitability = income less cost of sales.

The profitability of a service station depends on a number of variables and can never be accurately pre-
determined. Many variable factors must be taken into account, such as type of trade area, number of staffs
employed, salaries and wages, maintenance costs, bank charges, security costs, bond repayments,
promotions, general overhead costs and many many others,

The type of agreement concluded with the preferred Oil Company must also be considered.

The Oil Company agreement is a major determinant in the profitability of a service station and is also
extremely variable, depending on factors such as which company the deal is struck with, the availability of
capital to complete the project, operating or working capital and even whether the owner wishes to operate
the station or not.

There are various types of agreement available dependant on the split in capital expenditure that the landlord
and OilCo are willing to incur, which also determines the level of margin offered by the OilCo. Very simply,
there are three types of agreement available;

Oil Company Owned: Here the Oil Company owns and operates the service station for its own profit.

CORO deal: This is a Company Owned; Retailer Operated deal. Here the OilCo owns the service station
or has a long-term lease over the property, invests all the capital required and appoints the Retailer. The
OilCo has full control over the business through various agreements which compel the Retailer to operate the
station to prescribed standards and specifications. In the current political scenario, the OilCo’s choice of
Retailer by would probably be BEE dependent but the Owner could retain the right to choose the Retailer,
who would need to meet OilCo approval.

The Retailer would derive profit from the margin that is made per litre of fuel sold ie: the difference between
the buying price from the OilCo and the selling price to the public. Without going into the mechanism of how
this is calculated, this is termed the RAS margin. Should the Owner complete the service station at its cost,
including the cost of pumps and tanks, the Owner would receive the full RAS margin less a deduction for use
of the OilCo’s signage. If pumps and tanks are paid for by the OilCo, a greater deduction would apply. A
substantial franchise fee would also be payable, usually not less than R3m.

RORO deal: Here the service station is Retailer Owned and Operated and is paid for entirely by the Owner,
or with assistance from the OilCo who would then offer a lower RAS margin. The Owner would have the right
to choose the Retailer or operate the station him/herself. Full RAS margin (less a small portion for Brand
usage and for financial assistance, if applicable) would be the Owner’s profit source and, as there is no rental
payable to the OilCo, this type of deal provides the best profitability but also the highest risk.

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Feasibility Report
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine March 2019
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 SHELL Heidelberg FS
 P a g e | 31

It is advisable for any entrants into the industry to conduct a full due diligence survey of all aspects of the
various deals available, relevant expenditure required, any rentals payable, RAS income streams and all tax
implications before making any decisions. It is recommended here that expert advice be obtained from
available industry resources.

Based on the predicted volumes for the target property as calculated in the report above, the following table
illustrates the APPROXIMATE profitability of each of the above agreements but, as mentioned, it is
impossible to accurately pre-determine the profitability of a station as there are so many variables.

Assuming a full RAS margin of R1,92/litre, Table 8 below gives an indication of the profitability of each of
the applicable deals. Should the property be owned by the OilCo, the Oil Company Owned Deal has not
been shown.

Table 7: Approximate Net Monthly Profit

(all amounts in Rands) CORO deal RORO deal

Expected Yr-3 monthly volume: petrol and diesel litres 408’761 408’761

Approx RAS margin (R’s) 1.77 1.92

Gross profit from fuel sales 723’506 784’821

Shop turnover (Yr-3 volume x 1.2) 490’513 490’513

Gross income from fuel sales and shop turnover 1,214’019 1,275’334

Net income (assumed at 20% of gross income for CORO and 30% for RORO
deals) * 242’803 382’600

Forecourt rent paid to OilCo (approx 15 cpl) 61’314 -

Rent in shop turnover paid to OilCo (approx 10% of shop turnover) 49’051 -

Total rent payable to OilCo under CORO deal 110’365 -

APPROXIMATE NET MONTHLY PROFIT (R's) before tax. 132’437 382’600

Note 1: * Profit of 20% from CORO and 30% from RORO is an unqualified estimate given by the Fuel Retailer
Association and a Retailer.
Note 2: The above figures assume there are no bond repayments and no rent paid in the RORO deal ie: to a
landlord or to the OilCo for any financial assistance eg: pump and tank repayments etc.

Again, it is impossible to accurately determine the profitability from each type of deal. There is less
profit, around 30 – 40% from the low margin items in a convenience store such as cell phone airtime,

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Feasibility Report
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine March 2019
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 SHELL Heidelberg FS
 P a g e | 32

prepaid electricity and Lotto sales, than from the high margin items (fuel, groceries, cigarettes, drinks
etc), that make up to 60% or more profit on turnover. And, operating costs differ between different
stations as one station may have more staff than another; have different staff shifts with differing
salary and wage levels; pay different security fees; different rates and taxes and so on. The above
table is thus merely a guideline.

It is concluded however that the proposed station is FEASIBLE to develop.

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Feasibility Report
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine March 2019
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 SHELL Heidelberg FS
 P a g e | 33

13 DISCLAIMER / INDEMNITY
This report was prepared by Designed Engineering Solutions (DES) for the account of Shell Oil (Pty)
Ltd and is private and confidential. All information, analysis, forecasts and data provided by DES is for
the exclusive use of subscribing persons or organisations and all such content is copyrighted in the
name of DES and, as such, no part of this content may be reproduced without the express consent of
DES

All content, including forecasts, analysis and opinion has been based on information and sources
believed to be accurate and reliable at the time of publishing.

DES makes no representation of warranty of any kind as to the accuracy or completeness of any
information provided and accepts no liability whatsoever for any loss or damage resulting from opinion,
errors, inaccuracies or omissions affecting any part of this report.

The original of this document has been authenticated and will be retained by DES for a minimum of five
years and since the file transmitted is now out of DES’s control, its integrity can no longer be ensured,
and no guarantee may be given to the report or any modifications made thereto.

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Feasibility Report
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine March 2019
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 SHELL Heidelberg FS
 P a g e | 34

14 FIGURES

14.1 Figure 1: Locality Plan

14.2 Figure 2: Competitor Sites

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Feasibility Report
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine March 2019
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 SHELL Heidelberg FS
 HEIDELBERG FS

Project: Figure Description: No.

HEIDELBERG FILLING STATION (FS) LOCALITY PLAN 1
COMPETITOR SITES:

1. Kloofsig Motors: SHELL

2. Suikerbos Motors: SASOL
3. Fbm Motors Cc: ENGEN
4. Heidelberg: TOTAL
5. Heidelberg: ENGEN
6. Schoeman Street: BP
7. Norvic Motors: CALTEX
8. Rensburg Motors: ENGEN

SITE

1
2
3
4
5
6

8 CATCHMENT MARKETS:
7
A – Jacobs Street (R42)

Project: Figure Description: No.

HEIDELBERG FILLING STATION (FS) COMPETITOR SITES 2
 P a g e | 35

15 DRAWINGS
15.1 Drawing 001: Proposed Site and Access Layout

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Feasibility Report
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine March 2019
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 SHELL Heidelberg FS
 LEGEND

PROPOSED ROAD WIDENING

R6.00

D
AN
N OOM
IO
UT RS R

R10.00
L
AB YE
A
PR

10 70
30 0. .0
.0 00 0
0

R15.00
RD
YA
E
COM
WEL
+

5.0
NY

0
O
3.63

22
2.97

RM
.00
0.33

23 HA

R12
SF01

24

1
12.20
W03

25
D ET
CL
6

OO SK
26
credit
card

TRAY
6

TRAY
6

TRAY
TF
credit

BA
card

TRAY
6

TRAY
27

TRAY
credit
card

TRAY
S

TRAY
W02
1.52

TRAY
N
credit
card

FA

TRAY
EA

TRAY
0.16

TRAY
C
1300

21
/O
DCP
kg

1
4.5
2x

6.5
Mc

5.0
20 2

0
0
34
19 5
PY
NO
6
18
CA
7

19
9 8 D
0
17 5.5 AN

18
ISL
10
11 5

16

OR
16
BP

HE RICT
HT
12

.00

IG
ST

176
RE

1
15

GIC
LE G
RAPRKIN
E
2

C
AN

PA
D

TR

PA
CO WIN

154
14

EN
LL D

OO

2
EC OW
TIO
NS

tion
TF

13
la
13

rcu

3
S

n ci

12
FA C)

tria
PR C O

4
es
KF

ed
F

-p

11
OP UT
(K

area

5
OS LET

ed
.00

10
pav
ED

6
DE OW
RS

NE
ORIND
60

9
7
W

S
AT

8
SE

OUTSIDE
BIN
20
G:
IN
AT
E SE
ID
TS
OU
CA
RW IVE
AS DR

ie
H RD
ie
OE
ERW 1x23000kl & 2x46000kl
FV UNDERGROUND FUEL TANKS
2 (H
R4

.0 0
60
/h
0 km
D6
PEE
N S
SIG
DE

CLIENT: PROJECT: SCALE : CHECKED: APPROVED:

1:1000 K. MAGWA -
HEIDELBERG FILLING STATION DESIGN: DRAWN: DATE:
- E.STEYN 2019/02/12
B 2019/02/12 ES INFORMATION
PROJECT No: DRAWING No: REV:
TITLE:
A 2018/10/26 ES INFORMATION EK

REV DATE BY DESCRIPTION APD

- DRW001 B
Ground floor, Block B, 169 Corobay Ave, PROPOSED SITE AND ACCESS LAYOUT
DRAWING STATUS: Menlyn, 0181
INFORMATION info@designedes.co.za
 P a g e | 36

16 APPENDICES
16.1 Photos
16.2 Traffic Count Report

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Feasibility Report
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine March 2019
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 SHELL Heidelberg FS
Project: PHOTO: No.
HEIDELBERG FILLING STATION (FS) VIEW OF THE PROPOSED SERVICE STATION PROPERTY 1
Project: PHOTO: No.
HEIDELBERG FILLING STATION (FS) VIEW LOOKING UP CEMETRY ROAD 2
Project: PHOTO: No.
HEIDELBERG FILLING STATION (FS) ANOTHER VIEW OF THE RPOPOSED SERVICE STATION 3
Project: PHOTO: No.
HEIDELBERG FILLING STATION (FS) SOME OF THE MIDDLE INCOME HOMES IN THE TRADE AREA 4
Project: PHOTO: No.
HEIDELBERG FILLING STATION (FS) A LONG DISTANCE VIEW OF THE HOMES IN THE TRADE 5
AREA
Project: PHOTO: No.
HEIDELBERG FILLING STATION (FS) FBM MOTORS : ENGEN 6
Project: PHOTO: No.
HEIDELBERG FILLING STATION (FS) SUIKERBOS SERVICE STATION : SASOL 7
Project: PHOTO: No.
HEIDELBERG FILLING STATION (FS) KLOOFSIG SERVICE STATION : SHELL
8
Project: PHOTO: No.
HEIDELBERG FILLING STATION (FS) HEIDELBERG TOTAL 9
Project: PHOTO: No.
HEIDELBERG FILLING STATION (FS) HEIDELBERG FILLING STATION : ENGEN 10
Project: PHOTO: No.
HEIDELBERG FILLING STATION (FS) NORVIC MOTORS : CALTEX 11
Project: PHOTO: No.
HEIDELBERG FILLING STATION (FS) RENSBURG FILLING STATION : ENGEN 12
Project: PHOTO: No.
HEIDELBERG FILLING STATION (FS) AN OLD BP STATION BEING REBUILT BY SASOL 13
Project: PHOTO: No.
HEIDELBERG FILLING STATION (FS) FLASH FUELS : DIESEL 14
Project: PHOTO: No.
HEIDELBERG FILLING STATION (FS) COPA CABANA TRUCKPORT : TOTAL 15
 APPENDIX E:

Public Participation Information

Appendix E-1: Proof of site notice

Appendix E-2: Written notices issued to I&APs
Appendix E-3: Newspaper advertisement
Appendix E-4: Communications to and from stakeholders
Appendix E-5: Meeting minutes
Appendix E-6: Comments and Responses Report
Appendix E-7: Comments from I&APs on Basic Assessment
Report
Appendix E-8: Comments from I&APs on amendments to BAR
Appendix E-9: Copy of the register of I&APs
Appendix E-1: Proof of site notice
 AFFIDAVIT
This serves to confirm that a site notice advertising the Environmental Authorisation application
(Basic Assessment process) for the proposed development of a filling station on Portion 101 (a
portion of Portion 82) of the Farm Langlaagte 186-IR, Heidelberg, Lesedi Local Municipality was
erected on site on 23 January 2019 as shown in Photographs 1 and 2 below. The project site is
located at the corner of Jacobs Street (R42) and the N3 Highway, Heidelberg.

Photograph 1: Site notice erected at the project site off of Jacobs Street, Heidelberg.

Photograph 2: Close up of the site notices erected at the project site.

Mills & Otten

Environmental Consultants
Appendix E-2: Written notices issued to I&APs
Lyzanne de Bruin

From: admin@millsandotten.co.za
Sent: Wednesday, 23 January 2019 13:34
To: jabum@lesedi.gov.za
Cc: Lyzanne de Bruin
Subject: NOTICE OF THE APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION FOR THE
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A FILLING STATION IN HEIDELBERG, LESEDI LOCAL
MUNICIPALITY, GAUTENG PROVINCE
Attachments: Notification Letter_LesediLM.pdf

Good day,

Please find attached notification letter for your attention.

Should you have any queries regarding the above please contact our office.

Regards

Mills and Otten Environmental Consultants

A Level 2 BBBEE Company
P O Box 84344, Greenside, 2034
Tel: (011) 486 0062 Fax: 086 554 6573
www.millsandotten.co.za

Disclaimer:

This message may contain confidential information and is intended only for the individual(s) named. If you are not the
named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-
mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be
guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or
incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the content
of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. The views expressed in this message do not necessarily
represent the views or intentions of the company, Mills and Otten.

1
Lyzanne de Bruin

From: postmaster@hosting.local
To: jabum@lesedi.gov.za
Sent: Wednesday, 23 January 2019 13:35
Subject: Delivered: NOTICE OF THE APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION FOR
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A FILLING STATION IN HEIDELBERG, LESEDI LOCAL
MUNICIPALITY, GAUTENG PROVINCE

Your message has been delivered to the following recipients:

jabum@lesedi.gov.za (jabum@lesedi.gov.za)

Subject: NOTICE OF THE APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
OF A FILLING STATION IN HEIDELBERG, LESEDI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY, GAUTENG PROVINCE

1
Lyzanne de Bruin

From: admin@millsandotten.co.za
Sent: Wednesday, 23 January 2019 13:33
To: sieghard.paul@yahoo.com; siegpaul@icloud.com
Cc: Lyzanne de Bruin
Subject: NOTICE OF THE APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION FOR THE
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A FILLING STATION IN HEIDELBERG, LESEDI LOCAL
MUNICIPALITY, GAUTENG PROVINCE
Attachments: Notification Letter_Ward 10.pdf

Good day,

Please find attached notification letter for your attention.

Should you have any queries regarding the above please contact our office.

Regards

Mills and Otten Environmental Consultants

A Level 2 BBBEE Company
P O Box 84344, Greenside, 2034
Tel: (011) 486 0062 Fax: 086 554 6573
www.millsandotten.co.za

Disclaimer:

This message may contain confidential information and is intended only for the individual(s) named. If you are not the
named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-
mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be
guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or
incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the content
of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. The views expressed in this message do not necessarily
represent the views or intentions of the company, Mills and Otten.

1
Lyzanne de Bruin

From: Microsoft Outlook

To: sieghard.paul@yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, 23 January 2019 13:33
Subject: Relayed: NOTICE OF THE APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION FOR
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A FILLING STATION IN HEIDELBERG, LESEDI LOCAL
MUNICIPALITY, GAUTENG PROVINCE

Delivery to these recipients or groups is complete, but no delivery notification was sent by the
destination server:

sieghard.paul@yahoo.com (sieghard.paul@yahoo.com)

Subject: NOTICE OF THE APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
OF A FILLING STATION IN HEIDELBERG, LESEDI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY, GAUTENG PROVINCE

1
Lyzanne de Bruin

From: admin@millsandotten.co.za
Sent: Wednesday, 23 January 2019 13:34
To: EddyT@sedibeng.gov.za
Cc: Lyzanne de Bruin
Subject: NOTICE OF THE APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION FOR THE
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A FILLING STATION IN HEIDELBERG, LESEDI LOCAL
MUNICIPALITY, GAUTENG PROVINCE
Attachments: Notification Letter_Sedibeng District Municipality.pdf

Good day,

Please find attached notification letter for your attention.

Should you have any queries regarding the above please contact our office.

Regards

Mills and Otten Environmental Consultants

A Level 2 BBBEE Company
P O Box 84344, Greenside, 2034
Tel: (011) 486 0062 Fax: 086 554 6573
www.millsandotten.co.za

Disclaimer:

This message may contain confidential information and is intended only for the individual(s) named. If you are not the
named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-
mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be
guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or
incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the content
of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. The views expressed in this message do not necessarily
represent the views or intentions of the company, Mills and Otten.

1
Lyzanne de Bruin

From: admin@millsandotten.co.za
Sent: Wednesday, 23 January 2019 13:35
To: MatsebaE@dws.gov.za; 'khorommbik@dws.gov.za'
Cc: Lyzanne de Bruin
Subject: NOTICE OF THE APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION FOR THE
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A FILLING STATION IN HEIDELBERG, LESEDI LOCAL
MUNICIPALITY, GAUTENG PROVINCE
Attachments: Notification Letter_DWS.pdf

Good day,

Please find attached notification letter for your attention.

Should you have any queries regarding the above please contact our office.

Regards

Mills and Otten Environmental Consultants

A Level 2 BBBEE Company
P O Box 84344, Greenside, 2034
Tel: (011) 486 0062 Fax: 086 554 6573
www.millsandotten.co.za

Disclaimer:

This message may contain confidential information and is intended only for the individual(s) named. If you are not the
named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-
mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be
guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or
incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the content
of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. The views expressed in this message do not necessarily
represent the views or intentions of the company, Mills and Otten.

1
Lyzanne de Bruin

From: Microsoft Outlook

To: MatsebaE@dws.gov.za; 'khorommbik@dws.gov.za'
Sent: Wednesday, 23 January 2019 13:35
Subject: Relayed: NOTICE OF THE APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION FOR
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A FILLING STATION IN HEIDELBERG, LESEDI LOCAL
MUNICIPALITY, GAUTENG PROVINCE

Delivery to these recipients or groups is complete, but no delivery notification was sent by the
destination server:

MatsebaE@dws.gov.za (MatsebaE@dws.gov.za)

'khorommbik@dws.gov.za' (khorommbik@dws.gov.za)

Subject: NOTICE OF THE APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
OF A FILLING STATION IN HEIDELBERG, LESEDI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY, GAUTENG PROVINCE

1
Appendix E-3: Proof of Newspaper advertisement
23 JANUARIE 2019 HEIDELBERG/NIGEL HERAUT www.heidelbergnigelheraut.co.za BLADSY 17

0431

...
Appendix E-4: Communications to and from I&APs
Lyzanne de Bruin

Subject: FW: NOTICE OF THE APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION FOR THE
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A FILLING STATION IN HEIDELBERG, LESEDI LOCAL
MUNICIPALITY, GAUTENG PROVINCE

From: Eddy Tshabalala [mailto:eddyt@sedibeng.gov.za]

Sent: 24 January 2019 08:47 AM
To: admin@millsandotten.co.za
Subject: Re: NOTICE OF THE APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION FOR THE PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT OF A FILLING STATION IN HEIDELBERG, LESEDI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY, GAUTENG PROVINCE

Morning

Kindly register my name

Regards

Eddy Tshabalala
Local Government Support
Environmental Directorate
Sedibeng District Municipality
E-mail: Eddyt@sedibeng.gov.za/etshabalala@environment.gov.za
Cell: 082 045 1313

>>> "admin@millsandotten.co.za" <admin@millsandotten.co.za> 2019/01/23 13:33 >>>

Good day,

Please find attached notification letter for your attention.

Should you have any queries regarding the above please contact our office.

Regards

Mills and Otten Environmental Consultants

A Level 2 BBBEE Company
P O Box 84344, Greenside, 2034
Tel: (011) 486 0062 Fax: 086 554 6573
www.millsandotten.co.za

Disclaimer:

1
This message may contain confidential information and is intended only for the individual(s) named. If you are not the
named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-
mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be
guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or
incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the content
of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. The views expressed in this message do not necessarily
represent the views or intentions of the company, Mills and Otten.

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
E.F.A. Project, and is believed to be clean.

Click here to report this message as spam.

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
E.F.A. Project, and is believed to be clean.

2
Lyzanne de Bruin

From: admin@millsandotten.co.za
Sent: Wednesday, 14 August 2019 09:21
To: sieghard.paul@yahoo.com; siegpaul@icloud.com
Cc: Lyzanne de Bruin
Subject: Draft Basic Assessment Report for the proposed development of a filling station in
Heidelberg
Attachments: DBAR Circulation Letter_Ward 10.pdf; Draft BAR_Heidelberg Filling
Station_compressed.pdf

Dear Councillor Paul

Please find attached letter and draft Basic Assessment Report for your attention.

Should you have any queries please contact our office.

Regards

Mills and Otten Environmental Consultants

A Level 2 BBBEE Company
P O Box 84344, Greenside, 2034
Tel: (011) 486 0062 Fax: 086 554 6573
www.millsandotten.co.za

Disclaimer:

This message may contain confidential information and is intended only for the individual(s) named. If you are not the
named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-
mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be
guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or
incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the content
of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. The views expressed in this message do not necessarily
represent the views or intentions of the company, Mills and Otten.

1
Lyzanne de Bruin

From: admin@millsandotten.co.za
Sent: Tuesday, 08 October 2019 12:53
To: Ronald.swartz@gauteng.gov.za
Subject: Draft Basic Assessment Report for the proposed development of a filling station in
Heidelberg
Attachments: DBAR Circulation Letter_Gautrans.pdf

Dear Mr. Swartz

Please find attached letter for your attention.

A copy of the Draft Basic Assessment Report will be sent under separate cover.

Regards

Mills and Otten Environmental Consultants

A Level 2 BBBEE Company
P O Box 84344, Greenside, 2034
Tel: (011) 486 0062 Fax: 086 554 6573
www.millsandotten.co.za

Disclaimer:

This message may contain confidential information and is intended only for the individual(s) named. If you are not the
named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-
mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be
guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or
incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the content
of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. The views expressed in this message do not necessarily
represent the views or intentions of the company, Mills and Otten.

1
Lyzanne de Bruin

From: admin@millsandotten.co.za
Sent: Tuesday, 08 October 2019 12:48
To: Ronald.swartz@gauteng.gov.za
Subject: FW: Draft Basic Assessment Report for the proposed development of a filling station in
Heidelberg
Attachments: Draft BAR_Heidelberg Filling Station_compressed.pdf

From: admin@millsandotten.co.za
Sent: 08 October 2019 12:53 PM
To: 'Ronald.swartz@gauteng.gov.za'
Subject: Draft Basic Assessment Report for the proposed development of a filling station in Heidelberg

Dear Mr. Swartz

Please find attached letter for your attention.

A copy of the Draft Basic Assessment Report will be sent under separate cover.

Regards

Mills and Otten Environmental Consultants

A Level 2 BBBEE Company
P O Box 84344, Greenside, 2034
Tel: (011) 486 0062 Fax: 086 554 6573
www.millsandotten.co.za

Disclaimer:

This message may contain confidential information and is intended only for the individual(s) named. If you are not the
named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-
mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be
guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or
incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the content
of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. The views expressed in this message do not necessarily
represent the views or intentions of the company, Mills and Otten.

1
Lyzanne de Bruin

From: Microsoft Outlook

To: Ronald.swartz@gauteng.gov.za
Sent: Tuesday, 08 October 2019 12:49
Subject: Relayed: FW: Draft Basic Assessment Report for the proposed development of a filling
station in Heidelberg

Delivery to these recipients or groups is complete, but no delivery notification was sent by the
destination server:

Ronald.swartz@gauteng.gov.za (Ronald.swartz@gauteng.gov.za)

Subject: FW: Draft Basic Assessment Report for the proposed development of a filling station in Heidelberg

1
Lyzanne de Bruin

From: admin@millsandotten.co.za
Sent: Tuesday, 08 October 2019 12:55
To: schmidk@nra.co.za
Subject: Draft Basic Assessment Report for the proposed development of a filling station in
Heidelberg
Attachments: DBAR Circulation Letter_SANRAL.pdf

Dear Mr. Schmid

Please find attached letter for your attention.

A copy of the Draft Basic Assessment Report will be sent under separate cover.

Regards

Mills and Otten Environmental Consultants

A Level 2 BBBEE Company
P O Box 84344, Greenside, 2034
Tel: (011) 486 0062 Fax: 086 554 6573
www.millsandotten.co.za

Disclaimer:

This message may contain confidential information and is intended only for the individual(s) named. If you are not the
named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-
mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be
guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or
incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the content
of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. The views expressed in this message do not necessarily
represent the views or intentions of the company, Mills and Otten.

1
Lyzanne de Bruin

From: admin@millsandotten.co.za
Sent: Tuesday, 08 October 2019 12:50
To: schmidk@nra.co.za
Subject: FW: Draft Basic Assessment Report for the proposed development of a filling station in
Heidelberg
Attachments: Draft BAR_Heidelberg Filling Station_compressed.pdf

From: admin@millsandotten.co.za
Sent: 08 October 2019 12:55 PM
To: 'schmidk@nra.co.za'
Subject: Draft Basic Assessment Report for the proposed development of a filling station in Heidelberg

Dear Mr. Schmid

Please find attached letter for your attention.

A copy of the Draft Basic Assessment Report will be sent under separate cover.

Regards

Mills and Otten Environmental Consultants

A Level 2 BBBEE Company
P O Box 84344, Greenside, 2034
Tel: (011) 486 0062 Fax: 086 554 6573
www.millsandotten.co.za

Disclaimer:

This message may contain confidential information and is intended only for the individual(s) named. If you are not the
named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-
mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be
guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or
incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the content
of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. The views expressed in this message do not necessarily
represent the views or intentions of the company, Mills and Otten.

1
Lyzanne de Bruin

From: Microsoft Outlook

To: schmidk@nra.co.za
Sent: Tuesday, 08 October 2019 12:51
Subject: Relayed: FW: Draft Basic Assessment Report for the proposed development of a filling
station in Heidelberg

Delivery to these recipients or groups is complete, but no delivery notification was sent by the
destination server:

schmidk@nra.co.za (schmidk@nra.co.za)

Subject: FW: Draft Basic Assessment Report for the proposed development of a filling station in Heidelberg

1
 Mills & Otten (Pty) Ltd Environmental Consultants
2016/388381/07
VAT Number 4770177352

Johannesburg Office e-mail: info@millsandotten.co.za Cape Town Office

PO Box 84344 PO Box 2286
Greenside 2034 Clareinch 7740
Tel. 011 486 0062 Tel. 021 671 7107
Fax. 086 554 6573 Fax. 086 554 6573

M&O Ref.: MO4261/08102019/DBAR

08 October 2019

South African Heritage Resources Agency

Attention: Ms Matabane
E-mail: amatabane@sahra.org.za

Dear Ms Matabane

QUERY REGARDING THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A FILLING STATION IN

HEIDELBERG, LESEDI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY, GAUTENG PROVINCE

GDARD REF. NO: GAUT 002/18-19/E2341

Please find herewith an electronic copy of the Draft Basic Assessment Report for the
above-mentioned application. The application is for the development of a filling station on
Portion 101 (a portion of Portion 82) of the Farm Langlaagte 186-IR in Heidelberg, north of
the intersection of Jacobs Street (R42) and the N3 highway.

It is believed that Section 38 of the National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999) is not
applicable to the proposed development as the development footprint is 4 500m2 (i.e. less
than 5 000m2). In addition, there are no signs of culturally or historically significant elements
on or close (within 20m) of the site (as per GDARD Basic Assessment Report template).

It was noted during the basic assessment process that a memorial stone is located more
than 100m from the proposed filling station and 75m from the property boundary (Figure 1).
A cemetery is located more than 600m away, northwest of the property (Figure 2).

Figure 1: The identified memorial stone is located approximately 120m northwest of the filling
station and approximately 75m northwest of the property boundary.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

DIRECTORS: C.A.J. Mills (Pr.Sci.Nat.); K.M. Otten (Pr.Sci.Nat.); N. M. Maswanganyi

 Figure 2: The cemetery is located 600m northwest of the proposed filling station.

The proposed development will not impact on these identified features. As a precautionary
measure, a procedure for chance finds has been included in the Environmental
Management Programme (EMPr).

The EAP is of the opinion that the proposed development does not require the undertaking
of a specialist heritage impact assessment as Section 38 of the NHRA is not applicable to
the project.

We would appreciate confirmation from SAHRA that this proposed development does not
require the undertaking of a specialist heritage impact assessment.

Should you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact our office.

Yours sincerely

KIRSTIN OTTEN (Pr.Sci.Nat)

Registered Environmental Assessment Practitioner: Number 2019/237

Mills & Otten 2

Environmental Consultants Reviewed December 9/12/2016: Next review December 2017
Lyzanne de Bruin

Subject: FW: Query re: proposed filling station development in Heidelberg

Attachments: DBAR Circulation Letter_SAHRA.pdf; Draft BAR_Heidelberg Filling
Station_compressed.pdf

Importance: High

From: admin@millsandotten.co.za
Sent: 08 October 2019 12:41 PM
To: amatabane@sahra.org.za
Subject: Query re: proposed filling station development in Heidelberg
Importance: High

Dear Ms Matabane
Please find attached letter for your attention.
Should you have any queries, please contact our office.

Regards

Mills and Otten Environmental Consultants

A Level 2 BBBEE Company
P O Box 84344, Greenside, 2034
Tel: (011) 486 0062 Fax: 086 554 6573
www.millsandotten.co.za

Disclaimer:

This message may contain confidential information and is intended only for the individual(s) named. If you are not the
named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-
mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be
guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or
incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the content
of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. The views expressed in this message do not necessarily
represent the views or intentions of the company, Mills and Otten.

1
Lyzanne de Bruin

From: Microsoft Outlook

To: amatabane@sahra.org.za
Sent: Tuesday, 08 October 2019 12:42
Subject: Relayed: Query re: proposed filling station development in Heidelberg

Delivery to these recipients or groups is complete, but no delivery notification was sent by the
destination server:

amatabane@sahra.org.za (amatabane@sahra.org.za)

Subject: Query re: proposed filling station development in Heidelberg

1
Appendix E-5: Minutes of any Public Meetings

Not applicable – none to date

Appendix E-6: Comments and Responses Report

ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION APPLICATION FOR THE PROPOSED FILLING STATION ON PORTION 101 (A PORTION OF PORTION 82) OF THE FARM
LANGLAAGTE 186-IR, HEIDELBERG, LESEDI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY, GAUTENG PROVINCE (GAUT 002/18-19/E2341)
Name and organisation
Eddy Tshabalala
Sedibeng District Municipality
– Local Government Support
– Environmental Directorate
Name and organisation
Mr. Tendani Rambuda
Gauteng Department of
Agriculture and Rural
Development (GDARD)
Mills & Otten
Environmental Consultants
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES REPORT
NOTIFICATION PERIOD
23 JANUARY 2019 TO 22 FEBRUARY 2019
Date received Issue raised/Comments received
24 January 2019 Kindly register my name.
DRAFT BAR COMMENTING PERIOD
14 AUGUST 2019 TO 30 SEPTEMBER 2019
Date received Issue raised/Comments received
10 September 2019 1. Description of the development
The development entails construction of a
filling station on Portion 101 (a portion of
Portion 82) of the Farm Langlaagte 186-IR,
located on the intersection of Jacobs Street
(R42) and the N3 Highway off-ramp in
Heidelberg, Lesedi Local Municipality.
1.1. The proposed filling station will be
developed with two (2) x 46m3 and one (1) x
23m3 underground fuel storage tanks, which
total to a capacity of 115m3.
1
Response
Mr. Tshabalala has been identified as a key stakeholder and is
registered as an I&AP. A copy of the Draft Basic Assessment
Report will be made available to him.
Response
Your letter dated 10 September refers. Thank you for your
comments on the Draft Basic Assessment Report submitted for the
proposed development of a filling station on Portion 101 (a
portion of Portion 82) of the Farm Langlaagte 186-IR (located on
the corner of Jacobs Street (R42) and the N3 Highway). Please find
herewith response to the comments received:
1. Description of the development
1.5. Please note, the size of the property on which the proposed
development will be located is approximately 1.4617 hectares.
However, as indicated in both the application and the draft BAR,
the proposed development footprint is only 4 500m2.
MO4261
October 2019
 1.2. The filling station will include fuel-
dispensing islands, with associated pumps,
cut-off valves and sub-surface pipework. The
facility will include a convenience shop with
associated infrastructure.
1.3. A stormwater management system,
including an oil-water separator, will be
installed for the separation and management
of run-off from the forecourt area, as per
industry standards.
1.4. Automatic tank gauging and the
installation of tank monitoring wells in the
tank farm are standard requirements for the
installation of filling stations and will form part
of the proposed development.
1.5. The proposed activity measures
approximately 1.4617 hectares.

2. Description of the receiving environment 2. Description of the receiving environment

2.1. The proposed site is inside sensitive The following maps, as included in Appendix A of the draft BAR,
environmental areas as identified through the show that the site does not fall within any Critical Biodiversity
Gauteng Conservation Plan version 3.3, i.e. Areas or Ecological Support Areas as identified by the Gauteng
Orange listed plant habitat, Primary Conservation Plan (Figure 1) and therefore the statement above is
vegetation and Threatened Ecosystem. disputed.
2.2. Site inspection conducted by the
departmental officials on 29 August 2019
confirmed the existence of indigenous
vegetation on site. Therefore, a vegetation
assessment study must be conducted and
must comply with this department’s minimum
requirements for biodiversity assessment.

2
Mills & Otten MO4261
Environmental Consultants October 2019
 In addition, the site is located within Zone 1 –Urban Development
Zone in terms of the Gauteng Environmental Management
Framework, 2015 (Figure 2 below). The proposed development
footprint is less than 1 hectare in extent (~4 500m2) and therefore
a vegetation assessment is not required for this project.

3
Mills & Otten MO4261
Environmental Consultants October 2019
 2.3. Section 38 of the National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999
2.3. It was also found that there is an existing
stipulates the following:
memorial stone within 100m of the proposed
“38. (1) Subject to the provisions of subsections (7), (8) and
site and a graveyard 300m away from the site. (9), any person who intends to undertake a development
A heritage impact assessment must be categorised as –
conducted by a suitable qualified specialist a) The construction of a road, wall, powerline, pipeline, canal
or other similar form of linear development or barrier
and accompanied by comments from the
exceeding 300m in length;
South African Heritage Resources Agency b) The construction of a bridge or similar structure
(SAHRA). exceeding 50m in length;
c) Any development or other activity which will change the
character of a site –
2
i. Exceeding 5 000m 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;
2
d) The re-zoning of a site exceeding 10 000m in extent; or
e) Any other category of development provided for in
regulations by SAHRA or a provincial
f) 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.”
It is believed that section 38 of the National Heritage Resources
Act (Act 25 of 1999) is not applicable to the proposed
development as the development footprint is ~4 500m2 (i.e. less
than 5 000m2).
In addition, the GDARD BAR template asks if there are any signs of
culturally or historically significant elements as defined in section 2
of the NHRA, on or close (within 20m) to the site. The memorial
stone identified in the BAR is located more than 100m from the
proposed filling station and 75m from the property boundary
(Figure 3). The cemetery is located more than 600m away,

4
Mills & Otten MO4261
Environmental Consultants October 2019
 northwest of the property (Figure 4). It is reiterated here that the
proposed development will not impact on these identified
features. Therefore the requirement to undertake a specialist
assessment is not justified according to GDARD’s documentation
and as section 38 of the NHRA is not applicable to the project, it is
not considered necessary to conduct a heritage impact assessment
or to obtain comments from the South African Heritage Resource
Agency for this application. As a precautionary measure, a
procedure for chance finds has been included in the EMPr.

3. Listed activities triggered by the 3. Listed activities triggered by the development

development
The Environmental Authorisation application is being submitted
3.1. The listed activity triggered is Activity 14 for the proposed development of the filling station only. As

5
Mills & Otten MO4261
Environmental Consultants October 2019
 of Listing Notice 1. In addition, the proposed
site is more than 1 hectare, therefore, Activity
27 of Listing Notice 1 and Activity 12 of Listing
Notice 3 must be included in the application
form and the report.
4. Environmental Management Programme
(EMPr)
4.1. The attached draft EMPr is noted and the
department will wait for the final EMPr. All
the conditions must be clear and enforceable.
It is therefore important that words that do
not emphasise enforcement must be avoided
and the final EMPr must comply with the
abovementioned requirements.
5. Public participation process
5.1. The Gauteng Department of Roads and
Transport, South African National Roads
Agency and Lesedi Local Municipality Roads
and Stormwater Division must be consulted
and to comment on the proposed filling
station next to the provincial road and the
national road (N3).
5.2. The local authority must be consulted for
approval process of the stormwater
6
Mills & Otten
Environmental Consultants
indicated in response to 1.5 above, the proposed development
footprint is only 4 500m2 in extent. Activity 27 of Listing Notice 1 is
thus not triggered for this project. Any other future developments
on the property must consider the regulations and also the
GPEMF. As indicated in response to comments 2.1 and 2.2, the
project site does not fall within a designated Critical Biodiversity
Area or Ecological Support Area as identified in the GDARD
Conservation Plan and therefore, Activity 12 of Listing 3 is not
applicable to this project.
It is re-iterated here that the application is only for the
development of the filling station.
4. Environmental Management Programme
The comment about the draft EMPr is noted and the final EMPr
will be checked to ensure that the mitigation and management
measures emphasise enforcement and the requirement to
comply.
5. Public participation process
5.1. It is noted here that the only access to the site will be from
the unnamed road located northeast of the site. The National
Road (N3) will not be impacted by the proposed development and
the development will not abutt the national road.
Jacobs Street (R42/K179) and the unnamed road fall under the
jurisdiction of the Lesedi Local Municipality and proposed accesses
and upgrades must be approved by the local authority. This
approval is sought as part of the town planning process which is a
parallel, but separate process to this environmental authorisation
MO4261
October 2019
 management plan.
Notwithstanding the above, your attention is
drawn to the fact that the success of the
application may be prejudiced by failure to
provide relevant information as requested
above.
Mr. Tendani Rambuda 12 September 2019 1. Please note that the trigger is not only the
critical biodiversity areas or ecological support
Gauteng Department of
areas in C-Plan, but also within any critically
Agriculture and Rural
endangered or endangered ecosystem listed
Development
in terms of the NEMBA, which the
Blesbokspruit Highveld Grassland.
2. It is noticed that the footprint is less than 1
hectare for Activity 27, however, maybe it
might be better to indicate the ecological
footprint because the footprint might include
parking, access road and other concrete areas.
3. Given the above, Activity 12 of Listing 3 still
applies.
4. The heritage impact study might not be
required if SAHRA has indicated as such.
5. The proposed development is very close to
the National Road (N3) servitude and it only
makes sense for them to comment as a
surrounding land owner including the local
municipality and the province.
7
Mills & Otten
Environmental Consultants
process.
5.2. The stormwater management plan must be approved by the
local authority prior to commencement of the activity. This is
undertaken as part of the site development plan approval process.
This requirement has been included in the Pre-Planning Phase
requirements of the EMPr.
We trust that you find the above in order.
Point noted.
The entire development for the filling station is 4700m2 and this
includes any ecological footprint. They may not transgress these
boundaries so activity 27 cannot be triggered. It is also noted in
the EMPr that it is a requirement that the site be fenced off at the
beginning of the contract to prevent any migration onto
surrounding areas.
As per detail given above we do not agree with this.
We will get confirmation from SAHRA.
We will ask SANRAL if they wish to comment, however please note
that there is another property between the filling station and the
N3 Highway. Also, we have not been able to elicit comment from
SANRAL on applications.
MO4261
October 2019
 6. It is only the vegetation specialist or an
ecological specialist that can confirm that
there is no need to undertake an extensive
specialist study.
We still stand by our comments and in future
please respond in the final report and we will
review and make a decision. This process of an
e-mail is not provided for in the regulations.
We will get an opinion from a specialist.
A hard copy of the document will be hand-delivered to you, but
this takes time to get the delivery done and then within your
offices so it was expedient to email it as well. Apologies if this has
caused a problem for you.

Mr. Eddy Tshabalala Dated 12 1. The soil erosion to be managed and re- Thank you for your correspondence and comments on the draft
September 2019 vegetation where necessary. Basic Assessment Report.
Sedibeng District Municipality
and received 23
2. Dust to be controlled and run-off to avoid Your comments regarding soil erosion management, re-
September
stormwater contamination. vegetation, dust control, stormwater management and waste
management have been noted and incorporated into the
3. Waste management to be handled as per
Environmental Management Programme for the site.
the outlined Norms and Standards in
particular construction demolition waste.
4. Environmental management plan to be
implemented as outlined.
5. The project is supported provided that the
mitigation measures are adhered to
respectively.

Ms M. B. Nakene Dated 23 Reference is made to the abovementioned Your letter, dated 23 September 2019 and received 25 September
September 2019 report with Ref no 002/18-19/E2341 dated 2019, refers. Thank you for your correspondence and participation
Department of Water and
and received on 25 March 2019 and submitted to the Department in the environmental authorisation process. Your comments have
Sanitation
September 2019 of Water and Sanitation (DWS) for comments. been documented and recorded in the Comments and Responses
Report. Please find response to the proposed conditions below
The DWS does not have any objection to the
(numbered as per comments received):
abovementioned report provided the
following conditions are complied with:

Construction phase Construction Phase

8
Mills & Otten MO4261
Environmental Consultants October 2019
 1. Please note that no activity must take place
within the 1:100 year flood line or the
delineated riparian habitat, whichever is the
greatest, or within 500m radius from the
boundary of any wetland. Should the
proposed activity be constructed within the
restricted/regulated area then such activity is
considered as a water use and a water use
authorisation in terms of Section 21 water
uses of National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998)
must be applied for in consultation with the
Department.
2. A geohydrological report for the site must
be submitted to the Department for
evaluation, the report should address all
relevant sections detailed under NWA
Regulation 267 Annexure D Section 5.
3. The installation of the underground fuel
tanks, pumps and services have to meet
applicable SABS standards.
4. A management plan on how erosion and
contaminated stormwater runoff will be
prevented during construction must be
submitted to the Department.
5. Since there is a potential for groundwater
and soil pollution, a baseline groundwater
9
Mills & Otten
Environmental Consultants
1. There are no surface water features, flood lines, delineated
riparian habitats, or wetlands located on or adjacent to the site.
There are no wetlands identified within a 500m radius of the
activity. The proposed activity is not located in a restricted /
regulated area and does not trigger a water use in terms of
Section 21 of the National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998).
2. The proposed construction of the filling station does not trigger
a water use and a geohydrological assessment has not been
conducted. A copy of the geotechnical report was included with
the Draft Basic Assessment Report.
3. The requirement to meet the applicable SANS standards is
included in the Environmental Management Programme (EMPr).
4. Management measures for the prevention of erosion and
contaminated stormwater runoff during the construction phase
are included in the EMPr. A stormwater management report has
been compiled and will be submitted for approval to the Lesedi
Local Municipality prior to commencement of construction
activities on the site. A copy of the approved stormwater
management plan can be forwarded to the Department of Water
and Sanitation (DWS).
5. It is recommended that monitoring boreholes not be installed
on the site for the purpose of baseline groundwater quality
MO4261
October 2019
 analysis must be undertaken prior to
construction with boreholes monitoring
upstream and downstream of the site.
6. The relevant local authority must approve
the installation plans for the underground
tanks and its associated equipment. This letter
of approval from the local authority must be
sent to the Department.
7. Before the underground tanks and
associated pipe work become operational, the
necessary leak tests must be conducted in
accordance with the specifications and
requirements of the appointed fuel supply
company and the SABS codes of practice
relevant for the petroleum industry.
8. The forecourt and the tank refill apron spills
must be channelled to a collector sump and
petrol/oil interceptor trap of appropriate
capacity.
9. In cases of accidental spillages occurring
during construction, the correct emergency
procedures and cleaning-up operations must
be followed. The Department must be
informed of such spillages.
10
Mills & Otten
Environmental Consultants
monitoring. Should a leak occur, by the time the contaminants
reach the groundwater it will have become a major problem. As an
early warning system the tank monitoring wells installed in the
tank excavation must be inspected monthly for the presence of
any hydrocarbon product. Should this be detected, immediate
action can be taken, long before the contaminants reach the
groundwater. The estimated depth to the groundwater level is
more than 10m below ground level and it would take the product
more than 5 years to infiltrate to this depth.
6. The layout and installation drawings will be approved by the
Lesedi Local Municipality prior to commencement of construction
activities. A list of documents requested by the Department of
Water and Sanitation prior to construction commencing has been
included in the EMPr.
7. The requirement for leak tests prior to initial operation is a
standard requirement for new filing stations. The requirement
has, nonetheless, been included in the EMPr.
8. A stormwater management system, including an oil-water
separator, will be installed for the separation and management of
run-off from the forecourt and tank filling areas, as per industry
standards.
9. Spill prevention and management measures are addressed in
the EMPr.
MO4261
October 2019
 10. Oil traps must be installed at the car wash
bays of the filling station.
11. The Department must be provided with
the relevant letters of agreement that the
developer agreed upon to safely and legally
dispose of all the different types of
construction waste at the appropriate,
licensed waste disposal sites.
12. If the solid construction waste will be
disposed of at a licensed landfill site, the
Department requires a service agreement
between the applicant and waste disposal
facility, indicating that they have sufficient
capacity to dispose waste generated from the
site. Records of waste disposal must be kept
to ensure that waste is being disposed in
responsible manner.
13. As it was indicated on page 20 that water
for the activity will be supplied by
Municipality, the applicant is requested to
provide the Department with the service
agreement letter from the municipality.
14. No stockpiles of material with pollution
potential will be allowed closer than 500
metres from any surface water resource.
15. If any construction material of a hazardous
nature is stored on site it must be contained
and stored on a bunded surface and disposed
of at an appropriate facility.
11
Mills & Otten
Environmental Consultants
10. The requirement for an oil trap to be installed at potential car
wash bays has been included in the EMPr.
11. The requirement for copies of the developer’s letter of
agreement to safely and legally dispose of all construction waste
at the appropriate, licensed facilities has been included in the
EMPr.
12. The requirement for a services agreement with the relevant
licensed landfill site to confirm sufficient capacity and the
requirement to maintain records of waste being disposed in a
responsible manner is included the EMPr.
13. The requirement to provide the DWS with a copy of the service
agreement letter for the supply of potable water from the
municipality has been included in the EMPr.
14. The comment is noted and included in the EMPr. There are no
surface water resources within 500m of the site.
15. The management of hazardous materials on site is addressed
in the EMPr and includes the requirement for storage in a bunded
area and appropriate disposal.
MO4261
October 2019
 16. During construction, should there be any 16. It is noted that the proposed development is for a new filling
leak detections from the existing underground station. New underground storage tanks must be installed. There
tanks, the applicant should come up with are no existing underground tanks on the site.
rehabilitation measures as well as
contamination studies to assess the degree of
contamination of the groundwater.
Information regarding the outcome of this
investigation and the intended rehabilitation
measures must be forwarded to this
Department for evaluation.

17. Please note that if chemical toilets will be 17. The management of chemical toilets is addressed in the EMPr.
used for the employees during construction,
please indicate the disposal method for the
toilets, and that the proposed treatment plant
has sufficient capacity to treat additional load.
The records of waste disposal must be kept to
ensure that waste is being disposed in
authorised and responsible manner.

Operational phase Operational Phase

1. Proper stormwater management measures 1. Stormwater management is addressed in the EMPr. The
should be put in place to ensure that requirement to provide the Department of Water and Sanitation
contaminated runoff is not released into the with a copy of the approved stormwater management plan has
natural environment during construction, been added to the EMPr.
operation and decommissioning phases.
Stormwater drainage systems must also be
installed around all structures (roads, vehicle
maintenance yard, secured storage area and
parking bays) in order to effectively manage
all contaminated stormwater emanating from
the operational area. The Department’s Best
Practise Guidelines (G1) for stormwater
management must be adhered to. Please note
12
Mills & Otten MO4261
Environmental Consultants October 2019
 that stormwater management plan and design
need to be submitted to the Department for
approval prior to commencement of the
activity.

2. No paved surfaces will be cleaned with 2. This requirement has been added to the operational phase
detergents so as to reduce the risk of EMPr.
contamination of natural drainage through
the stormwater system.

3. The oil traps must be cleaned on a regular 3. The requirement for separators to be cleaned on a regular basis
basis. Overflows from these traps must be and for overflow to discharge to sewer is included in the EMPr.
directed towards the local sewer system in
agreement with the local authority.

4. Appropriate measures must be taken to 4. Spill prevention and management is included in the operational
prevent any spillages above and underground. phase EMPr. New filling stations are equipped with automatic tank
In the event of such spillage occurring, gauging (ATG) equipment, as well as tank monitoring wells for an
immediate steps must be taken towards the additional level of early leak detection.
appropriate clean-up of the spilled substance
and its proper disposal in a legal manner as
stated in section 19 of the NWA. There must
be timeous detection of any leaks in the
underground storage tanks.

5. Mitigation measures must be implemented
on site to prevent any pollution of the water
resource including the groundwater
component from occurring, recurring or
continuing to occur as per requirements of
Section 19 of the NWA. An emergency plan
has to be sent to this Department, depicting
the mitigation measures that will be followed
when a spillage above ground and/or
5. Preventative measures are provided to prevent the occurrence
of spills or leaks. The requirement to include spill management
measures in the emergency plan is included in the EMPr. An
additional clause has been added for a copy of the emergency
response plan to be sent to the Department of Water and
Sanitation.

13
Mills & Otten MO4261
Environmental Consultants October 2019
 underground occurs.
Closure Phase of the Filling Station
1. With the closure and decommissioning of
the filling station, the underground storage
tanks must be removed and disposed of in an
appropriate manner so that it does not cause
any pollution of the surface and groundwater.
The Department has to be informed when the
petrol station is closing.
2. The applicant must undertake proper soil
and groundwater analysis to identify possible
contamination at the filling station.
Remediation work and monitoring must
follow subject to results of former analysis.
Monitoring and Auditing
1. Weekly monitoring of the leak monitoring
wells for the presence of petrochemical
constituents must be undertaken.
2. Any fluids present in the monitoring wells
must be analysed in order to establish the
presence of any dangerous and hazardous
substance.
3. The boreholes upstream and downstream
must be monitored for the relevant variables
on a quarterly basis and results of the
groundwater monitoring samples must be
14
Mills & Otten
Environmental Consultants
Closure Phase of the Filling Station
1. This condition has been included in the decommissioning phase
EMPr.
2. The decommissioning phase EMPr includes the requirement for
underground storage tanks to be removed in strict accordance
with the relevant SANS standards and for a contamination
assessment to be undertaken to identify and determine the extent
and potential significance of any hydrocarbon contamination on
site. Where necessary, remediation in terms of NEMWA (Act 59 of
2008) Part 8 must be followed.
Monitoring and Auditing
1. The EMPr includes the requirement for the tank monitoring
wells to be inspected on a monthly basis.
2. The EMPr includes the requirement for monitoring wells to be
checked monthly for signs of contamination (product residue,
smells, etc.).
3. It is recommended that monitoring boreholes not be installed
on the site for the purpose of baseline groundwater quality
monitoring. Should a leak occur, by the time the contaminants
reach the groundwater it will have become a major problem. As an
early warning system the tank monitoring wells installed in the
MO4261
October 2019
 made available to this Department.
4. Please note that these comments do not
constitute authorisation for the proposed
activity. Should you engage in any water use
activity, you will be contravening the Act and
may be liable to prosecution.
15
Mills & Otten
Environmental Consultants
tank excavation must be inspected monthly for the presence of
any hydrocarbon product. Should this be detected, immediate
action can be taken, long before the contaminants reach the
groundwater. The estimated depth to the groundwater level is
more than 10m below ground level and it would take the product
more than 5 years to infiltrate to this depth.
4. It is noted that the comments received from the DWS do not
constitute authorisation for the proposed activity and that should
the developer engage in any water use activity, the relevant
licensing must be undertaken.
MO4261
October 2019
Appendix E-7: Comments from I&APs on Basic Assessment Report
 Mills & Otten (Pty) Ltd Environmental Consultants
2016/388381/07
VAT Number 4770177352

Johannesburg Office e-mail: info@millsandotten.co.za Cape Town Office

PO Box 84344 PO Box 2286
Greenside 2034 Clareinch 7740

Tel. 011 486 0062 Tel. 021 671 7107

Fax. 086 554 6573 Fax. 086 554 6573
M&O Ref.: MO4261/12092019/DSR

GAUT 002/18-19/E2341

12 September 2019

Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

Ground Floor, Umnotho House
56 Eloff Street
Johannesburg

Attention: Tendani Rambuda

DELIVERED: BY HAND AND EMAIL

Dear Sir

RE: COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR THE

PROPOSED FILLING STATION IN HEIDELBERG, LESEDI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
(GAUT 002/18-19/E2341)

Your letter dated 10 September 2019 refers. Thank you for your comments on the Draft
Basic Assessment Report submitted for the proposed development of a filling station on
Portion 101 (a portion of Portion 82) of the Farm Langlaagte 186-IR (located on the
corner of Jacobs Street (R42) and the N3 Highway). Please find herewith response to
the comments received:

1. Description of the development

1.5 The proposed activity measures approximately 1.4617 hectares.

Please note, the size of the property on which the proposed development will be located
is approximately 1.4617 hectares. However, as indicated in both the application and the
draft BAR, the proposed development footprint is only 4 500m2.

2. Description of the receiving environment

2.1 The proposed site is inside sensitive environmental areas as identified through
the Gauteng Conservation Plan version 3.3, i.e. Orange listed plant habitat, Primary
vegetation and Threatened Ecosystem.

2.2 Site inspection conducted by the departmental officials on 29 August 2019

confirmed the existence of indigenous vegetation on site. Therefore, a vegetation
assessment study must be conducted and must comply with this department’s minimum
requirements for biodiversity assessment.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

DIRECTORS: C.A.J. Mills (Pr.Sci.Nat.); K.M. Otten (Pr.Sci.Nat.); N. M. Maswanganyi

The following maps, as included in Appendix A of the draft BAR, show that the site does
not fall within any Critical Biodiversity Areas or Ecological Support Areas as identified by
the Gauteng Conservation Plan (Figure 1) and therefore the statement above is
disputed.

Figure 1: Sensitivity map illustrating the location of the site in relation to the GDARD Conservation
Plan.

In addition, the site is located within Zone 1 – Urban Development Zone in terms of the
Gauteng Environmental Management Framework, 2015 (Figure 2 below). The proposed
development footprint is less than 1 hectare in extent (~4 500m2) and therefore a
vegetation assessment is not required for this project.

Mills & Otten 2

Environmental Consultants
Figure 2: GPEMF Plan – the site is located in Zone 1 – Urban Development Zone (the location of the
site is in the centre of the map – just north of the intersection of the N1 and R42).

2.3 It was also found that there is an existing memorial stone within 100m of the
proposed site and a graveyard 300m away from the site. A heritage impact assessment
must be conducted by a suitable qualified specialist and accompanied by comments
from the South African Heritage Resource Agency (SAHRA).

Section 38 of the National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999 stipulates the following:
“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, powerline, 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;
c) Any development or other activity which will change the character of a site –
2
i. Exceeding 5 000m 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;
2
d) The re-zoning of a site exceeding 10 000m in extent; or
e) Any other category of development provided for in regulations by SAHRA or a provincial
f) heritage resources authority, must at the very earliest stages of initiating such a development,

Mills & Otten 3

Environmental Consultants
 notify the responsible heritage resources authority and furnish it with details regarding the
location, nature and extent of the proposed development.”

It is believed that section 38 of the National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999) is
not applicable to the proposed development as the development footprint is ~4 500m2
(i.e. less than 5 000m2).

In addition, the GDARD BAR template asks if there are any signs of culturally or
historically significant elements as defined in section 2 of the NHRA, on or close (within
20m) to the site. The memorial stone identified in the BAR is located more than 100m
from the proposed filling station and 75m from the property boundary (Figure 3). The
cemetery is located more than 600m away, northwest of the property (Figure 4). It is
reiterated here that the proposed development will not impact on these identified
features. Therefore the requirement to undertake a specialist assessment is not
justified according to GDARD’s documentation and as section 38 of the NHRA is not
applicable to the project, it is not considered necessary to conduct a heritage impact
assessment or to obtain comments from the South African Heritage Resource Agency
for this application. As a precautionary measure, a procedure for chance finds has been
included in the EMPr.

Figure 3: The identified memorial stone is located approximately 120m northwest of the filling
station and approximately 75m northwest of the property boundary.

Figure 4: The cemetery is located 600m northwest of the proposed filling station.

Mills & Otten 4

Environmental Consultants
3. Listed activities triggered by the development

3.1 The listed activity triggered is Activity 14 of Listing Notice 1. In addition, the
proposed site is more than 1 hectare, therefore, Activity 27 of Listing Notice 1 and
Activity 12 of Listing Notice 3 must be included in the application form and the report.

The Environmental Authorisation application is being submitted for the proposed

development of the filling station only. As indicated in response to 1.5 above, the
proposed development footprint is only 4 500m2 in extent. Activity 27 of Listing Notice 1
is thus not triggered for this project. Any other future developments on the property
must consider the regulations and also the GPEMF. As indicated in response to
comments 2.1 and 2.2, the project site does not fall within a designated Critical
Biodiversity Area or Ecological Support Area as identified in the GDARD Conservation
Plan and therefore, Activity 12 of Listing 3 is not applicable to this project.

It is re-iterated here that the application is only for the development of the filling station.

4. Environmental Management Programme

The comment about the draft EMPr is noted and the final EMPr will be checked to
ensure that the mitigation and management measures emphasise enforcement and the
requirement to comply.

5. Public participation process

5.1 The Gauteng Department of roads and transport, South African National Road
Agency and Lesedi Local Municipality roads and stormwater division must be consulted
and to comment on the proposed filling station next to the provincial road and the
National road (N3).

It is noted here that the only access to the site will be from the unnamed road located
northeast of the site. The National Road (N3) will not be impacted by the proposed
development and the development will not abutt the national road.

Jacobs Street (R42/K179) and the unnamed road fall under the jurisdiction of the Lesedi
Local Municipality and proposed accesses and upgrades must be approved by the local
authority. This approval is sought as part of the town planning process which is a
parallel, but separate process to this environmental authorisation process.

5.2 The local authority must be consulted for approval process of the stormwater
management plan.

The stormwater management plan must be approved by the local authority prior to
commencement of the activity. This is undertaken as part of the site development plan
approval process. This requirement has been included in the Pre-Planning Phase
requirements of the EMPr.

We trust that you find the above in order.

Should you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact our office.

Yours sincerely

KIRSTIN OTTEN (Pr.Sci.Nat)

Registered Environmental Assessment Practitioner: 2019/237

Mills & Otten 5

Environmental Consultants
Lyzanne de Bruin

Subject: FW: COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED
FILLING STATION IN HEIDELBERG, LESEDI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY (GAUT
002/18-19/E2341)

Importance: High

From: admin@millsandotten.co.za
Sent: 12 September 2019 04:32 PM
To: 'RAMBUDA, TENDANI (GDARD)'
Subject: RE: COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED FILLING STATION IN
HEIDELBERG, LESEDI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY (GAUT 002/18-19/E2341)
Importance: High

Good afternoon Tendani

You will note that a hard copy of the document will be hand delivered to you, but this takes time to get the delivery
done and then within your offices so it was expedient to email it as well. Apologies if this has caused a problem for you.
Further comments are given below

Regards

Mills and Otten Environmental Consultants

A Level 2 BBBEE Company
P O Box 84344, Greenside, 2034
Tel: (011) 486 0062 Fax: 086 554 6573
www.millsandotten.co.za

Disclaimer:

This message may contain confidential information and is intended only for the individual(s) named. If you are not the
named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-
mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be
guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or
incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the content
of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. The views expressed in this message do not necessarily
represent the views or intentions of the company, Mills and Otten.

From: RAMBUDA, TENDANI (GDARD) [mailto:Tendani.Rambuda@gauteng.gov.za]

Sent: 12 September 2019 03:18 PM
To: admin@millsandotten.co.za
Cc: QUTA, ATHENKOSI (GDARD)
Subject: RE: COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED FILLING STATION IN
HEIDELBERG, LESEDI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY (GAUT 002/18-19/E2341)

UID09duf63i2bd
Dear Mills and Otten Consultants

1. Please note that the trigger is not only the critically biodiversity areas or ecological support area in C-Plan,
But also within any critically endangered or endangered ecosystem listed in terms of the
1
 NEMBA, which the Blesbokspruit Highveld Grassland. Point noted

2. It is noticed that the footprint is less than 1 hectare for activity 27, however, maybe it might better to indicate
the ecological footprint because the foot print might include parking, access road and other concrete areas. The
entire development for the filling station is 4700m2 and this includes any ecological footprint. They may not
transgress these boundaries so activity 27 cannot be triggered. It is also noted in the EMPr that it is a
requirement that the site be fenced off at the beginning of the contract to prevent any migration onto
surrounding areas.
3. Given the above, activity 12 of listing 3 still apply. As per the detail given above we do not agree with this
4. The heritage impact study might not be required if SAHRA has indicated as such. We will get confirmation from
SAHRA
5. The proposed development is very close to the National road (N3) servitude and it only make sense for them to
comments as a surrounding land owner including the local municipality and the province. We will ask SANRAL if
they wish to comment, however please note that there is another property between the filling station and the
N3 highway. Also we have not been able elicit comment from SANRAL on applications
6. It is only the vegetation specialist or an ecological specialist that can confirm that there is no need to undertake
an extensive specialist study. We will get an opinion from a specialist

We still stand by our comments and in future please respond in the final report and we will review and make a
decision. This process of an e-mail is not provided for in the regulations.

Kind regards

Disclaimer:
The Gauteng Provincial Government does not take responsibility for Gauteng Provincial Government users' personal views. Gauteng Provincial
Government services available online at www.gauteng.gov.za - The information contained in this communication from
tendani.rambuda@gauteng.gov.za sent at 2019-09-12 15:18:21 is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for use by
admin@millsandotten.co.za and others authorized to receive it. If you are not admin@millsandotten.co.za you are hereby notified that any
disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in reliance of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
Powered by Afrovation.

From: admin@millsandotten.co.za <admin@millsandotten.co.za>

Sent: Thursday, 12 September 2019 13:04
To: RAMBUDA, TENDANI (GDARD) <Tendani.Rambuda@gauteng.gov.za>
Subject: RE: COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED FILLING STATION IN
HEIDELBERG, LESEDI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY (GAUT 002/18-19/E2341)
Importance: High

Good day Tendani,

Please find attached for your attention.

2
Regards

Mills and Otten Environmental Consultants

A Level 2 BBBEE Company
P O Box 84344, Greenside, 2034
Tel: (011) 486 0062 Fax: 086 554 6573
www.millsandotten.co.za

Disclaimer:

This message may contain confidential information and is intended only for the individual(s) named. If you are not the
named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-
mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be
guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or
incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the content
of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. The views expressed in this message do not necessarily
represent the views or intentions of the company, Mills and Otten.

3
Title Mr First Name Eddy
Iniitials E Surname Tshabalala
Organisation Sedibeng District Municipality Email eddyt@sedibeng.gov.za
Postal Address Merriman street, Vereeniging
Postal Code 1939
Tel No 0164503274 Fax No
Please formally register me as an interested and affected part (I&AP) so that I may receive further information and
notifications
I would like notifications by email
I would like to receive documents for comment as follows
PROJECT: DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT: Environmental Authorisation Application for the Proposed
Development of a filling station in Heidelberg, Lesedi Local Municipality, Gauteng Province

Signature Eddy Tshabalala Date 12/09/2019

COMMENTS
The soil erosion to be managed and re-vegetation were necessary and feasible
Dust to be controlled and run-off to avoid storm water contamination
Waste management to be handled as per the outlined Norms and Standard in particular construction demolition
waste
Environmental management Plan to be implemented as outline
The project is supported provided that the mitigation measured are adhered to respectively

1
Lyzanne de Bruin

Subject: FW: Comments on Draft BAR for proposed filling station in Heidelberg

From: admin@millsandotten.co.za
Sent: 07 October 2019 02:10 PM
To: 'Eddy Tshabalala'
Cc: Lyzanne de Bruin
Subject: RE: Comments on Draft BAR for proposed filling station in Heidelberg

Dear Mr Tshabalala
Thank you for your correspondence and comments on the draft Basic Assessment Report.
Your comments regarding soil erosion management, re-vegetation, dust control, stormwater management and waste
management have been noted and incorporated into the Environmental Management Programme for the site.

Should you have any additional queries, please don’t hesitate to contact our office.

Regards

Mills and Otten Environmental Consultants

A Level 2 BBBEE Company
P O Box 84344, Greenside, 2034
Tel: (011) 486 0062 Fax: 086 554 6573
www.millsandotten.co.za

Disclaimer:

This message may contain confidential information and is intended only for the individual(s) named. If you are not the
named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-
mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be
guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or
incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the content
of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. The views expressed in this message do not necessarily
represent the views or intentions of the company, Mills and Otten.

From: Eddy Tshabalala [mailto:eddyt@sedibeng.gov.za]

Sent: 23 September 2019 11:01 AM
To: admin@millsandotten.co.za
Subject: Comment

Good day

Kindly find the attached comments

REgrds

Eddy Tshabalala

1
Local Government Support
Environmental Directorate
Sedibeng District Municipality
E-mail: Eddyt@sedibeng.gov.za/etshabalala@environment.gov.za
Cell: 066 283 0170

CONFIDENTIALITY & DISCLAIMER NOTICE

This message contains specific, confidential or proprietary information for exclusive use by the individual/entities to whom/which it has been addressed. If you or
your company is not the intended recipient kindly notify the sender immediately. Any use or dissemination of the contents of this message is strictly prohibited.

The content of this message does not constitute a commitment or an offer by Sedibeng District Municipality, except where expressly provided for in a written
agreement. Any views and/or opinions expressed by the sender do not necessarily represent those of the Sedibeng District Municipality.

Sedibeng District Municipality do not accept liability or legal responsibility for the contents of this message nor any errors in or omissions to the content of
electronically generated communications, or any loss or damages howsoever caused, arising as a result of reliance on the contents or unauthorized use thereof.
Should verification be required, kindly request the sender to do so.

Sedibeng District Municipality has taken steps to ensure that this message is free from computer viruses, but the responsibility of detection and prevention lies
solely with the recipient. Sedibeng District Municipality does not warrant the integrity of the data transmitted, nor that it had not been corrupted nor previously
intercepted and/or tampered with.

CONFIDENTIALITY & DISCLAIMER NOTICE

This message contains specific, confidential or proprietary information for exclusive use by the individual/entities to whom/which it has been addressed. If you or
your company is not the intended recipient kindly notify the sender immediately. Any use or dissemination of the contents of this message is strictly prohibited.

The content of this message does not constitute a commitment or an offer by Sedibeng District Municipality, except where expressly provided for in a written
agreement. Any views and/or opinions expressed by the sender do not necessarily represent those of the Sedibeng District Municipality.

Sedibeng District Municipality do not accept liability or legal responsibility for the contents of this message nor any errors in or omissions to the content of
electronically generated communications, or any loss or damages howsoever caused, arising as a result of reliance on the contents or unauthorized use thereof.
Should verification be required, kindly request the sender to do so.

Sedibeng District Municipality has taken steps to ensure that this message is free from computer viruses, but the responsibility of detection and prevention lies
solely with the recipient. Sedibeng District Municipality does not warrant the integrity of the data transmitted, nor that it had not been corrupted nor previously
intercepted and/or tampered with.

2
 Mills & Otten (Pty) Ltd Environmental Consultants
2016/388381/07
VAT Number 4770177352

Johannesburg Office e-mail: info@millsandotten.co.za Cape Town Office

PO Box 84344 PO Box 2286
Greenside 2034 Clareinch 7740

Tel. 011 486 0062 Tel. 021 671 7107

Fax. 086 554 6573 Fax. 086 554 6573

M&O Ref.: MO4261/07102019/DBAR-Resp 07 October 2019

DWS Ref: 16/2/7/C212/B097

GDARD Ref.: Gaut 002/18-19/E2341

Department of Water and Sanitation

Gauteng Operations

Attention: M.B. Nakene

E-mail: NakeneB@dws.gov.za

Dear Ms Nakene

RE: DRAFT BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF

A FILLING STATION IN HEIDELBERG, LESEDI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY, GAUTENG
PROVINCE

Your letter, dated 23 September 2019 and received 25 September 2019, refers. Thank you
for your correspondence and participation in the environmental authorisation process. Your
comments have been documented and recorded in the Comments and Responses Report.
Please find response to the proposed conditions below (numbered as per comments
received):

Construction Phase

1. There are no surface water features, flood lines, delineated riparian habitats, or wetlands
located on or adjacent to the site. There are no wetlands identified within a 500m radius
of the activity. The proposed activity is not located in a restricted / regulated area and
does not trigger a water use in terms of Section 21 of the National Water Act (Act 36 of
1998).

2. The proposed construction of the filling station does not trigger a water use and a
geohydrological assessment has not been conducted. A copy of the geotechnical report
was included with the Draft Basic Assessment Report.

3. The requirement to meet the applicable SANS standards is included in the

Environmental Management Programme (EMPr).

4. Management measures for the prevention of erosion and contaminated stormwater

runoff during the construction phase are included in the EMPr. A stormwater
management report has been compiled and will be submitted for approval to the Lesedi
Local Municipality prior to commencement of construction activities on the site. A copy of
the approved stormwater management plan can be forwarded to the Department of
Water and Sanitation (DWS).

5. It is recommended that monitoring boreholes not be installed on the site for the purpose
of baseline groundwater quality monitoring. Should a leak occur, by the time the
contaminants reach the groundwater it will have become a major problem. As an early
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

DIRECTORS: C.A.J. Mills (Pr.Sci.Nat.); K.M. Otten (Pr.Sci.Nat.); N. M. Maswanganyi

 warning system, the tank monitoring wells installed in the tank excavation must be
inspected monthly for the presence of any hydrocarbon product. Should this be
detected, immediate action can be taken, long before the contaminants reach the
groundwater. The estimated depth to the groundwater level is more than 10m below
ground level and it would take the product more than 5 years to infiltrate to this depth.

6. The layout and installation drawings will be approved by the Lesedi Local Municipality
prior to commencement of construction activities. A list of documents requested by the
Department of Water and Sanitation prior to construction commencing has been
included in the EMPr.

7. The requirement for leak tests prior to initial operation is a standard requirement for new
filing stations. The requirement has, nonetheless, been included in the EMPr.

8. A stormwater management system, including an oil-water separator, will be installed for

the separation and management of run-off from the forecourt and tank filling areas, as
per industry standards.

9. Spill prevention and management measures are addressed in the EMPr.

10. The requirement for an oil trap to be installed at potential car wash bays has been
included in the EMPr.

11. The requirement for copies of the developer’s letter of agreement to safely and legally
dispose of all construction waste at the appropriate, licensed facilities has been included
in the EMPr.

12. The requirement for a services agreement with the relevant licensed landfill site to
confirm sufficient capacity and the requirement to maintain records of waste being
disposed in a responsible manner is included the EMPr.

13. The requirement to provide the DWS with a copy of the service agreement letter for the
supply of potable water from the municipality has been included in the EMPr.

14. The comment is noted and included in the EMPr. There are no surface water resources
within 500m of the site.

15. The management of hazardous materials on site is addressed in the EMPr and includes
the requirement for storage in a bunded area and appropriate disposal.

16. It is noted that the proposed development is for a new filling station. New underground
storage tanks must be installed. There are no existing underground tanks on the site.

17. The management of chemical toilets is addressed in the EMPr.

Operational Phase

1. Stormwater management is addressed in the EMPr. The requirement to provide the

Department of Water and Sanitation with a copy of the approved stormwater
management plan has been added to the EMPr.

2. This requirement has been added to the operational phase EMPr.

3. The requirement for separators to be cleaned on a regular basis and for overflow to
discharge to sewer is included in the EMPr.

4. Spill prevention and management is included in the operational phase EMPr. New filling
stations are equipped with automatic tank gauging (ATG) equipment, as well as tank
monitoring wells for an additional level of early leak detection.

Mills & Otten 2

Environmental Consultants
Appendix E-8: Comments from I&APs on amendments to the BAR
Not currently applicable
Appendix E-9: Copy of the register of I&APs
GAUT 002/18-19/E2341 MO4261

REGISTER OF INTERESTED AND AFFECTED PARTIES

APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A FILLING STATION ON PORTION 101 (A
PORTION OF PORTION 82) OF THE FARM LANGLAAGTE 186-IR, HEIDELBERG, LESEDI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY, GAUTENG PROVINCE

PHYSICAL / POSTAL
NAME ASSOCIATION CONTACT DETAILS
ADDRESS
(t) Civic Centre, c/o HF
Lesedi Local Municipality
Mr. Jabu Marwa (c) 082 771 2191 Verwoerd and Louw Street,
Development Planning – Heidelberg / P.O. Box 201,
Executive Manager (f)
Environmental Section Heidelberg, 1438
(e) jabum@lesedi.gov.za / amy@lesedi.gov.za
(t)
Sedibeng District (c) 082 045 1313 Cnr Beaconsfield & Leslie
Municipality – Local Streets, Vereeniging, 1930 /
Mr. Eddy Tshabalala (f)
Government Support – P.O. Box 471, Vereeniging,
Environmental Directorate (e) EddyT@sedibeng.gov.za / 1930
etshabalala@environment.gov.za
(t)
(c) 084 314 4913
Councillor Sieghard Paul Lesedi Local Municipality
(f)
Ward Councillor Ward 10
(e) sieghard.paul@yahoo.com
/ siegpaul@icloud.com
Department of Water and (t) 012 392 1374
Sanitation 15th Floor Bothongo Plaza
(c)
Mr. Ephraim Matseba East, 285 Francis Baard
Quaternary Catchment (e) matsebae@dws.gov.za Street, Pretoria
C21F (Gauteng South) / khorommbik@dws.gov.za
(t) 012 392 1348 285 Bothongo Plaza East
Department of Water and (e) NakeneB@dws.gov.za Building, Francis Baard
Ms M.B. Nakene
Sanitation Street, Pretoria / Private
Bag X995, Pretoria, 0001

October 2019
GAUT 002/18-19/E2341 MO4261

PHYSICAL / POSTAL
NAME ASSOCIATION CONTACT DETAILS
ADDRESS
(t) 012 426 6247 / 27
South African National (c) 48 Tambotie Avenue, Val de
Klaus Schmid Roads Agency SOC Ltd
(f) Grace, Pretoria
(SANRAL)
(e) schmidk@nra.co.za

Gauteng Department of (t) 011 355 7301

(c) Life Centre Building, 29th
Roads and Transport
Ronald Swartz Floor, 45 Commissioner
(Gautrans) – Transport (f) Street, Johannesburg
Planning (e) Ronald.Swartz@gauteng.gov.za
(t) 012 320 8490 / 4968
South African Heritage (c) 432 Paul Kruger Street,
Ms. Annlin Matabane
Resources Agency (f) 012 320 8486 Pretoria
(e) amatabane@sahra.org.za
(t)
(c)
(f)
(e)
(t)
(c)
(f)
(e)

October 2019
 Appendix F:

Water use license(s), SAHRA information, service

letters from Municipalities, water supply information

Appendix F-1: Services Report

Appendix F-2: Stormwater Management Plan
[Type here]

SHELL
HEIDELBERG
FILLING STATION
SERVICES REPORT FOR FILLING STATION APPLICATION

TYPE OF DOCUMENT: CONFIDENTIAL

PROJECT NO: 001-18
DATE: OCTOBER 2018

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine Mobile: 082 306 9830
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 Storm water Management Plan (SMP): BP
 P a g e | ii
[Type here]
SHELL HEIDELBERG FILLING STATION

SERVICES REPORT
SHELL SOUTH AFRICA

CLIENT:
SHELL SOUTH AFRICA ENERGY(Pty) Ltd
The Campus, Twickenham Building, 57 Sloane Street, Epsom Downs
Bryanston
2021

ATTENTION:
Name: Viloshni Moodley
e-mail: Viloshni.moodley@shell.com
Mobile:083 629 3131
Office:
:

ENGINEER:
Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd
PO Box 90760
Garsfontein
0042

RESPONSIBILITY:
Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
e-mail: eddie.krause@designedes.co.za
Mobile: 082 306 9830

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine Mobile: 082 306 9830
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 Services Report: SHELL
 P a g e | iii
[Type here]
DISCLAIMER:

This report was prepared by Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] for the account of SHELL
South Africa (Pty) Ltd in accordance with the professional services agreement. The disclosure of any
information contained in this report is the sole respon sibility of the intended recipient. The material in
it reflects Edward Krause’s best judgement in light of the information available to him at the time of
preparation. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to b e
made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. Design Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd
[DES] accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions
made or actions based on this report. This li mitations statement is considered part of this report.

The original of the technology-based document sent herewith has been authenticated and will be
retained by DES for a minimum of ten years. Since the file transmitted is now out of DES’s control and
its integrity can no longer be ensured, no guarantee may be given to by any modifications to be made
to this document.

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine Mobile: 082 306 9830
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 Services Report: SHELL
 P a g e | iv
[Type here]
QUALITY MANAGEMENT
ISSUE/REVISION FIRST ISSUE REVISION 1 REVISION 2 REVISION 3

Remarks

Date October 2018

Prepared by Charl Ludick

Signature

Checked by Eddie Krause (Director)

Signature

Authorized by Eddie Krause (Director)

Signature

Project number 001-18

Report number 1

File reference

Eddie Krause Pr Tech Eng

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd
Mobile: 082 306 9830

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine Mobile: 082 306 9830
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 Services Report: SHELL
 Page |v
[Type here]
PRODUCTION TEAM
CLIENT

Property Manager SHELL John Doe

DES ENGINEERING

Director Eddie Krause

Civil Engineer Charl Ludick

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine Mobile: 082 306 9830
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 Services Report: SHELL
[Type here]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 3

2. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 3
3. PROFESSIONAL TEAM ......................................................................................................................... 3
4. PURPOSE OF THE REPORT ................................................................................................................. 3
5. LOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT AND FLOODLINES ........................................................................... 4
6. LAND USES ............................................................................................................................................ 4
7. CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES .......................................................................................................... 5
7.1 DESIGN STANDARDS ........................................................................................................................... 5
7.2 DESIGN SOFTWARE ............................................................................................................................. 5
7.3 OWNERSHIP OF SERVICES ................................................................................................................. 5
8. STORMWATER DRAINAGE ................................................................................................................... 6
8.1 STORMWATER SYSTEMS .................................................................................................................... 6
8.2 HYDROLOGY.......................................................................................................................................... 9
8.3 DESIGN STANDARDS ........................................................................................................................... 9
9. ROADS .................................................................................................................................................... 9
9.1 ACCES TO THE DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................................... 9
9.2 UPGRADES TO THE EXISTING ROADS NETWORK ........................................................................... 9
9.3 NON-MOTORISED AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT.................................................................................. 10
9.4 CLASSIFICATION OF ROADS ............................................................................................................. 10
9.5 GEOMETRIC DESIGN STANDARDS ................................................................................................... 10
9.6 PAVEMENT DESIGN ............................................................................................................................ 10
10. WATER .................................................................................................................................................. 11
10.1 BULK SERVICES .................................................................................................................................. 11
10.2 INTERNAL RETICULATION ................................................................................................................. 11
11. SEWER ................................................................................................................................................. 12
11.1 BULK SERVICES .................................................................................................................................. 12
11.2 INTERNAL SEWER RETICULATION ................................................................................................... 13
12. BULK SERVICES CONTRIBUTIONS ................................................................................................... 13
13. COST ESTIMATES ............................................................................................................................... 14
14. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................... 14
PROPSED ACCESS LAYOUT......................................................................................................................... 15
WATER AND SEWAGE SERVICES (EXISTING AND PROPOSED) ............................................................. 17
NORTH ............................................................................................................................................................. 18

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine Mobile: 082 306 9830
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 Storm water Management Plan (SMP): BP
 Page |2
[Type here]
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 5-1 Site Locality Plan ................................................................................................................................... 4

Figure 8-2 Topographical map of proposed site...................................................................................................... 6
Figure 8-3 Current Stormwater Channels ............................................................................................................... 7
Figure 8-4 Jacob Street Stormwater System .......................................................................................................... 7
Figure 8-5 N3 West Direction .................................................................................................................................. 8
Figure 8-6 N3 on-ramp ............................................................................................................................................ 8

LIST OF TABLES

Table 6-1 Proposed Land Use ................................................................................................................................ 4

Table 8-2 Hydrology ................................................................................................................................................ 9
Table 8-3 Standards to be used .............................................................................................................................. 9
Table 9-4 Classification of External Access Roads ............................................................................................... 10
Table 9-5 Class 5a- Commercial Access .............................................................................................................. 10
Table 10-6 Water Design Criteria .......................................................................................................................... 11
Table 10-7 Estimated Water Demand ................................................................................................................... 12
Table 11-8 Sewer Design Criteria ......................................................................................................................... 13
Table 11-9 Estimated Sewer Flow ........................................................................................................................ 13

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine Mobile: 082 306 9830
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 Services Report: SHELL
 Page |3
[Type here]
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
DES was appointed by SHELL South Africa Ltd to compile an Engineering Services Report for a
proposed filling station development. DES Engineering Ltd. Is committed to provide a Transportation
and Infrastructure preliminary design for the proposed development which will incorporate as many
possible elements which are sustainable with the environment, but cost effective at the same time and
this will form part of the filling station application.

2. INTRODUCTION
DES Engineering was appointed by SHELL South Africa Ltd as consulting engineers to compile a
Service report for the proposed development at the crossing of Jacob Street (R42) and the N3 Highway
in Heidelberg under the jurisdiction of Lesedi Local Municipality, Gauteng Province.

3. PROFESSIONAL TEAM
The professional team is as follows:
PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINE NAME OF COMPANY CONTACT PERSON(S)
Client BP Global Ltd
Director DES Engineering Mr Eddie Krause
Civil Engineer DES Engineering Mr Charl Ludick

4. PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

This report deals with the provision of Civil Engineering Infrastructure for the proposed filling station
located on the corner of Jacob Street (R42) and the N3 Highway in Heidelberg, Gauteng province.

The purpose of this outline services scheme report is to confirm the p roposed site can be serviced
economically with the existing infrastructure.

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine Mobile: 082 306 9830
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 Services Report: SHELL
 Page |4
[Type here]
5. LOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT AND FLOODLINES
This proposed site is located on the corner of the N3 Highway and Jacob Street (R42). Refer to Figure
5-1 for Site Locality Plan. The site is not affected by floodlines.

Figure 5-1 Site Locality Plan

Site Location

NORTH

6. LAND USES
The land is currently zoned “Agricultural” and will be rezoned “Special” as per scheme, public garage
and commercial use.

Table 6-1 Proposed Land Use

USE ZONE NO OF ERVEN AREA (m 2 ) FAR FLOOR AREA (m 2 )

Special 1 10 000 0.04 400

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine Mobile: 082 306 9830
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 Services Report: SHELL
 Page |5
[Type here]
7. CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES

7.1 DESIGN STANDARDS

The design standards to be followed are in accordance with the standards specified “Guidelines for
the Provision of Engineering Services and Amenities in Residential Townships” (Red Book) .

The design of the water and sewer reticulation will be done in accordance with the latest edition of the
Guidelines and Standards for the Design and Maintenance of Water and Sanitation Services of
Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality.

All external roads and stormwater will be designed according to the standards and specifications of
the Gauteng Department of Roads and T ransport (GDRT). All internal roads and stormwater will be
designed according to the standards and specifications of the Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality.

7.2 DESIGN SOFTWARE

The designs of the civil engineering services will be carried out using Autodesk Civil 3D design
program.

7.3 OWNERSHIP OF SERVICES

All internal services will remain private property and the property owner will be responsible for the
maintenance thereof.

All new external services and services connections will be handed over to the controlling authorities
which will be responsible for the maintenance thereof.

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine Mobile: 082 306 9830
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 Services Report: SHELL
 Page |6
[Type here]
8. STORMWATER DRAINAGE

8.1 STORMWATER SYSTEMS

On the east side of the proposed site there is an open concrete channel flowing in a south western
direction where it connects to a culvert below Jacbob street (R42) diverting it in a south eastern
direction. On the south western side of the proposed site there is an open concrete channel conveying
the water in a north western direction for about 1km where it is directed into a natural watercourse.
The above mentioned system drains in the north western and south eastern direction.

Currently the stormwater from the proposed development drains into t he above mentioned channels
by means of overland flow.

Figure 8-2 Topographical map of proposed site

Proposed Site

North

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine Mobile: 082 306 9830
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 Services Report: SHELL
 Page |7
[Type here]
Figure 8-3 Current Stormwater Channels

Overland natural flow

Concrete open channel

Existing stormwater system

Concrete open channel

Culvert

Concrete open channel

North

Figure 8-4 Jacob Street Stormwater System

Jacob Street (R42) Southwest

Culvert inlet

Open concrete channel

Concrete edging to direct flow

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine Mobile: 082 306 9830
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 Services Report: SHELL
 Page |8
[Type here]
Figure 8-5 N3 West Direction

Open concrete channel

(N3 off-ramp northwest)

Figure 8-6 N3 on-ramp

Culvert opening
(downstream)

Concrete open channel (N3

on-ramp southeast

A Stormwater Management Plan has been compiled to calculate the flood routing and in detail size the
attenuation pond and outlet structures.

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine Mobile: 082 306 9830
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 Services Report: SHELL
 Page |9
[Type here]
8.2 HYDROLOGY
Hydrological data that is used in the design of the stormwater drainage system for SHELL Heidelberg
is summarized in Table 8-2 below.

Table 8-2 Hydrology

HYDROLOGICAL DATA
i) Flood return period 1:5 and 1:25
ii) Average yearly rainfall 750 mm
iii) Minimum time of concentration and run-off co-efficient according to: Guidelines for the
Provision of Engineering Services and Amenities (Red Book) incorporating the JRA
Standard Specifications.
iv) Design method Rational method for smaller catchment areas
v) Pre-development run-off factor (C) 0.28
vi) Post-development run-off factor (C) 0.85

8.3 DESIGN STANDARDS

Table 8-3 lists the standards to be used in the design of the stormwater drainage system.

Table 8-3 Standards to be used

DESIGN ELEMENT SPECIFICATION

i) Minimum pipe size 450 mm diameter
ii) Pipe type Type: Interlocking
Pipe class: 50D (100D for road crossings)
iii) Minimum pipe gradient 0.67%
iv) Stormwater details According to the Redbook (“Guidelines for the
Provision of Engineering Services and Amenities
in Townships Development”).

9. ROADS
9.1 ACCES TO THE DEVELOPMENT
The development will be serviced by one access off Jacob Street (R42) and the N3 Highway. As a
requirement by GDRT, an alternative access should be provided for emergency purposes. Refer to
Appendix A

• The main access will be approximately 100m south west on the R42 from the proposed site, it
will be a partial access on R42.

9.2 UPGRADES TO THE EXISTING ROADS NETWORK

Traffic Impact assessment have been conducted and submitted to both GDRT and Lesedi Local
Municipality for approval and/or comments. There are no current improvements to be implemented on
the existing roads in the near vicinity.

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine Mobile: 082 306 9830
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 Services Report: SHELL
 P a g e | 10
[Type here]
9.3 NON-MOTORISED AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT
In terms of the National Land Transport Act of 2009, Section 38, it is a requirement that an assessment
of the public transport be included in a Traffic Impact Assessment Study.

These were addressed in the TIA submitted to GDRT and LLM.

9.4 FUTURE ROAD NETWORK

Jacob Street (R42) will become K174 in the future road network. Both lanes have been built to GDRT
standards.

9.5 CLASSIFICATION OF ROADS

The classification of road is shown in Table 9 -4.

Table 9-4 Classification of External Access Roads

DEACRIPTION CLASS NO. FUNCTION

Access/Activity 5a Commercial access
R42, K174 3 Arterial connection

9.6 GEOMETRIC DESIGN STANDARDS

The details of the different road classes are shown in Table 9 -5.

Table 9-5 Class 5a- Commercial Access

DESIGN ELEMENT SPECIFICATION

5a 3
Design speed 40km/h 100km/h
Minimum centre line radii 50m 1500m
Minimum gradient 0.67% 0.5%
Favoured maximum gradient 10% 10%
Maximum grade/grade length 12,5% over 70m 4.3% over 350m
Maximum k-value: Crest 6 62
Sag 6 37

9.7 PAVEMENT DESIGN

The proposed pavement design will be based on anticipated traffic volumes and ground conditions.
The design life of the proposed pavement is 20 years on provision that repairs the surface will be made
where necessary in order to maintain its skid resistance and impermeability during the desig n life of
the road.

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine Mobile: 082 306 9830
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 Services Report: SHELL
 P a g e | 11
[Type here]
10. WATER
10.1 BULK SERVICES
Currently no bulk water services are available on the proposed development site. Refer to Appendix B
for existing water layout from Water and sanitation department. The water line in Jacob Street (R42)
street connects to a 110mm diameter pipe to service the Heidelberg residential development . It is
advisable to connect the water line to the 110mm diameter pipe to service the filling station. The main
distribution water line services Heidelberg.

Water to service the proposed filling station will be drawn from the afore -mentioned existing 110mm
diameter pipe in Jacob street (R42) and a water meter will be installed at an approved position by
Johannesburg Water and Sanitation Department. The new water line will be ±100m in length.

Refer to Appendix B for Proposed Water Layout Plan.

10.2 INTERNAL RETICULATION

WATER DESIGN CRITERIA

The design criteria to be used for the analysis and design of the water network are indicated in Table
10-6

Table 10-6 Water Design Criteria

ITEM DESIGN ELEMENT CRITERIA

NO.
1 Average Annual Daily Demand (AADD) for residential and Refer to table 10-5 below
recreational sites
2 Gross Average Annual Daily Demand (GAADD) Allow 10% losses
3 Instantaneous Peak Factor (IPF) 4.0
4 Design Peak Flow Rate (DPFR) for domestic flows GAADD x IPF
5 Maximum static head 90m
6 Minimum residual head under conditions of domestic 25m
peak flows
7 Maximum linear flow velocity under conditions of 3.6m/s
domestic peak flows
8 Pipe type uPVC pressure pipes
9 Minimum pipe class Class 16
10 Fire flow at any one hydrant under the condition of 100l/s
domestic peak flows (one hydrant at a time)
11 Minimum residual head (fire plus domestic peak flow) 8m
12 Maximum linear flow velocity under conditions of fire - 3.5m/s
fighting
13 Boundary roughness (K-value) 0.1mm
14 Available static head To be confirmed
15 Available dynamic head under fire flow conditions To be confirmed
16 Flow formulae D’Arcy Weissbach
17 Minimum pipe diameter 110mm

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine Mobile: 082 306 9830
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 Services Report: SHELL
 P a g e | 12
[Type here]
ESTIMATED WATER DEMAND

The estimated water demand for the proposed development is shown in Table 10 -7 below.

Table 10-7 Estimated Water Demand

USE ZONE SHELL HEIDELBERG, JACOB STREET (R42)

Area (ha) Floor area (m 2 ) Average Annual Water Demand
Daily Demand (kl/day)
(AADD)
Business 1.0 400 0.4 kl/100m 2 /day 1.6
Total 1.0 400 0.4 kl/500m 2 /day 1.6

Peak Hourly Consumption (PHC) = Water Demand x Peak Factor

= 400m 2 /500m 2 x 0.4 kl

= 1.6 kl/day
= 1.6 x 4PF
= 6.4 kl/day
= 0.07407 l/s

Total water consumption = PHC + Total Fore Flow (TFF fh )

= 0.07407 l/s + 100 l/s

= 100.07407 l/s

11. SEWER
11.1 BULK SERVICES
There is an existing municipal sewer reticulation line located on the north side of Tulpe Street, the
manhole is located in Tulpe Street. A connection can be made by an approved position by
Johannesburg Water and Sanitation Department.

Refer to Appendix B for the existing sewer layout from Johannesburg Water and Sanitation Department.
Appendix B also provides the proposed sewer layout plan.

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine Mobile: 082 306 9830
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 Services Report: SHELL
 P a g e | 13
[Type here]

11.2 INTERNAL SEWER RETICULATION

SEWER DESIGN CRITERIA

The design criteria used to design the sewage network are indicated in Table 11 -8 below.

Table 11-8 Sewer Design Criteria

ITEM DESIGN ELEMENT CRITERIA

NO.
1 Average Annual Daily flow for special and residential Refer to table 11-6 below
Erven
2 Peak Factor 1.5
3 Allowance for infiltration 15%
4 Capacity of sewer Pipes may run full at the Total
Design Flow, which includes the
peak and infiltration flows
5 Sewer pipe type uPVC Class 34
6 Minimum velocity 0.7 m/s
7 Minimum pipe diameter 160 mm
8 Minimum depth of cover 1.0 m

ESTIMATED SEWERAGE FLOW

The estimated flow for the proposed development is shown in Table 11 -9 below.

Table 11-9 Estimated Sewer Flow

USE ZONE SHELL HEIDELBERG, JACOB STREET (R42)

Area (ha) Floor Area (m 2 ) Units Average Sewerage
Annual Daily Flow (kl/day)
Flow (AADF)
Business 1.0 400 0.22 kl/500m 2 /day
Total 1.0 400 0.22 kl/500m 2 /day

Peak Flow = Peak Factor x Sewerage Flow

= 400 m 2 /500m 2 x 0.22 kl
= 0.88 kl/day
= 0.88 x 1.5 PF
= 1.32 kl/day x 1.15 (% allowed for extraneous flow = 15%)
= 1.518 kl/day
= 0.01757 l/s

12. BULK SERVICES CONTRIBUTIONS

The amount of Bulk Services Contributions for Civil services payable to Lesedi Local Municipality will
be determined with compilation of the service agreement.

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine Mobile: 082 306 9830
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 Services Report: SHELL
 P a g e | 14
[Type here]
13. COST ESTIMATES
Appendix C contains the preliminary costing for the services to the propose d filling station.

14. CONCLUSIONS
All the required engineering services, in respect of roads, stormwater, potable water and sewer, can
be supplied economically to the proposed subdivisions upon change of current land use.

The total budget amount for the up grades of the stormwater, potable water and sewer networks to
accommodate the proposed development will be finalized upon approval of land uses and acceptance
of services reports.

• The main access will be approximately 100m south on the R42 from the proposed site, it will
be a partial access (left-in-left-out) on R42.
• The alternative access will be on the north side of the proposed site on the road heading to the
cemetery.
• Water will be supplied from an existing municipal water reticulation line of 110mm di ameter
pipe that is in Jacob Street (R42) east of the proposed site.
• Connection to an existing municipal sewer reticulation from a line located to the north of Tulpe
Street to the east of Jacob Street (R42) when traveling to the north east on Jacob Street (R42)
(located in the area developing area to the east of Jacob Street (R42)

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine Mobile: 082 306 9830
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 Services Report: SHELL
 P a g e | 15
[Type here]

APPENDIX A
PROPSED ACCESS LAYOUT

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine Mobile: 082 306 9830
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 Services Report: SHELL
 P a g e | 16
[Type here]

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine Mobile: 082 306 9830
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 Services Report: SHELL
 P a g e | 17
[Type here]

APPENDIX B
WATER AND SEWAGE SERVICES (EXISTING AND
PROPOSED)

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine Mobile: 082 306 9830
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 Services Report: SHELL
 P a g e | 18
[Type here]

Water services (Existing)

NORTH Sewage services (Existing)
Proposed Water service line
Proposed Sewer service
line

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine Mobile: 082 306 9830
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 Services Report: SHELL
 P a g e | 19
[Type here]

APPENDIX C
PRELIMINARY COSTING

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine Mobile: 082 306 9830
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 Services Report: SHELL
 P a g e | 20
[Type here]

SERVICES COSTING
ITEM Unit Amount Rate Total cost

Water Services
Connect to existing services Prov.sum 1 R 5,000.00 R 5,000.00
110 mm dia. Pipes laid including trenches m 200 R 175.00 R 35,000.00
200 mm dia Pipes laid including trenches m 50 R 300.00 R 15,000.00
connections No. 20 R 150.00 R 3,000.00
Backfill 93% MOD AASHTO m³ 300 R 45.00 R 13,500.00
-River sand m³ 9 R 350.00 R 3,150.00
-19 mm single size aggregate m³ 9 R 350.00 R 3,150.00

Total R 77,800.00

Stormwater Unit Amount Rate Total cost

450mm 100D supplied and laid m 300 R 550.00 R 165,000.00
3 m kerb inlet No. 4 R 6,500.00 R 26,000.00
Trenching for 450 dia pipes m³ 360 R 55.00 R 19,800.00
Backfill (93% MOD AASHTO G7 material) m³ 360 R 45.00 R 16,200.00
19 mm single size aggregate m³ 18 R 350.00 R 6,300.00
Clean coarse river sand m³ 18 R 350.00 R 6,300.00
Cut for attenuation pond to stockpile or spoil m³ 115 R 170.00 R 19,550.00

Total R 259,150.00

Sewer Services Unit Amount Rate Total cost

Connect to existing services Prov.sum 1 R 5,000.00 R 5,000.00
Class 34 uPVC 160mm dia. Pipes (laid and
trenching) m 200 R 190.00 R 38,000.00
Class 34 uPVC 200mm dia. Pipes (laid and
trenching) m 100 R 285.00 R 28,500.00
Manholes No. 5 R 4,431.18 R 22,155.90
Pumps (Feka 2500-2700 17m head) No. 0 R 25,000.00 R -
Septic Tank No. 0 R 35,000.00 R -
Backfill (93% MOD AASHTO G7 material) m³ 360 R 45.00 R 16,200.00
Clean coarse river sand m³ 28.8 R 350.00 R 10,080.00
19mm clean aggregate (single size) m³ 28.8 R 350.00 R 10,080.00

Total R 125,015.90

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine Mobile: 082 306 9830
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 Services Report: SHELL
 P a g e | 21
[Type here]

Roads Unit Amount Rate Total cost

G7 150 mm filling to 95% MOD AASHTO selected m³ 300 R 317.19 R 95,157.00
G5 150 mm filling to 98% MOD AASHTO subbase m³ 300 R 363.99 R 109,197.00
C3 Layer to 98 MOD AASHTO selected 100mm m³ 200 R 550.00 R 110,000.00
G2 crushed stone to 102% MOD AASHTO Base
100mm m³ 200 R 499.19 R 99,838.00
Asphalt Base and surface
Prime coat m² 2000 R 11.30 R 22,600.00
Track coat m² 2000 R 4.52 R 9,040.00
Asphalt base 70/80 pen grade 5% bitumen tn 74 R 1,535.54 R 113,629.96
Fig 7 kerb m 400 R 239.65 R 95,860.00

Total R 655,321.96

P&G's R 134,074.54
Services R 1,117,287.86
Sub total R 1,251,362.40

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine Mobile: 082 306 9830
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 Services Report: SHELL
[Type here]

SHELL HEIDELBERG
FILLING STATION
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SMP)

TYPE OF DOCUMENT: CONFIDENTIAL

PROJECT NO: 001-18
DATE: OCTOBER 2018

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine Mobile: 082 306 9830
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 Storm water Management Plan (SMP): BP
 P a g e | ii
[Type here]

SHELL HEIDELBERG FILLING STATION

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SMP)

SHELL SOUTH AFRICA

CLIENT:
SHELL SOUTH AFRICA ENERGY(Pty) Ltd
The Campus, Twickenham Building, 57 Sloane Stree t, Epsom Downs
Bryanston
2021

ATTENTION:
Name: Viloshni Moodley
e-mail: Viloshni.moodley@shell.com
Mobile:083 629 3131
Office:

ENGINEER:
Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd
PO Box 90760
Garsfontein
0042

RESPONSIBILITY:
Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
e-mail: eddie.krause@designedes.co.za
Mobile: 082 306 9830

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine Mobile: 082 306 9830
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 Storm water Management Plan (SMP): SHELL
 P a g e | iii
[Type here]
DISCLAIMER:

This report was prepared by Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] for the account of SHELL
SOUTH AFRICA (Pty) Ltd in accordance with the professional services agreement. The dis closure of
any information contained in this report is the sole respon sibility of the intended recipient. The material
in it reflects Edward Krause’s best judgement in light of the information available to him at the time of
preparation. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to b e
made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. Design Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd
[DES] accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions
made or actions based on this report. This li mitations statement is considered part of this report.

The original of the technology-based document sent herewith has been authenticated and will be
retained by DES for a minimum of ten years. Since the file transmitted is now out of DES’s control and
its integrity can no longer be ensured, no guarantee may be given to by any modifications to be made
to this document.

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine Mobile: 082 306 9830
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 Storm water Management Plan (SMP): SHELL
 P a g e | iv
[Type here]

QUALITY MANAGEMENT
ISSUE/REVISION FIRST ISSUE REVISION 1 REVISION 2 REVISION 3

Remarks

Date October 2018

Prepared by Charl Ludick

Signature

Checked by Eddie Krause (Director)

Signature

Authorized by Eddie Krause (Director)

Signature

Project number 001-18

Report number 1

File reference

Eddie Krause Pr Tech Eng

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd
Mobile: 082 306 9830

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine Mobile: 082 306 9830
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 Storm water Management Plan (SMP): SHELL
 Page |v
[Type here]

PRODUCTION TEAM
CLIENT

Property Manager SHELL John Doe

DES ENGINEERING

Director Eddie Krause

Civil Engineer Charl Ludick

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine Mobile: 082 306 9830
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 Storm water Management Plan (SMP): SHELL
[Type here]

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 2
2. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 2
3. PROFESSIONAL TEAM ......................................................................................................................... 2
4. LOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................ 3
5. LAND USES ............................................................................................................................................ 3
6. EXISTING STORMWATER DRAINAGE PATTERN AND FLOODLINES ............................................. 4
7. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND DESIGN CRITERIA ................................................................. 5
7.1 DESIGN STANDARDS ........................................................................................................................... 5
7.2 STORMWATER SYSTEMS .................................................................................................................... 5
7.3 HYDROLOGY.......................................................................................................................................... 5
8. STORMWATER RUN-OFF ..................................................................................................................... 6
9. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DURING CONSTRUCTION ............................................................. 6
10. PROPOSED MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE ............................................................................................ 6
11. COSTING ................................................................................................................................................ 6
12. CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................................... 7
ATTENUATION POND: INFLOW AND OUTFLOW HYDROGRAPHS .............................................................. 8
1:5 INFLOW AND OUTFLOW HYDROGRAPH ................................................................................................. 9
1:25 INFLOW AND OUTFLOW HYDROGRAPH ............................................................................................. 10
RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATIONS .......................................................................................................... 11
PROPOSED STORMWATER LAYOUT DRAWING ........................................................................................ 16

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4-1 Site Locality Plan .................................................................................................................................. 3

Figure 6-2 Average Site Slope ............................................................................................................................... 4

LIST OF TABLES
Table 5-1 Proposed Land Use ................................................................................................................................ 3
Table 7-2 Hydrology ................................................................................................................................................ 5
Table 8-3 Total Development Run-off ..................................................................................................................... 6
Table 8-4 Calculated Run-off .................................................................................................................................. 6
Table 11-5 Preliminary costing ................................................................................................................................ 7

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine Mobile: 082 306 9830
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 Storm water Management Plan (SMP): BP
 Page |2
[Type here]

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed stormwater management strategy for SHELL Jacob Street (Heidelberg) Filling Station
development is presented, with the objective of approval.

The strategy is based on Guidelines for Human Settlement Planning and Design (Red Book).

All Red Book requirements are met in this proposal.

An attenuation pond of 114 m 3 will be constructed to limit the outflow to a pre -development state before
discharging into the existing system.

2. INTRODUCTION
DES Engineering was appointed by SHELL SOUTH AFRICA Ltd as consulting engineers to compile a
Storm Water Management Report, for the proposed development on the crossing of Jacob Street (R42)
and N3 highway in Heidelberg under the jurisdiction of Lesedi Local Municipality, Gauteng Province.

3. PROFESSIONAL TEAM
The professional team is as follows:
PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINE NAME OF COMPANY CONTACT PERSON(S)
Client SHELL SOUTH AFRICA Ltd
Director DES Engineering Mr Eddie Krause
Civil Engineer DES Engineering Mr Charl Ludick

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine Mobile: 082 306 9830
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 Storm water Management Plan (SMP): SHELL
 Page |3
[Type here]

4. LOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT
This proposed site is located on the north corner of Jacob Street (R42) and N3 Highway. Refer to
Figure 4-1 for Site Locality Plan.

Figure 4-1 Site Locality Plan

Site Location

NORTH

5. LAND USES
The land is currently zoned “Agricultural” and will be rezoned “Commercial” as per scheme, Public
garage and commercial use.

Table 5-1 Proposed Land Use

USE ZONE NO OF ERVEN AREA (m 2 ) FAR FLOOR AREA (m 2 )

Special (Public 1 10 000 0.04 400
Garage)

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine Mobile: 082 306 9830
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 Storm water Management Plan (SMP): SHELL
 Page |4
[Type here]

6. EXISTING STORMWATER DRAINAGE PATTERN AND

FLOODLINES
The general drainage pattern of the proposed development is from the north east into a south western
direction towards N3 Highway. Refer to Figure 6-1 for the Average Site Slope.

Figure 6-2 Average Site Slope

NORTH

A topographical survey was conducted of the site and the existing stormwater systems.

There is an existing stormwater channel on the north side of N3 Highway located south of the proposed
site. The channels drains in a north western direction for 1km where it is diverted into a natural
watercourse. There is also an existing channel on the east side of the proposed site that drains in a
south western direction where a culvert diverts it into a south eastern direction under Jacob Street
(R42).

Currently the stormwater from the proposed development drains into the above mentioned channel by
means of overland flow.

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine Mobile: 082 306 9830
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 Storm water Management Plan (SMP): SHELL
 Page |5
[Type here]

7. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND DESIGN

CRITERIA

7.1 DESIGN STANDARDS

As per the STORMWATER MANAGEMENT JRA POLICY STATEMENT 21 June 2006, JRA requires
that attenuation should be provided for developments exceeding an area of 8500m 2 , with an estimated
volume of 300m 3 per hectare.

7.2 STORMWATER SYSTEMS

The proposed development planned coves an area of 10 000 m 2 and thus requires an attenuation pond
of 114 m 3 .

Refer to Appendix A for attenuation Pond in Outflow Hydrographs .

The proposed development wil l have paving covering the area.

The stormwater run-off from the proposed development area will be drained towards the south of the
proposed development with underground pipe systems, which will drain into an attenuation pond. The
major pipe system will be designed to accommodate the 1:25 year storm event, all side branches will
be designed to accommodate the 1:5 year storm event.

The attenuation pond will be designed to accommodate the post -development flows for the 1:5 and
1:25 year storm events and discharge the pre-development flows into the north side of the N3 Highway
and west side of Jacob Street (R42) .

7.3 HYDROLOGY
Hydrological data that is used in the determination of the stormwater run -off for SHELL Heidelberg is
summarized in Table 7-2 below.

Table 7-2 Hydrology

HYDROLOGICAL DATA
i) Flood return period 1:5 and 1:25
ii) Average yearly rainfall 750 mm
iii) Minimum time of concentration and run-off co-efficient according to: Guidelines for the
Provision of Engineering Services a nd Amenities (Red Book) incorporating the JRA
Standard Specifications.
iv) Design method Rational method for smaller catchment areas
v) Pre-development run-off factor (C) 0.28
vi) Post-development run-off factor (C) 0.85

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine Mobile: 082 306 9830
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 Storm water Management Plan (SMP): SHELL
 Page |6
[Type here]

8. STORMWATER RUN-OFF
The stormwater run-off generated by the proposed development is shown in Table 8-3 below.

Table 8-3 Total Development Run-off

FLOOD RETURN PERIOD PRE DEV PRE DEV RUN- POST DEV POST DEV RUN-
FACTOR OFF (m 3 /s) FACTOR OFF (m 3 /s)
1:5 0.28 0.0440 0.85 0.2127
1:25 0.28 0.0714 0.85 0.3448

The table below shows the calculations for the proposed attenuation pond out let size.

Table 8-4 Calculated Run-off

STORM PEAK POST- PEAK PRE- DAM PEAK CULVERT WEIR

EVENT DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT OUTFLOW WATER SIZE (DIA, LEVEL
RUN-OFF RUN-OFF (M 3 /S) LEVEL MM) (M)
(M 3 /S) (M 3 /S) (M)
1:5 0.2127 0.0440 0.0129 0.250 450 0.9
1:25 0.3464 0.0714 0.0439 0.333 450 0.9

The attenuation pond outlet will discharge into 450Ø pipes, and will be connected to the existing
stormwater channels, adding a total of 0.0439 m 3 /s to the stormwater channels. The discharge can be
divided between the channel in the western direction on the N3 Highway and the channel that is
diverted to the east on the N3 Highway from Jacob Street (R42).

9. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DURING

CONSTRUCTION
During the construction phase of the development, temporary silt fences can be erected to prevent silt
from the construction process contaminating the pre -development storm water run-off routes and pre
existing storm water systems on the N3 Highway and Jacob Street (R42).

A typical fence consists of a piece of synthetic filter fabric (geotextile) stretched between a series of
wooden or metal fence stakes along a horizontal contour l evel. The stakes are installed on the downhill
side of the fence, and the bottom edge of the fabric is trenched into the soil and backfilled on the uphill
side. The stormwater slowly passes through the fence while depositing its sediments on the uphill sid e
of the fence. The fence is not designed to concentrate or channel stormwater. The fence is installed
on a site before soil disturbance begins, and is placed down -slope from the disturbance area.

10. PROPOSED MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE

The developer will be responsible for the cleaning and maintenance of the stormwater system
constructed on the proposed development.

11. COSTING

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine Mobile: 082 306 9830
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 Storm water Management Plan (SMP): SHELL
 Page |7
[Type here]
Preliminary costing has been done for the proposed stormwater system for the proposed filling
station. Table 11-5 provides the preliminary costing for the installation of the stormwater system.

Table 11-5 Preliminary costing

STORMWATER COSTING
Item Unit Amount Cost per unit Total cost

450mm 100D supplied and laid m 300 R 550.00 R 165,000.00

3 m kerb inlet No. 4 R 6,500.00 R 26,000.00
Trenching for 450 dia pipes m³ 360 R 55.00 R 19,800.00
Backfill (93% MOD AASHTO G7 material) m³ 360 R 45.00 R 16,200.00
19 mm single size aggregate m³ 18.00 R 350.00 R 6,300.00
Clean coarse river sand m³ 18.00 R 350.00 R 6,300.00
Cut for attenuation pond to stockpile or spoil m³ 115 R 170.00 R 19,550.00
Total R 259,150.00

12. CONCLUSION
Through the use of stormwater management measures as described in this report for the development
on the north corner of the N3 Highway and Jacob Street (R42) Heidelberg, The post-development will
be discharged into the attenuation pond, where the pre-development run-off will be discharged into the
existing stormwater channels.

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine Mobile: 082 306 9830
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 Storm water Management Plan (SMP): SHELL
 Page |8
[Type here]

APPENDIX A
ATTENUATION POND: INFLOW AND OUTFLOW
HYDROGRAPHS

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine Mobile: 082 306 9830
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 Storm water Management Plan (SMP): SHELL
 Page |9
[Type here]

1:5 INFLOW AND OUTFLOW HYDROGRAPH

DAM 1:5
Printed 1/26/2017 Prepared by HydroCAD SAMPLER 1-800-927-7246 www.hydrocad.net
HydroCAD® 10.00-19 Sampler s/n S17195 © 2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC

This report was prepared with the free HydroCAD SAMPLER, which is licensed for evaluation and
educational use ONLY. For actual design or modeling applications you MUST use a full version of
HydroCAD which may be purchased at www.hydrocad.net. Full programs also include complete
technical support,training materials, and additional fea tures which are essential for actual design
work.

Hydrograph

Inflow
0.2136 m³/s Outflow
Inflow Area=10,000.0 m² Primary
Secondary
0.22
Peak Elev=0.250 m
0.2
Storage=73.8 m³
0.18

0.16
Flow (m³/s)

0.14

0.12

0.1

0.08

0.06
0.0129 m³/s
0.04 0.0129 m³/s
0.02
0.0000 m³/s
0
0 1 2
Tim e (hours)

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine Mobile: 082 306 9830
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 Storm water Management Plan (SMP): SHELL
 P a g e | 10
[Type here]

1:25 INFLOW AND OUTFLOW HYDROGRAPH

DAM 1:25
Printed 1/26/2017 Prepared by HydroCAD SAMPLER 1 -800-927-7246 www.hydrocad.net
HydroCAD® 10.00-19 Sampler s/n S17195 © 2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC

This report was prepared with the free HydroCAD SAMPLER, which is licensed for evaluation and
educational use ONLY. For actual design or modeling applications you MUST use a full versio n of
HydroCAD which may be purchased at www.hydrocad.net. Full programs also include complete
technical support,training materials, and additional features which are essential for actual design
work.

Hydrograph

Inflow
0.3464 m³/s Outflow
Inflow Area=10,000.0 m² Primary
0.38 Secondary
0.36
Peak Elev=0.333 m
0.34 Storage=114.2 m³
0.32
0.3
0.28
0.26
0.24
Flow (m³/s)

0.22
0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1 0.0439 m³/s
0.08 0.0439 m³/s
0.06
0.04
0.0000
0.02 m³/s
0
0 1 2
Tim e (hours)

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine Mobile: 082 306 9830
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 Storm water Management Plan (SMP): SHELL
 P a g e | 11
[Type here]

APPENDIX B
RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATIONS

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine Mobile: 082 306 9830
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 Storm water Management Plan (SMP): SHELL
 P a g e | 12
[Type here]

1:5 PRE DEVELOPMENT

Catchment name Shell Heidelberg

Area (A) (km²) 0.01
Longest Watercourse (km)
Watercourse 0.15
Overland 0.15
Elevation (m)
Watercourse H0.85L 1572.00
H0.1L 1569.00
Overland Hmax 1573.00
Hmin 1568.00
Slope (m/m) Swatercourse 0.0267
Soverland 0.0333
Values of r 0.3
Time of Concentration (Tc) 0.314 18.84 min
Return Period (Years) 5
Mean Annual Precipitation (mm) 750.0
Point Rainfall Intensity (I) (mm/h) 56.6
Area Reduction Factor 1
Run-off Factor 0.28
Peak Flow Q=C.I.A/3.6 (m³/s) 0.0440
Adjustment Factor Ft 1
Adjusted Peak (m³/s) 0.0440

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine Mobile: 082 306 9830
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 Storm water Management Plan (SMP): SHELL
 P a g e | 13
[Type here]

1:25 PRE DEVELOPMENT

Catchment name Shell Heidelberg

Area (A) (km²) 0.01
Longest Watercourse (km)
Watercourse 0.15
Overland 0.15
Elevation (m)
Watercourse H0.85L 1572.00

H0.1L 1569.00
Overland Hmax 1573.00
Hmin 1568.00
Slope (m/m) Swatercourse 0.0267
Soverland 0.0333
Values of r 0.3

Time of Concentration (Tc) 0.314 18.84 min

Return Period (Years) 25
Mean Annual Precipitation (mm) 750.0
Point Rainfall Intensity (I) (mm/h) 91.7
Area Reduction Factor 1
Run-off Factor 0.28
Peak Flow Q=C.I.A/3.6 (m³/s) 0.0714
Adjustment Factor Ft 1

Adjusted Peak (m³/s) 0.0714

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine Mobile: 082 306 9830
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 Storm water Management Plan (SMP): SHELL
 P a g e | 14
[Type here]

1:5 POST DEVELOPMENT

Catchment name Shell Heidelberg

Area (A) (km²) 0.01

Longest Watercourse (km)

Watercourse 0.15

Overland 0.15

Elevation (m)

Watercourse H0.85L 1572.00

H0.1L 1569.00

Overland Hmax 1573.00

Hmin 1568.00

Slope (m/m) Swatercourse 0.0267

Soverland 0.0333

Values of r 0.02

Time of Concentration (Tc) 0.089 5.32 min

Return Period (Years) 5.0

Mean Annual Precipitation (mm) 750.0

Point Rainfall Intensity (I) (mm/h) 90.1

Area Reduction Factor 1

Run-off Factor 0.85

Peak Flow Q=C.I.A/3.6 (m³/s) 0.2127

Adjustment Factor Ft 1

Adjusted Peak (m³/s) 0.2127

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine Mobile: 082 306 9830
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 Storm water Management Plan (SMP): SHELL
 P a g e | 15
[Type here]

1:25 POST DEVELOPMENT

Catchment name Shell Heidelberg

Area (A) (km²) 0.01
Longest Watercourse (km)
Watercourse 0.15
Overland 0.15
Elevation (m)
Watercourse H0.85L 1572.00
H0.1L 1569.00
Overland Hmax 1573.00
Hmin 1568.00
Slope (m/m) Swatercourse 0.0267
Soverland 0.0333
Values of r 0.02
Time of Concentration (Tc) 0.089 5.32 min
Return Period (Years) 25.0
Mean Annual Precipitation (mm) 750.0
Point Rainfall Intensity (I) (mm/h) 146.0
Area Reduction Factor 1
Run-off Factor 0.85
Peak Flow Q=C.I.A/3.6 (m³/s) 0.3448
Adjustment Factor Ft 1
Adjusted Peak (m³/s) 0.3448

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine Mobile: 082 306 9830
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 Storm water Management Plan (SMP): SHELL
 P a g e | 16
[Type here]

APPENDIX C
PROPOSED STORMWATER LAYOUT DRAWING

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine Mobile: 082 306 9830
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 Storm water Management Plan (SMP): SHELL
 P a g e | 17
[Type here]

Designed Engineering Solutions (Pty) Ltd [DES] 152 Dallas Road Edward Krause Pr Tech Eng
PO Box 90760 Menlyn Maine Mobile: 082 306 9830
Garsfontein Menlyn
0042 Storm water Management Plan (SMP): SHELL
 Appendix G:

Specialist reports

Appendix G-1: Geotechnical Investigation

Appendix G-2: Brief Comments on Vegetation Status
Appendix G-1: Geotechnical Investigation
 JOHANN van der MERWE (Pty) Ltd
CONSULTING APPLIED EARTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS

289 Polaris Avenue TEL: 012-347 8467 P.O. Box 95562

Waterkloof Ridge 0181 MOBILE : 082 570 2222 WATERKLOOF 0145
Pretoria GAUTENG FAX: 0866 858 369 Pretoria, GAUTENG
SOUTH AFRICA Email: jovdm@iafrica.com SOUTH AFRICA

PROJECT No: M18/3747 3rd September 2018

MILLS & OTTEN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS

P.O. Box 84344
GREENSIDE 2034

Attention: Ms. Kirstin Otten

Dear Madam,

REPORT ON A GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION CARRIED OUT FOR: PROPOSED

NEW FILLING STATION DEVELOPMENT ON: PORTION 101 (PORTION OF PORTION
820) OF THE FARM LANGLAAGTE 186-IR, GAUTENG PROVINCE

1. INTRODUCTION

This report covers the findings of a detailed geotechnical investigation that was carried out
at the request of Ms. Kirstin Otten of Mills & Otten Environmental Consultants, who is acting on
behalf of a client, Messrs. TFMB Property Investments, who proposes to establish a new filling
station on the property. The investigation consisted of a detailed geotechnical investigation during
which time test pits were excavated across the site, combined with soil sampling and testing.

2. TERMS OF REFERENCE

The objectives of the detailed geotechnical investigation were to: -

- Determine the engineering properties of the site soils and bedrock including
potentially expansive material, low bearing capacity soils and areas difficult to
excavate.

- Present appropriate recommendations for commercial township design and

precautionary measures in accordance with the requirements of the local
municipality.

The investigation was carried out in terms of written instructions received from Ms.
Kirstin Otten of Mills & Otten in their electronic mail received during July 2018.

3. INFORMATION CONSULTED

The following information was available and was consulted: -

- The 1: 50 000 scale Topographical Map, Sheet Number 2628CB Heidelberg.

- The 1: 250 000 scale Geological Map 2628 East Rand.

- A schematic diagram of the proposed development, prepared to a scale of 1: 1 000

by WSP Group Africa (Pty) Ltd showing the boundaries of the property and the
proposed layout of the filling station.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PRINCIPAL : J van der Merwe, MSc (Eng Geol) Durham, UK; Pr. Sci. Nat.; MAEG; MSAIEG; MIAEG.
ESTABLISHED 1984 (REGISTRATION NUMBER : 2000/010951/07)
 PROPOSED NEW FILLING STATION DEVELOPMENT
PORTION 101 OF LANGLAAGTE 186-IR
September 4, 2018

- A colour aerial photograph of the site was obtained from Google Earth via the
Internet.

- The publication “National Home Builders Registration Council’s Home Building

Manual, Part 1 & 2, February 1999.

4. SITE DESCRIPTION

The site that was investigated for the proposed new filling station is located opposite and on
the northern side of the intersection of the N3 Highway and Jacobs Street (Route R42), due east of
Heidelberg. The eastern boundary of the site is formed by the metalled road to the cemetery whilst
the northern boundary consists of open veld. The study area is roughly trapezoidal in shape and
covers a surface area of some 0,96 hectares. The ground surface is covered by Highveld sourgrass
and the natural surface drainage takes place towards the south at an average gradient of some 3% in
the direction of the Blesbok Spruit situated some 1,3 kilometers due south of the site.

5. SITE INVESTIGATION

Seven test pits were excavated across the site using a JCB 3CX backactor supplied by Nigel
Plumbing from Nigel. The test pits were entered and described by a registered professional
engineering geologist in terms of the methods advocated by Jennings et al (1973) namely, moisture
condition, colour, soil consistency, soil structure, soil type and origin (MCCSSO).

During the investigation, disturbed and undisturbed soil samples were taken for analysis in
Messrs Soillab’s commercial soil laboratory in Pretoria. Soil gradings, Atterberg limit
determinations, pH and conductivity measurements and California Bearing Ratio determinations
and consolidation tests were carried out on the disturbed and undisturbed soil samples. The detailed
descriptions of the test pit profiles and laboratory test results are attached at the back of the report
whilst the location of all exploratory works is shown on the attached “Site Plan”, Drawing Number
M18/3747, attached.

6. SITE SOILS AND GEOLOGY

The site is underlain by transported sandy and gravelly soils which are underlain by
ferruginised colluvial soils developed over quartzite bedrock belonging to the Turffontein
Subgroup, Central Rand Group, Witwatersrand Supergroup according to the published geological
map. No rock outcrops were encountered during the investigation and a generalized description of
the typical natural soil profile that was encountered across the site, is as follows: -

0,0 – 0,6: Moist, dark brown, medium dense, slightly voided, silty SAND containing fine roots;
colluvium. Covered by coarse QUARTZITE gravels and boulder fill in the north-
eastern portion of the site down to 0,3m to 0,7m+ below surface.
0,6 – 1,5: Moist, orange brown, medium dense, voided, silty SAND containing fine roots;
colluvium.
1,5 – 2,4: Moist, dark yellow mottled red, medium dense, voided, silty SAND containing fine
roots; colluvium.
2,4 – 2,8: Abundant coarse, medium and fine, rounded, NODULAR FERRICRETE, clast
supported in a matrix of moist, light grey, partially ferruginised, silty SAND;
ferruginised colluvium. Overall consistency is generally medium dense but
becoming dense to very dense with increasing depth.

-2-
 PROPOSED NEW FILLING STATION DEVELOPMENT
PORTION 101 OF LANGLAAGTE 186-IR
September 4, 2018

Gradual refusal of the JCB 3CX backactor was experienced in the very dense ferruginised
horizon from below 2,8m in one test pit and in the gravel and boulder fill at 0,7m below surface in
another test pit, elsewhere, no refusal was experienced down to at least 2,6m below surface. The
water table, whether perched or permanent, was not encountered during the investigation which was
carried out towards the end of the wet season.

7. GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS

7.1 Collapsible and Compressible Soils

Three undisturbed soil samples, representative of the colluvial sandy soils were
tested to determine the collapse potential of the material according to the method advocated by
Jennings (1974). A summary of the results of the laboratory tests appears below in Table 7.1.

TABLE 7.1: COLLAPSE POTENTIAL TEST RESULTS

HOLE DEPTH DRY COLLAPSE COMPRESSI- TROUBLE

NUMBER (m) DENSITY POTENTIAL BILITY RATING
(kg/m³) (%) (%)
HB/2 1,00 1 518 11,70 1,04 Severe Trouble
HB/2 1,50 1 416 12,00 2,13 Severe Trouble
HB/7 0,80 1 448 17,70 3,08 Severe Trouble

An analysis of the above results indicates that the sandy colluvium is potentially
highly collapsible and slightly compressible with a collapse rating of “severe trouble” in terms of
collapse settlement, according to Jennings.

7.2 Expansive Soils

The transported and residual soils blanketing the site are generally sandy and
gravelly and are potentially “low” in the degree of expansiveness based on the results of laboratory
soil tests and according to the Van der Merwe (1964) method. A total surface heave value of less
than 7,5mm is predicted across the site, should the moisture condition of the soils change from a dry
to a saturated state.

7.3 Ground Water and Soil Chemistry

Although no ground water seepages were encountered, damp-proofing precautions

should be taken underneath structures. Indications of a seasonal perched water table occurring on
top of the very dense ferruginised horizon is evident and the design and construction of buried tanks
should take cognizance of this phenomenon.

The foundation soils are considered to be potentially moderately chemically

aggressive with regards to buried ferrous pipes (pH values ranging from 5,65 to 6,18 and electrical
conductivity values ranging from 0,0083 to 0,0147 S/m). Non-ferrous metal pipes or plastic pipes
should therefore be considered for use in wet services construction, the foundation soils should be
treated with an environmentally friendly insecticide to combat termites.

-3-
 PROPOSED NEW FILLING STATION DEVELOPMENT
PORTION 101 OF LANGLAAGTE 186-IR
September 4, 2018

7.4 Foundations

The entire site classifies as a Site Class “C2/S/H” according to the guidelines of the
NHBRC Standards and Guidelines of 1999. In view of the prominent horizon of potentially highly
collapsible foundation soils, one of the following foundation solutions may be considered for the
construction of proposed rigid, single-storey, masonry commercial structures: -

Compaction of in situ soils below individual footings

- Remove in situ material below foundations to a depth and width of 1,5 times the
foundation width or to a competent horizon and replace with material compacted to 93%
Mod AASHTO density at -1% to +2% of optimum moisture content.
- Normal construction with lightly reinforced strip footings.
- Light reinforcement in masonry.
- Site drainage and plumbing/service precautions to be taken.

Soil Raft
- Remove in situ material to 1m beyond perimeter of building to a depth of 1,5 times the
widest foundation or to a competent horizon and replace with material compacted to 93%
Mod AASHTO density at -1% to +2% of optimum moisture content.
- Normal construction with lightly reinforced strip footings.
- Light reinforcement in masonry.
- Site drainage and plumbing/service precautions to be taken.

Stiffened or Cellular Raft

- Stiffened or cellular raft with articulation joints or solid lightly reinforced masonry
- Site drainage and plumbing/service precautions to be taken.
- Foundation Pressure not to exceed 50 kPa.

Piled or Pier Foundation

- Reinforced concrete ground beams or solid slabs on piled or pier foundations.

- Ground slabs with fabric reinforcement
- Site drainage and plumbing/service precautions to be taken.

The NHBRC soil classes on the site are tentative and should be verified during
construction by a competent person. Disturbed ground conditions caused by previous activities (test
pits etc.) should be identified and carefully reinstated prior to the construction of commercial units
on the site, neglect to do this, may result in structural distress to buildings.

7.5 Excavation Characteristics

No problems are foreseen to remove the blanketing colluvial soil horizons down to a
depth of at least 2,8m below surface across the site using a backactor or even hand tools. The
imported quartzite gravel and boulder fill may require hard machine excavation for removal. The
sidewalls of excavations (maximum 1,5m deep) should remain stable during construction in the dry
season, slightly unstable conditions can be expected during the wet season. However, unstable
sidewall conditions may occur, should excavations remain open for some time, thereupon losing
their moisture content and causing a reduction in cohesion which may cause sidewall collapse.

-4-
 PROPOSED NEW FILLING STATION DEVELOPMENT
PORTION 101 OF LANGLAAGTE 186-IR
September 4, 2018

7.6 Earthworks

The colluvial soils were tested to determine their compaction characteristics and a
summary of the test results appears below in Table 7.2: -

TABLE 7.2: SUMMARY OF COMPACTION TESTS

HOLE NO DEPTH (m) SOIL TYPE PI GM CBR TRH 14 SWELL(%)

HB/2 0,0 – 1,0 Colluvial silty SAND 6 0,93 23 G7 0,10
HB/7 0,0 – 1,0 Colluvial silty SAND 8 0,83 27 G7 0,10

Note : PI = Plasticity Index

GM = Grading Modulus
CBR = California Bearing Ration at 95% Mod AASHTO compaction

Based on the results of the compaction tests, it is evident that the blanketing colluvial
silty sand is generally of fairly good quality in terms of construction material, being G7 quality
material according to TRH14 and should be suitable for use as backfill underneath surface beds and
in the construction of selected layers in road and pavement construction. Material for use in the
construction of base course layers (G5 quality) will have to be imported from a commercial source.
The potentially collapsible nature of the blanketing site soils should be taken into consideration in
the design and construction of surface beds, roads and paved areas.

8. GENERAL

While every effort has been made to ensure that representative test pitting and sampling has
been undertaken to probe the soils on-site, guaranteeing that isolated zones of either poor
foundation material or hard rock excavation have not been identified, is impossible under the
constraints of an investigation of this nature. The investigation has sought to highlight general areas
of potential foundation and excavation problems, and to provide early warning to the design
engineers and town planners. In view of the variability inherent in soils, a competent person must
inspect all foundation excavations.

The placement of the engineered fills must be controlled with suitable field tests to ensure
that the required densities are achieved during compaction, and that the quality of fill material is
within specification.

Based on the above observations, it is concluded that Portion 101 (Portion of Portion 820)
of Langlaagte 186-IR, should be suitable for the proposed Filling Station Development, provided
that due cognizance is taken of the geotechnical factors in Section 7 of the report.

We trust that the above information will meet with your immediate requirements. Please do
not hesitate to call for any further information.

Yours faithfully,

JOHANN VAN DER MERWE (Pr. Sci. Nat.)

Engineering Geologist
C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\data\reports\POHL&BVI&AN\MILLSJACOBS.doc

-5-
 PROPOSED NEW FILLING STATION DEVELOPMENT
PORTION 101 OF LANGLAAGTE 186-IR
September 4, 2018

9. APPENDICES

Test Pit Profiles

Laboratory Test Results

Site Plan

-6-
 MILLS & OTTEN, Environmental Consultants HOLE No: HB/1
Portion 101 (Ptn of Ptn 820) of Langlaagte 186-IR, Gauteng Province Sheet 1 of 1
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION CARRIED OUT FOR:
PROPOSED JACOBS STREET HEIDELBERG FILLING STATION JOB NUMBER: M18/3747

Scale 0.00
1:20 FILL: Slightly moist, greyish brown, loose, silty SAND containing roots.
0.10
FILL: Slightly moist, reddish brown, medium dense, silty SAND
containing minor GRAVELS and roots.
0.30
FILL: Slightly moist, light brown blotched white, medium dense
becoming dense, silty SAND containing numerous hard QUARTZITE
GRAVELS, COBBLES and small BOULDERS (diameter = 0,2m to
0,4m).
0.70
FILL: Abundant coarse medium and fine, hard QUARTZITE
COBBLES and small BOULDERS clast supported in a matrix as
above.
Overall consistency is very dense.

NOTES
1) Gradual refusal of backactor at 0,7m in very dense quartzite gravel
and boulder fill.

2) No water seepage encountered.

CONTRACTOR : Nigel Plumbing INCLINATION : Vertical ELEVATION :

MACHINE : JCB 3CX Backactor DIAM : Trench X-COORD : S26 29 22.0
DRILLED BY : DATE : 24/07/2018 Y-COORD : E28 22 27.9
PROFILED BY : avdm DATE : 24/07/2018
HOLE No: HB/1
TYPE SET BY : jovdm DATE : 03/09/2018 14:26
SETUP FILE : STANDARD.SET TEXT : ..dotplot\ARCHIVE\3747.txt
C00B Johann van der Merwe (Pty) Ltd dotPLOT 7019 PBpH7
 MILLS & OTTEN, Environmental Consultants HOLE No: HB/2
Portion 101 (Ptn of Ptn 820) of Langlaagte 186-IR, Gauteng Province Sheet 1 of 1
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION CARRIED OUT FOR:
PROPOSED JACOBS STREET HEIDELBERG FILLING STATION JOB NUMBER: M18/3747

Scale 0.00
1:20 Moist, dark brown, medium dense, slightly voided, silty SAND
containing roots; colluvium.

0.1m--1.2m
0.70
Moist, orange brown, medium dense, slightly voided, silty SAND
containing roots; colluvium.
1.0m

1.40
1.5m Moist, dark yellow mottled red, medium dense, slightly voided, silty
SAND containing fine roots; colluvium.

2.50
NOTES
1) No refusal of backactor at 2,5m.

2) No water seepage encountered.

3) Disturbed bulk sample taken from 0,1m--1,2m.

4) Undisturbed samples taken at 1,0m and 1,5m.

CONTRACTOR : Nigel Plumbing INCLINATION : ELEVATION :

MACHINE : JCB 3CX Backactor DIAM : Trench X-COORD : S26 29 22.9
DRILLED BY : DATE : 24/07/2018 Y-COORD : E28 22 28.2
PROFILED BY : avdm DATE : 24/07/2018
HOLE No: HB/2
TYPE SET BY : jovdm DATE : 03/09/2018 14:26
SETUP FILE : STANDARD.SET TEXT : ..dotplot\ARCHIVE\3747.txt
C00B Johann van der Merwe (Pty) Ltd dotPLOT 7019 PBpH7
 MILLS & OTTEN, Environmental Consultants HOLE No: HB/3
Portion 101 (Ptn of Ptn 820) of Langlaagte 186-IR, Gauteng Province Sheet 1 of 1
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION CARRIED OUT FOR:
PROPOSED JACOBS STREET HEIDELBERG FILLING STATION JOB NUMBER: M18/3747

Scale 0.00
1:20 FILL; Slightly moist, dark brown, medium dense, silty SAND
containing roots.
0.20
FILL; Moist, light reddish to maroon brown blotched white, medium
dense, silty SAND containing numerous QUARTZITE GRAVELS,
COBBLES and small BOULDERS.
0.40
Moist, dark brown, medium dense, slightly voided, silty SAND
containing roots; colluvium.
0.50
Moist, orange brown, medium dense, slightly voided, silty SAND
containing roots; colluvium.

1.50
Moist, yellowish brown blotched grey mottled red, medium dense,
slightly voided, silty SAND containing roots; colluvium.

2.40
NOTES
1) No refusal of backactor at 2,4m.

2) No water seepage encountered.

CONTRACTOR : Nigel Plumbing INCLINATION : ELEVATION :

MACHINE : JCB 3CX Backactor DIAM : Trench X-COORD : S26 29 22.6
DRILLED BY : DATE : 24/07/2018 Y-COORD : E28 22 27.1
PROFILED BY : avdm DATE : 24/07/2018
HOLE No: HB/3
TYPE SET BY : jovdm DATE : 03/09/2018 14:26
SETUP FILE : STANDARD.SET TEXT : ..dotplot\ARCHIVE\3747.txt
C00B Johann van der Merwe (Pty) Ltd dotPLOT 7019 PBpH7
 MILLS & OTTEN, Environmental Consultants HOLE No: HB/4
Portion 101 (Ptn of Ptn 820) of Langlaagte 186-IR, Gauteng Province Sheet 1 of 1
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION CARRIED OUT FOR:
PROPOSED JACOBS STREET HEIDELBERG FILLING STATION JOB NUMBER: M18/3747

Scale 0.00
1:20 Moist, dark brown, medium dense, slightly voided, silty SAND
containing roots; colluvium.

0.50
Moist, orange brown, medium dense, slightly voided, silty SAND
containing roots; colluvium.

1.60
Moist, dark yellow mottled red, medium dense, slightly voided, silty
SAND containing fine roots; colluvium.

2.40
2.1m--2.8m
Abundant coarse medium and fine, rounded and sub-rounded, hard
NODULAR FERRICRETE, clast supported in a matrix of moist, light
grey, partially ferruginised, silty SAND; ferruginised colluvium.
Overall consistency is dense becoming very dense. from below 2,7m.
2.80
NOTES
1) Gradual refusal of backactor at 2,8m in very dense material.

2) No water seepage encountered.

3) Disturbed foundation indicator sample taken from 2,1m--2,8m.

CONTRACTOR : Nigel Plumbing INCLINATION : ELEVATION :

MACHINE : JCB 3CX Backactor DIAM : Trench X-COORD : S26 29 23.8
DRILLED BY : DATE : 24/07/2018 Y-COORD : E28 22 28.2
PROFILED BY : avdm DATE : 24/07/2018
HOLE No: HB/4
TYPE SET BY : jovdm DATE : 03/09/2018 14:26
SETUP FILE : STANDARD.SET TEXT : ..dotplot\ARCHIVE\3747.txt
C00B Johann van der Merwe (Pty) Ltd dotPLOT 7019 PBpH7
 MILLS & OTTEN, Environmental Consultants HOLE No: HB/5
Portion 101 (Ptn of Ptn 820) of Langlaagte 186-IR, Gauteng Province Sheet 1 of 1
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION CARRIED OUT FOR:
PROPOSED JACOBS STREET HEIDELBERG FILLING STATION JOB NUMBER: M18/3747

Scale 0.00
1:20 Moist, dark brown, medium dense, slightly voided, silty SAND
containing roots; colluvium.

0.40
Moist, yellowish brown mottled orange and grey, medium dense,
slightly voided, silty SAND containing roots; colluvium.

0.4m--1.9m

1.90
Abundant coarse medium and fine, rounded and subrounded, hard
NODULAR FERRICRETE, clast supported in a matrix of moist, light
grey, silty SAND; ferruginised colluvium.
Overall consistency is medium dense.

2.50
NOTES
1) No refusal of backactor at 2,5m.

2) No water seepage encountered.

3) Disturbed foundation indicator sample taken from 0,4m--1,9m depth.

CONTRACTOR : Nigel Plumbing INCLINATION : ELEVATION :

MACHINE : JCB 3CX Backactor DIAM : Trench X-COORD : S26 29 24.5
DRILLED BY : DATE : 24/07/2018 Y-COORD : E28 22 26.9
PROFILED BY : avdm DATE : 24/07/2018
HOLE No: HB/5
TYPE SET BY : jovdm DATE : 03/09/2018 14:26
SETUP FILE : STANDARD.SET TEXT : ..dotplot\ARCHIVE\3747.txt
C00B Johann van der Merwe (Pty) Ltd dotPLOT 7019 PBpH7
 MILLS & OTTEN, Environmental Consultants HOLE No: HB/6
Portion 101 (Ptn of Ptn 820) of Langlaagte 186-IR, Gauteng Province Sheet 1 of 1
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION CARRIED OUT FOR:
PROPOSED JACOBS STREET HEIDELBERG FILLING STATION JOB NUMBER: M18/3747

Scale 0.00
1:20 Moist, dark brown, medium dense, slightly voided, silty SAND
containing roots; colluvium.
0.30
Moist, yellowish brown becoming yellowish brown blotched red and
grey, medium dense, slightly voided, silty SAND containing roots;
colluvium.

0.8m

1.60
Moist, light grey blotched red and yellow, medium dense, slightly
voided, silty SAND containing scattered FERRICRETE NODULES
and roots; slightly ferruginised colluvium.

2.10
Abundant coarse medium and fine, rounded and subrounded, hard
NODULAR FERRICRETE, clast supported in a matrix of moist, light
grey, silty SAND; ferruginised colluvium.
Overall consistency is medium dense.

2.60
NOTES
1) No refusal of backactor at 2,6m.

2) No water seepage encountered.

3) Undisturbed sample taken at 0,8m.

CONTRACTOR : Nigel Plumbing INCLINATION : ELEVATION :

MACHINE : JCB 3CX Backactor DIAM : Trench X-COORD : S26 29 23.5
DRILLED BY : DATE : 24/07/2018 Y-COORD : E28 22 25.9
PROFILED BY : avdm DATE : 24/07/2018
HOLE No: HB/6
TYPE SET BY : jovdm DATE : 03/09/2018 14:26
SETUP FILE : STANDARD.SET TEXT : ..dotplot\ARCHIVE\3747.txt
C00B Johann van der Merwe (Pty) Ltd dotPLOT 7019 PBpH7
 MILLS & OTTEN, Environmental Consultants HOLE No: HB/7
Portion 101 (Ptn of Ptn 820) of Langlaagte 186-IR, Gauteng Province Sheet 1 of 1
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION CARRIED OUT FOR:
PROPOSED JACOBS STREET HEIDELBERG FILLING STATION JOB NUMBER: M18/3747

Scale 0.00
1:20 Moist, dark brown, medium dense, slightly voided, silty SAND
containing roots; colluvium.

0.40
Moist, yellowish brown mottled red, medium dense, slightly voided,
0.1m--1.0m
silty SAND containing roots; colluvium.

1.40
Moist, yellowish brown blotched grey and red, medium dense, slightly
voided, silty SAND containing roots; colluvium.

2.40
Abundant coarse medium and fine, rounded and subrounded, hard
NODULAR FERRICRETE, clast supported in a matrix of moist, light
grey, silty SAND; ferruginised colluvium.
Overall consistency is medium dense becoming dense.
2.60
NOTES
1) No refusal of backactor at 2,6m.

2) No water seepage encountered.

3) Disturbed bulk sample taken from 0,1m--1,0m.

CONTRACTOR : Nigel Plumbing INCLINATION : ELEVATION :

MACHINE : JCB 3CX Backactor DIAM : Trench X-COORD : S26 29 24.7
DRILLED BY : DATE : 24/07/2018 Y-COORD : E28 22 25.8
PROFILED BY : avdm DATE : 24/07/2018
HOLE No: HB/7
TYPE SET BY : jovdm DATE : 03/09/2018 14:26
SETUP FILE : STANDARD.SET TEXT : ..dotplot\ARCHIVE\3747.txt
C00B Johann van der Merwe (Pty) Ltd dotPLOT 7019 PBpH7
Soillab Job No.: S18-1535 Client: JOHANN VAN DER MERWE (PTY) LTD
Job Description: JAOB STREET, HEIDELBERG (3747) Contract Number:
Date: 2018-08-21 Reference Number:
R54 revision 1

PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS

Sample No. 1
Soillab Sample No. S18-1535-01
Depth (m) 0.0 - 0.1
Position HB/2 POTENTIAL EXPANSIVENESS
Material Description DARK
BROWN
60
CLAYEY
SAND
VERY HIGH
50
Relative density on < 2 mm (SANS 5844) 2,65
M
Organic Material E H

PI of whole sample
40 I
Moisture (%) / Dispersion (%) D
I G
U H
SCREEN ANALYSIS (% PASSING) (SANS 3001:GR1) 30 M

63.0 mm 100
20
50.0 mm 100
LOW
37.5 mm 100
28.0 mm 100 10
20.0 mm 100
14.0 mm 100
0
5.0 mm 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
2.00 mm 100
Clay fraction of whole sample
0.425 mm 76
0.075 mm 31

HYDROMETER ANALYSIS (% PASSING) (SANS 3001:GR3)

55 µm 25 PLASTICITY CHART
32 µm 21
13 µm 18
60
6 µm 15
2 µm 13
50

% Clay 15
% Silt 10 40
Plasticity Index

% Sand 75
% Gravel 0
30

ATTERBERG LIMITS (SANS 3001:GR10)

20
Liquid Limit 20
Plasticity Index 6
Linear Shrinkage (%) 2,0 10

PI of Whole Sample 4,5

Grading Modulus 0,93 0
Classification A-2-4 (0) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Unified Classification SM & SC Liquid Limit

Chart Reference 0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2

100

80
Cumulative % passing

60

40

20

0
0.002 0.005 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 10 50 100

% CLAY 15 % SILT 10 % SAND 75 % GRAVEL 0

HIDROMETER/S18-1535-01 FI
 Project Description

Client: JOHANN VAN DER MERWE (PTY) LTD Soillab Job No.: S18-1535
Job Description: JAOB STREET, HEIDELBERG (3747) Contract Number:
Date: 2018/08/21 Reference Number:
Sample Description

Soillab Sample No.: S18-1535-01

Sample Description: HB/2
Sample Depth: 0.0 -1.0
Material Description:
DARK BROWN CLAYEY
SILTY SAND

Screen Analysis (% Passing) - SANS 3001-GR1

75,00 mm 100
63,00 mm 100
50,00 mm 100
37,50 mm 100
28,00 mm 100
20,00 mm 100
14,00 mm 100
5,00 mm 100
2,000 mm 100
0,425 mm 76
0,075 mm 31
Soil-mortar percentages - SANS 3001-PR5

Coarse Sand 2.000-0.425mm 24

Coarse Fine Sand 0.425-0.250mm 23
Medium Fine Sand 0.250-0.150mm 13
Fine Fine Sand 0.150-0.075mm 9
Silt and clay <0.075mm 31

Constants

Grading Modulus SANS 3001-PR5 0,93

Liquid Limit 20
Plasticity Index SANS 3001-GR10 6
Linear Shrinkage 2,0

MOD AASHTO - SANS 3001-GR30

Max Dry Density (kg/m³) 2043

Optimum Moisture Content (%) 9,7
CBR - SANS 3001-GR40
MOD AASHTO
Moulding Moisture Content (%) 9,6
Dry Density (kg/m³) 2070
% of Max Dry Density 101,3
100% MOD CBR (%) 48
% Swell 0,1
NRB
Dry Density (kg/m³) 1948
% of Max Dry Density 95,4
100% NRB CBR (%) 24
% Swell 0,0
PROCTOR
Dry Density (kg/m³) 1844
% of Max Dry Density 90,3
100% PROCTOR CBR (%) 13
% Swell 0,1
CBR (%)
100% Mod AASHTO 41
98% Mod AASHTO 33
97% Mod AASHTO 29
95% Mod AASHTO 23
93% Mod AASHTO 18
90% Mod AASHTO 13
COLTO Classification: G7
Soillab Job No.: S18-1535 Client: JOHANN VAN DER MERWE (PTY) LTD
Job Description: JAOB STREET, HEIDELBERG (3747) Contract Number:
Date: 2018-08-21 Reference Number:
R54 revision 1

PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS

Sample No. 2
Soillab Sample No. S18-1535-02
Depth (m) 1,00
Position HB/2 POTENTIAL EXPANSIVENESS
Material Description DARK
REDDISH
60
SILTY
SAND
VERY HIGH
50
Relative density on < 2 mm (SANS 5844) 2,65
M
Organic Material E H

PI of whole sample
40 I
Moisture (%) / Dispersion (%) D
I G
U H
SCREEN ANALYSIS (% PASSING) (SANS 3001:GR1) 30 M

63.0 mm 100
20
50.0 mm 100
LOW
37.5 mm 100
28.0 mm 100 10
20.0 mm 100
14.0 mm 100
0
5.0 mm 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
2.00 mm 100
Clay fraction of whole sample
0.425 mm 78
0.075 mm 52

HYDROMETER ANALYSIS (% PASSING) (SANS 3001:GR3)

53 µm 34 PLASTICITY CHART
31 µm 31
13 µm 20
60
6 µm 13
2 µm 12
50

% Clay 13
% Silt 21 40
Plasticity Index

% Sand 66
% Gravel 0
30

ATTERBERG LIMITS (SANS 3001:GR10)

20
Liquid Limit 22
Plasticity Index 7
Linear Shrinkage (%) 3,5 10

PI of Whole Sample 5,5

Grading Modulus 0,70 0
Classification A-4 (1) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Unified Classification CL & ML Liquid Limit

Chart Reference 0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2

100

80
Cumulative % passing

60

40

20

0
0.002 0.005 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 10 50 100

% CLAY 13 % SILT 21 % SAND 66 % GRAVEL 0

HIDROMETER/S18-1535-02 FI
 Collapse Potential

Project: JAOB STREET, HEIDELBURG Sample Nr: HB/2

Client: Soillab Field Sample Depth: 1.0m
Geolab Job Nr: G18-193 Date: 2018-08-23
Test Method: TMH 6 ST10

Sampling Method: Block

Results Disturbed/Undist: Undisturbed
Collapse Potential: 11.7 % Remoulded To: NA

Load Height Void Ratio Initial Initial Final

kPa mm Sample Height: 18.42 14.99 mm
4.9 18.42 0.730 Sample Mass: 55.9 64.4 g
16.5 18.393 0.727 Dry Density: 1518 1865 kg/m³
29.7 18.378 0.726 Density 1539 2180 kg/m³
54.0 18.351 0.723 Moisture Content: 1.4 16.9 %
103.1 18.324 0.721 Void Ratio: 0.730 0.408
201.0 18.23 0.712 Specific Gravity: 2.626 Mg/m³
201.0 15.886 0.492
396.8 14.99 0.408

0.80

0.75

0.70

0.65

0.60
Void ratio

0.55

0.50

0.45

0.40

0.35

0.30
1 10 100 1000
Load (kPa)

Geotechnical Laboratory
T +27 12 813 4936
E Geolab@soillab.co.za
Geolab
www.soillab.co.za
GF40 Rev3
Soillab Job No.: S18-1535 Client: JOHANN VAN DER MERWE (PTY) LTD
Job Description: JAOB STREET, HEIDELBERG (3747) Contract Number:
Date: 2018-08-21 Reference Number:
R54 revision 1

PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS

Sample No. 3
Soillab Sample No. S18-1535-03
Depth (m) 1,50
Position HB/2 POTENTIAL EXPANSIVENESS
Material Description DARK
REDDISH
60
SILTY
SAND
VERY HIGH
50
Relative density on < 2 mm (SANS 5844) 2,65
M
Organic Material E H

PI of whole sample
40 I
Moisture (%) / Dispersion (%) D
I G
U H
SCREEN ANALYSIS (% PASSING) (SANS 3001:GR1) 30 M

63.0 mm 100
20
50.0 mm 100
LOW
37.5 mm 100
28.0 mm 100 10
20.0 mm 100
14.0 mm 100
0
5.0 mm 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
2.00 mm 99
Clay fraction of whole sample
0.425 mm 79
0.075 mm 50

HYDROMETER ANALYSIS (% PASSING) (SANS 3001:GR3)

53 µm 37 PLASTICITY CHART
31 µm 29
13 µm 17
60
6 µm 12
2 µm 10
50

% Clay 12
% Silt 25 40
Plasticity Index

% Sand 62
% Gravel 1
30

ATTERBERG LIMITS (SANS 3001:GR10)

20
Liquid Limit 25
Plasticity Index 8
Linear Shrinkage (%) 4,0 10

PI of Whole Sample 6,3

Grading Modulus 0,72 0
Classification A-4 (1) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Unified Classification CL Liquid Limit

Chart Reference 0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2

100

80
Cumulative % passing

60

40

20

0
0.002 0.005 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 10 50 100

% CLAY 12 % SILT 25 % SAND 62 % GRAVEL 1

HIDROMETER/S18-1535-03 FI
 Collapse Potential

Project: JAOB STREET, HEIDELBURG Sample Nr: HB/2

Client: Soillab Field Sample Depth: 1.5m
Geolab Job Nr: G18-193 Date: 2018-08-23
Test Method: TMH 6 ST10

Sampling Method: Block

Results Disturbed/Undist: Undisturbed
Collapse Potential: 12.0 % Remoulded To: NA

Load Height Void Ratio Initial Initial Final

kPa mm Sample Height: 19.00 14.97 mm
1.0 19 0.919 Sample Mass: 55.2 64.3 g
13.2 18.94 0.913 Dry Density: 1416 1797 kg/m³
25.9 18.915 0.910 Density 1470 2172 kg/m³
39.2 18.882 0.907 Moisture Content: 3.8 20.9 %
99.6 18.803 0.899 Void Ratio: 0.919 0.511
196.7 18.597 0.878 Specific Gravity: 2.716 Mg/m³
196.7 16.098 0.626
395.8 14.968 0.511

1.00

0.90

0.80

0.70
Void ratio

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30
0 1 10 100 1000
Load (kPa)

Geotechnical Laboratory
T +27 12 813 4936
E Geolab@soillab.co.za
Geolab
www.soillab.co.za
GF40 Rev3
Soillab Job No.: S18-1535 Client: JOHANN VAN DER MERWE (PTY) LTD
Job Description: JAOB STREET, HEIDELBERG (3747) Contract Number:
Date: 2018-08-21 Reference Number:
R54 revision 1

PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS

Sample No. 4
Soillab Sample No. S18-1535-04
Depth (m) 2.1 - 2.8
Position HB/3 POTENTIAL EXPANSIVENESS
Material Description DARK
YELLOW
60
SANDY
GRAVEL
VERY HIGH
50
Relative density on < 2 mm (SANS 5844) 2,65
M
Organic Material E H

PI of whole sample
40 I
Moisture (%) / Dispersion (%) D
I G
U H
SCREEN ANALYSIS (% PASSING) (SANS 3001:GR1) 30 M

63.0 mm 100
20
50.0 mm 100
LOW
37.5 mm 97
28.0 mm 92 10
20.0 mm 85
14.0 mm 73
0
5.0 mm 58 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
2.00 mm 56
Clay fraction of whole sample
0.425 mm 47
0.075 mm 30

HYDROMETER ANALYSIS (% PASSING) (SANS 3001:GR3)

52 µm 23 PLASTICITY CHART
31 µm 19
13 µm 14
60
5 µm 13
2 µm 12
50

% Clay 13
% Silt 10 40
Plasticity Index

% Sand 33
% Gravel 44
30

ATTERBERG LIMITS (SANS 3001:GR10)

20
Liquid Limit 25
Plasticity Index 7
Linear Shrinkage (%) 3,0 10

PI of Whole Sample 3,3

Grading Modulus 1,67 0
Classification A-2-4 (0) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Unified Classification GM & GC Liquid Limit

Chart Reference 0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2

100

80
Cumulative % passing

60

40

20

0
0.002 0.005 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 10 50 100

% CLAY 13 % SILT 10 % SAND 33 % GRAVEL 44

HIDROMETER/S18-1535-04 FI
Soillab Job No.: S18-1535 Client: JOHANN VAN DER MERWE (PTY) LTD
Job Description: JAOB STREET, HEIDELBERG (3747) Contract Number:
Date: 2018-08-21 Reference Number:
R54 revision 1

PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS

Sample No. 5
Soillab Sample No. S18-1535-05
Depth (m) 0.4 - 1.9
Position HB/5 POTENTIAL EXPANSIVENESS
Material Description DARK YELLOWISH
ORANGE
60
CLAYEY
SAND
VERY HIGH
50
Relative density on < 2 mm (SANS 5844) 2,65
M
Organic Material E H

PI of whole sample
40 I
Moisture (%) / Dispersion (%) D
I G
U H
SCREEN ANALYSIS (% PASSING) (SANS 3001:GR1) 30 M

63.0 mm 100
20
50.0 mm 100
LOW
37.5 mm 100
28.0 mm 100 10
20.0 mm 100
14.0 mm 100
0
5.0 mm 99 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
2.00 mm 97
Clay fraction of whole sample
0.425 mm 82
0.075 mm 46

HYDROMETER ANALYSIS (% PASSING) (SANS 3001:GR3)

54 µm 34 PLASTICITY CHART
31 µm 30
13 µm 24
60
6 µm 21
2 µm 19
50

% Clay 21
% Silt 13 40
Plasticity Index

% Sand 63
% Gravel 3
30

ATTERBERG LIMITS (SANS 3001:GR10)

20
Liquid Limit 23
Plasticity Index 6
Linear Shrinkage (%) 3,5 10

PI of Whole Sample 4,9

Grading Modulus 0,74 0
Classification A-4 (0) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Unified Classification SM & SC Liquid Limit

Chart Reference 0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2

100

80
Cumulative % passing

60

40

20

0
0.002 0.005 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 10 50 100

% CLAY 21 % SILT 13 % SAND 63 % GRAVEL 3

HIDROMETER/S18-1535-05 FI
 Project Description

Client: JOHANN VAN DER MERWE (PTY) LTD Soillab Job No.: S18-1535
Job Description: JAOB STREET, HEIDELBURG (3747) Contract Number:
Date: 2018/08/21 Reference Number:
Sample Description

Soillab Sample No.: S18-1535-06

Sample Description: HB/7
Sample Depth: 0.0 -1.0
Material Description: DARK YELLOWISH
ORANGE SILTY CLAYEY
SAND

Screen Analysis (% Passing) - SANS 3001-GR1

75,00 mm 100
63,00 mm 100
50,00 mm 100
37,50 mm 100
28,00 mm 100
20,00 mm 100
14,00 mm 100
5,00 mm 100
2,000 mm 100
0,425 mm 74
0,075 mm 43
Soil-mortar percentages - SANS 3001-PR5

Coarse Sand 2.000-0.425mm 26

Coarse Fine Sand 0.425-0.250mm 15
Medium Fine Sand 0.250-0.150mm 9
Fine Fine Sand 0.150-0.075mm 7
Silt and clay <0.075mm 43

Constants

Grading Modulus SANS 3001-PR5 0,83

Liquid Limit 24
Plasticity Index SANS 3001-GR10 8
Linear Shrinkage 3,5

MOD AASHTO - SANS 3001-GR30

Max Dry Density (kg/m³) 2117

Optimum Moisture Content (%) 8,1
CBR - SANS 3001-GR40
MOD AASHTO
Moulding Moisture Content (%) 8,1
Dry Density (kg/m³) 2108
% of Max Dry Density 99,6
100% MOD CBR (%) 43
% Swell 0,1
NRB
Dry Density (kg/m³) 2010
% of Max Dry Density 94,9
100% NRB CBR (%) 26
% Swell 0,1
PROCTOR
Dry Density (kg/m³) 1909
% of Max Dry Density 90,2
100% PROCTOR CBR (%) 16
% Swell 0,1
CBR (%)
100% Mod AASHTO 45
98% Mod AASHTO 36
97% Mod AASHTO 33
95% Mod AASHTO 27
93% Mod AASHTO 22
90% Mod AASHTO 16
COLTO Classification: G7
Soillab Job No.: S18-1535 Client: JOHANN VAN DER MERWE (PTY) LTD
Job Description: JAOB STREET, HEIDELBERG (3747) Contract Number:
Date: 2018-08-21 Reference Number:
R54 revision 1

PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS

Sample No. 6
Soillab Sample No. S18-1535-06
Depth (m) 0.0 - 1.0
Position HB/7 POTENTIAL EXPANSIVENESS
Material Description DARK
YELLOWISH
60
CLAYEY
SAND
VERY HIGH
50
Relative density on < 2 mm (SANS 5844) 2,65
M
Organic Material E H

PI of whole sample
40 I
Moisture (%) / Dispersion (%) D
I G
U H
SCREEN ANALYSIS (% PASSING) (SANS 3001:GR1) 30 M

63.0 mm 100
20
50.0 mm 100
LOW
37.5 mm 100
28.0 mm 100 10
20.0 mm 100
14.0 mm 100
0
5.0 mm 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
2.00 mm 100
Clay fraction of whole sample
0.425 mm 74
0.075 mm 43

HYDROMETER ANALYSIS (% PASSING) (SANS 3001:GR3)

53 µm 35 PLASTICITY CHART
31 µm 31
13 µm 25
60
5 µm 22
2 µm 20
50

% Clay 22
% Silt 13 40
Plasticity Index

% Sand 65
% Gravel 0
30

ATTERBERG LIMITS (SANS 3001:GR10)

20
Liquid Limit 24
Plasticity Index 8
Linear Shrinkage (%) 3,5 10

PI of Whole Sample 5,9

Grading Modulus 0,83 0
Classification A-4 (0) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Unified Classification SC Liquid Limit

Chart Reference 0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2

100

80
Cumulative % passing

60

40

20

0
0.002 0.005 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 10 50 100

% CLAY 22 % SILT 13 % SAND 65 % GRAVEL 0

HIDROMETER/S18-1535-06 FI
Soillab Job No.: S18-1535 Client: JOHANN VAN DER MERWE (PTY) LTD
Job Description: JAOB STREET, HEIDELBURG (3747) Contract Number:
Date: 2018-08-21 Reference Number:
R54 revision 1

PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS

Sample No. 7
Soillab Sample No. S18-1535-07
Depth (m) 0,80
Position HB/7 POTENTIAL EXPANSIVENESS
Material Description DARK
YELLOWISH
60
SILTY
SAND
VERY HIGH
50
Relative density on < 2 mm (SANS 5844) 2,65
M
Organic Material E H

PI of whole sample
40 I
Moisture (%) / Dispersion (%) D
I G
U H
SCREEN ANALYSIS (% PASSING) (SANS 3001:GR1) 30 M

63.0 mm 100
20
50.0 mm 100
LOW
37.5 mm 100
28.0 mm 100 10
20.0 mm 100
14.0 mm 100
0
5.0 mm 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
2.00 mm 100
Clay fraction of whole sample
0.425 mm 83
0.075 mm 42

HYDROMETER ANALYSIS (% PASSING) (SANS 3001:GR3)

55 µm 31 PLASTICITY CHART
32 µm 26
13 µm 16
60
6 µm 11
2 µm 9
50

% Clay 11
% Silt 20 40
Plasticity Index

% Sand 69
% Gravel 0
30

ATTERBERG LIMITS (SANS 3001:GR10)

20
Liquid Limit 19
Plasticity Index 5
Linear Shrinkage (%) 3,0 10

PI of Whole Sample 4,2

Grading Modulus 0,75 0
Classification A-4 (0) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Unified Classification SM & SC Liquid Limit

Chart Reference 0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2

100

80
Cumulative % passing

60

40

20

0
0.002 0.005 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 10 50 100

% CLAY 11 % SILT 20 % SAND 69 % GRAVEL 0

HIDROMETER/S18-1535-07 FI
 Collapse Potential

Project: JAOB STREET, HEIDELBURG Sample Nr: HB/7

Client: Soillab Field Sample Depth: 0.8m
Geolab Job Nr: G18-193 Date: 2018-08-23
Test Method: TMH 6 ST10

Sampling Method: Block

Results Disturbed/Undist: Undisturbed
Collapse Potential: 17.7 % Remoulded To: NA

Load Height Void Ratio Initial Initial Final

kPa mm Sample Height: 18.39 13.51 mm
1.0 18.39 0.848 Sample Mass: 53.4 61.5 g
13.7 18.326 0.841 Dry Density: 1448 1971 kg/m³
26.3 18.296 0.838 Density 1467 2300 kg/m³
51.0 18.235 0.832 Moisture Content: 1.3 16.7 %
100.3 18.064 0.815 Void Ratio: 0.848 0.357
197.7 17.825 0.791 Specific Gravity: 2.675 Mg/m³
197.7 14.265 0.433
391.9 13.509 0.357

0.90

0.80

0.70
Void ratio

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30
0 1 10 100 1000
Load (kPa)

Geotechnical Laboratory
T +27 12 813 4936
E Geolab@soillab.co.za
Geolab
www.soillab.co.za
GF40 Rev3
 R26 revision 2

Client: JOHANN VAN DER MERWE (PTTY) LTD

Project: JAOB STREET, HEIDELBERG (3747)
Project No.: S18-1535
Date: 2018/08/20

pH & CONDUCTIVITY - TMH 1 A20 & A21T

Sample Electrical
Sample
pH Conductivity
No Position S/m
S18-1535-02 HB/2 6.03 0,0210
S18-1535-03 HB/2 6.18 0,0083
S18-1535-07 HB/7 5,65 0,0147

Comments:

Note: Items marked with a star (*) is Not Accredited

Soillab is a SANAS accredited Testing Laboratory according to the Accreditation Scope
Appendix G-2: Brief Comments on Vegetation Status
 082 3765 933
riaan@bathusi.org

Bathusi 012 658 5579

Environmental 086 636 5455
Consulting

PO Box 77448
Eldoglen
0171
16th September 2019

Reference: M&O – HFS – 2019/16

Version: 2019.09.16.01.

To Whom It May Concern

Brief comments on the status of vegetation on the proposed Heidelberg Filling Station site, Gauteng Province

The client is proposing to develop a filling station in the Heidelberg area (Gauteng Province), please refer to Figure 1
for a locality plan and will comprise approximately 4 700 m². Mills & Otten Environmental Consultants was
appointed as the Environmental Assessment Practitioners, and duly submitted the Draft BAR to GDARD. Initial
comments received from GDARD include (inter alia) the following:
 “The proposed site is inside sensitive environmental areas as identified through the Gauteng Conservation
Plan version 3.3, i.e. Orange listed plant habitat, Primary vegetation and Threatened Ecosystem.
 Site inspection conducted by the departmental officials on 29 August 2019 confirmed the existence of
indigenous vegetation on site.”

BEC was requested to conduct a brief site inspection to comment on the status of the vegetation in relation to the
regional ecological type.

Based on an assessment of Gauteng C-Plan, the location of the site outside C-Plan conservation categories (CBA and
ESA areas) was confirmed (refer Figure 2). The presence of the following C-Plan conservation categories towards
the north (200 m)of the site is however noted:
 Orange List Plant Habitat;
 Red List Plant Habitat;
 Red List Bird Habitat;
 Red List Invertebrate Habitat;
 Primary Vegetation;
 Ecological Support Areas

The presence of ridges is indicated to the north of the site; however, the site comprise of plains grassland that is
situated on a gentle south-eastern slope (<3°).

CK99/52182/23
R.A.J Robbeson (Pr.Sci.Nat.)
PO Box 77448, Eldoglen, Centurion, 0171
The spatial presence of the site within the Soweto Highveld Grassland is indicated by the VEGMAP information
source, whilst the Gold Reef Mountain Bushveld is situated to the north of the site (refer Figure 3). The Soweto
Highveld Grassland comprises a gently to moderately undulating landscape on the Highveld plateau supporting
short to medium-high, dense, tufted grassland dominated almost entirely by Themeda triandra and
accompanied by a variety of other grasses such as Elionurus muticus, Eragrostis racemosa, Heteropogon
contortus and Tristachya leucothrix. In undisturbed parts, only scattered small wetlands, narrow stream
alluvia, pans and occasional ridges or rocky outcrops interrupt the continuous grassland cover.

This vegetation type is regarded Endangered with a target of 24 %. Only a handful of patches are statutorily
conserved, including Wadrift, Krugersdorp, Leeuwkuil, Suikerbosrand and Rolfe’s Pan Nature Reserve. A few
areas are privately conserved, including Johanna Jacobs, Tweefontein, Gert Jacobs, Nikolaas and Avalon Nature
Reserves and Heidelberg Natural Heritage Site. Almost half of the area already transformed by cultivation,
urban sprawl, mining and building of road infrastructure. Some areas have been flooded by dams (Grootdraai,
Leeukuil, Trichardtsfontein, Vaal, and Willem Brummer). Typical species persisting within pristine portions of
this grassland are:
Graminoids Andropogon appendiculatus, Brachiaria serrata, Cymbopogon pospischilii, Cynodon
dactylon, Elionurus muticus, Eragrostis capensis, E. chloromelas, E. curvula, E. plana,
E. planiculmis, E. racemosa, Heteropogon contortus, Hyparrhenia hirta, Setaria
nigrirostris, S. sphacelata, Themeda triandra, Tristachya leucothrix, Andropogon
schirensis, Aristida adscensionis, A. bipartita, A. congesta, A. junciformis subsp.
galpinii, Cymbopogon caesius, Digitaria diagonalis, Diheteropogon amplectens,
Eragrostis micrantha, E. superba, Harpochloa falx, Microchloa caffra, and Paspalum
dilatatum.
Herbs Hermannia depressa, Acalypha angustata, Berkheya setifera, Dicoma anomala,
Euryops gilfillanii, Geigeria aspera var. aspera, Graderia subintegra, Haplocarpha
scaposa, Helichrysum miconiifolium, H. nudifolium var. nudifolium, H. rugulosum,
Hibiscus pusillus, Justicia anagalloides, Lippia scaberrima, Rhynchosia effusa,
Schistostephium crataegifolium, Selago densiflora, Senecio coronatus, Hilliardiella
oligocephala, and Wahlenbergia undulata.
Geophytic Herbs Haemanthus humilis subsp. hirsutus and H. montanus.
Herbaceous Climber Rhynchosia totta
Low Shrubs Anthospermum hispidulum, A. rigidum subsp. pumilum, Berkheya annectens, Felicia
muricata and Ziziphus zeyheriana.

CK99/52182/23
R.A.J Robbeson (Pr.Sci.Nat.)
PO Box 77448, Eldoglen, Centurion, 0171
The following comments are presented, based on the brief site investigation:
 A comprehensive assessment of the vegetation is currently not possible as the veld was recently burnt and
the vegetation was found to be (mostly) still in a dormant status, with the exception of a few forb species.
The evaluation of vegetation was therefore restricted to/ based on the presence of ‘early flowering’ bulbs
and other plants, as well as possible identifications from remaining vegetation on the site. A detailed
evaluation of the compositional and structural aspects of the vegetation will only be possible subsequent to
sufficient rain and development of vegetative and reproductive characteristics of the vegetation.
 The presence of several geophyte species (Hypoxis rigidula, H. iridifolia, Albuca species, Anthericum cooperi)
and herb species (Euphorbia striata, Becium obovatum, Arctortis arctoides, Gnidia kraussiana, Xysmalobium
undulatum, Hilliardiella oligocephala, Ajuga ophrioides, Scabiosa columbaria, Hilliardiella species,
Elephantorrhiza elephantina, Kohautia amatymbica) within the site provides evidence of, at least, minor
elements of natural grassland, albeit a disproportional (low) abundance levels. It also provides evidence that
historic impacts on the site did not include destructive or disruptive agricultural practices (ploughing), which
is known to result in the disappearance of geophyte species and most herb species.
 The vegetation is likely to comprise a Hyparrhenia hirta-dominate grassland that has been subjected to long-
term and persistent impacts, notably severe grazing pressure and inappropriate burning regimes, which
resulted in the disappearance of most species associated with the regional ecological types.
 A moderate to poor floristic diversity is anticipated for the site.
 Localised surface impacts, diggings, and the presence of litter and rubble also detracts from the status of the
site.
 Ultimately, the conspicuous absence of most species associated with the Soweto Highveld Grassland (refer
Page 2) as well as atypical abundance/ dominance of certain species led to the conclusion that the vegetation
of the site (taking cognisance of survey limitations) will likely not constitute a pristine example of the regional
ecological type.

Further considerations that should be taken into account include:

 The site is not included in a C-PLAN conservation category (CBA, ESA);
 The site is small (<0.5 ha).

It is also anticipated that a botanical impact assessment of the effects of the proposed activity, will indicate
moderate to low impacts on the floristic receiving environment, despite the endangered status of the regional
ecological type.

Should you have any further queries relating to this, please do not hesitate to contact our offices.

Thank you

Riaan A. J. Robbeson (Pr.Sci.Nat.)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

16th September 2019

CK99/52182/23
R.A.J Robbeson (Pr.Sci.Nat.)
PO Box 77448, Eldoglen, Centurion, 0171
Figure 1: Geographic location of the site in the northern corner of the N3 highway and the R42

Figure 2: Spatial location of the site in relation to C-PLAN conservation categories

CK99/52182/23
R.A.J Robbeson (Pr.Sci.Nat.)
PO Box 77448, Eldoglen, Centurion, 0171
Figure 3: Collage of images indicating habitat conditions on site

CK99/52182/23
R.A.J Robbeson (Pr.Sci.Nat.)
PO Box 77448, Eldoglen, Centurion, 0171
 Appendix H:

Draft Environmental Management Programme

 SHELL SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A FILLING STATION IN

HEIDELBERG, LESEDI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY,
GAUTENG PROVINCE

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME

GDARD REF.: GAUT 002/18-19/E2341

By

Mills & Otten

Environmental Consultants

P O Box 84344
Greenside
2034

Tel: (011) 486 0062

Fax: 086 554 6573
Email: info@millsandotten.co.za

MO4261 October 2019

 SHELL SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD.
HEIDELBERG FILLING STATION

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME

OCTOBER 2019

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................... 1
2 STRUCTURE OF THE EMPR .................................................................. 1
3 DETAILS OF THE EAP ............................................................................ 4
4 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AND ASSOCIATED
ASPECTS ................................................................................................. 5
4.1 Project Phases ...................................................................................5
4.1.1 Planning/ Pre-construction phase .............................................. 5
4.1.2 Construction Phase ................................................................... 5
4.1.3 Operational Phase Management Measures .............................. 6
4.1.4 Decommissioning Phase Management Measures..................... 6
5 IMPACT MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES ................................................. 7
6 COMPLIANCE MONITORING ................................................................. 8
6.1 Roles and Responsibilities .................................................................9
6.2 Compliance Reporting........................................................................9
7 ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS PLAN ............................................. 10
8 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 11
9 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME:
PRE-CONSTRUCTION AND PLANNING PHASE ................................ 13
10 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME:
CONSTRUCTION PHASE...................................................................... 17
11 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME:
OPERATIONAL PHASE ........................................................................ 25
12 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME:
DECOMMISSIONING PHASE ............................................................... 31
APPENDIX A: CV OF THE EAP ..............................................................................
APPENDIX B: WEEKLY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
(EXAMPLE)..................................................................................................
APPENDIX C: ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS TRAINING POSTER
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE (EXAMPLE) ....................................

MO4261 October 2019

List of Tables

Table 1: Contents of the EMPr ........................................................................................ 2

Table 2: Contact details of EAP. ...................................................................................... 4
Table 3: EMPr for the proposed filling station on Portion 101 (a portion of Portion 82) of
the Farm Langlaagte 186-IR, Heidelberg: Pre-Construction / Planning Phase............... 13
Table 4: EMPr for the proposed filling station on Portion 101 (a portion of Portion 82) of
the Farm Langlaagte 186-IR, Heidelberg: Construction Phase ...................................... 17
Table 5: EMPr for the proposed filling station on Portion 101 (a portion of Portion 82) of
the Farm Langlaagte 186-IR, Heidelberg: Operational Phase ....................................... 25
Table 6: EMPr for the proposed filling station on Portion 101 (a portion of Portion 82) of
the Farm Langlaagte 186-IR, Heidelberg: Decommissioning Phase .............................. 31

MO4261 October 2019

 SHELL SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD
HEIDELBERG FILLING STATION

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME

FEBRUARY 2019
1 INTRODUCTION
The applicant (Shell South Africa (Pty) Ltd) intends to develop a filling station on Portion 101 (a
portion of Portion 82) of the Farm Langlaagte 186-IR, located at the intersection of Jacobs Street
and the unnamed cemetery road (north of the N3 Highway) in Heidelberg, Lesedi Local
3 3
Municipality. The proposed development includes the installation of 2 x 46m and 1 x 23m
3
underground fuel storage tanks with a total capacity of 115m , pump islands, pipework and the
associated infrastructure. A convenience store and parking facilities will also be constructed.

The proposed development requires Environmental Authorisation in terms of the National

Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998), as amended, and the 2014 EIA Regulations
(as amended) as it triggers an activity listed in Listing Notice 1 (R.983, as amended) and Listing
Notice 3 (R.985, as amended). The following listed activities are triggered:

Listing Notice 1 (R.983, 2014), Activity 14: “The development and related operation of facilities
or infrastructure, for the storage, or for the storage and handling, of a dangerous good, where
such storage occurs in containers with a combined capacity of 80 cubic metres or more but not
exceeding 500 cubic metres.”

Listing Notice 3 (R.985, 2014), Activity 12: “The clearance of an area of 300 square metres or
more of indigenous vegetation except where such clearance of indigenous vegetation is required
for maintenance purposes undertaken in accordance with a maintenance management plan, in (c)
Gauteng (i) within any critically endangered or endangered ecosystem listed in terms of section
52 of the NEMBA or prior to the publication of such a list, within an area that has been identified
as critically endangered in the National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment, 2004.”

This Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) forms part of the Environmental

Authorisation Application as submitted to the Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural
Development (GDARD).

2 STRUCTURE OF THE EMPR

The required content of the EMPr is prescribed in Appendix 4 of GN 982, as amended. Table 1
summarizes the required content and cross-references those requirements to relevant sections in
this report.

Mills & Otten 1 MO4261

Environmental Consultants October 2019
Table 1: Contents of the EMPr
Section of this
No Requirement
report
1 (1) An EMPr must comply with section 24N of the Act and include -
Details of
(i) the EAP who prepared the EMPr; and Refer to Section 3 and
(a)
(ii) the expertise of that EAP to prepare an EMPr, Appendix A
including a curriculum vitae.
A detailed description of the aspects of the activity that are
(b) Refer to Section 4
covered by the EMPr as identified by the project description.
A map at an appropriate scale which superimposes the proposed
activity, its associated structures and infrastructure on the
(c) See Figure 1
environmental sensitivities of the preferred site, indicating any
areas that should be avoided, including buffers.
A description of the impact management outcomes, including
management statements, identifying the impacts and risks that
need to be avoided, managed and mitigated as identified through
the environmental impact assessment process for all phases of
the development including –
(d) (i) Planning and design; Refer to Section 5
(ii) Pre-construction activities;
(iii) Construction activities
(iv) Rehabilitation of the environment after construction
and where applicable post-closure; and
(v) Where relevant, operation activities.
(e) Section (e) removed by the 2014 EIA Regulation amendments
A description of proposed impact management actions,
identifying the manner in which the impact management
outcomes contemplated in paragraph (d) will be achieved, and
must, where applicable, include actions to:
(i) avoid, modify, remedy, control or stop any action,
activity or process which causes pollution or
environmental degradation; Refer to Table 3 to
(f)
(ii) comply with any prescribed environmental Table 6
management standards or practices
(iii) comply with any applicable provisions of the Act
regarding closure, where applicable; and
(iv) comply with any provisions of the Act regarding
financial provision for rehabilitation, where
applicable;
The method of monitoring the implementation of the impact
(g) Refer to Section 6
management actions contemplated in paragraph (f);
The frequency of monitoring the implementation of the impact
(h) Refer to Table 3 to 6
management actions contemplated in paragraph (f);
An indication of the persons who will be responsible for the
(i) Refer to Table 3 to 6
implementation of the impact management actions

Mills & Otten 2 MO4261

Environmental Consultants October 2019
 The time periods within which the impact management actions
(j) Refer to Table 3 to 6
contemplated in paragraph (f) must be implemented
The mechanism for monitoring compliance with the impact
(k) Refer to Section 6
management actions contemplated in paragraph (f)
A program for reporting on compliance, taking into account the
(l) Refer to Section 6.2
requirements as prescribed by the Regulations
An environmental awareness plan describing the manner in
which –
(i) The applicant intends to inform his or her employees
(m) of any environmental risk which may result from their Refer to Section 7
work; and
(ii) Risks must be dealt with in order to avoid pollution or
the degradation of the environment; and
Any specific information that may be required by the competent
(n) N/A
authority.

The EMPr is a flexible document and must be amended accordingly once authorization has been
obtained to ensure that all the conditions stipulated in the Environmental Authorisation (EA) are
included within the EMPr and can so be integrated into the management plan.

Mills & Otten 3 MO4261

Environmental Consultants October 2019
3 DETAILS OF THE EAP
Mills & Otten Environmental Consultants (Pty) Ltd is the independent environmental consultancy
appointed to undertake the Environmental Authorisation (Basic Assessment) Process for the
proposed development of a filling station on Portion 101 (a portion of Portion 82) of the Farm
Langlaagte 186-IR, Heidelberg. The contact details and experience of the Environmental
Assessment Practitioner (EAP) are provided in Table 2 below:

Table 2: Contact details of EAP.

Name of EAP: Kirstin Otten

Company: Mills & Otten Environmental Consultants (Pty) Ltd

BSc (Chemistry, Biochemistry, Genetics), over 30 years’ experience

Qualifications:
in the environmental field.

Registrations &
Pr.Sci.Nat., MIWM, IAIA-SA
Associations:

Postal Address: PO Box 84344, Greenside, 2034

Contact number: 011 486 0062

Contact email: kirstin@millsandotten.co.za

Mills & Otten is a specialist, independent environmental consulting firm. It offers a full range of
environmental services, including environmental impact assessments, waste management,
pollution monitoring and environmental auditing.

Mrs. Otten has over 30 years’ experience, a B.Sc. (Chemistry, Biochemistry, & Genetics) and is
registered as a professional natural scientist with the South African Council for Natural Scientific
Professionals (Pr.Sci.Nat.).

Mills & Otten 4 MO4261

Environmental Consultants October 2019
4 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AND ASSOCIATED ASPECTS
The proposed project involves the development of a filling station and associated services on
Portion 101 (a portion of Portion 82) of the Farm Langlaagte 186-IR in Heidelberg. The proposed
3 3
new filling station will consist of 2 x 46m and 1 x 23m underground storage tanks with a
3
combined capacity 115m , pump islands, pipework, a retail building and the associated
infrastructure.

An environmental impact assessment was undertaken in accordance with the relevant legislation
and guidelines. The results of the Impact Assessment are contained in the Basic Assessment
Report. The significance of the environmental impacts was assessed based on the nature,
probability, extent, duration and magnitude of the impact in the context of environmental
sensitivity. Once the significance of the environmental impacts had been assessed, suitable
mitigation measures were formulated, and the significance of each potential impact after the
implementation of mitigation measures was re-assessed. The residual risk in the event that
mitigation measures are not implemented was also considered.

4.1 Project Phases

Development of the filling station will involve a number of project phases as follows:

• The Planning and Pre-Construction phase (which is also the phase during which the
necessary licenses and authorizations are applied for)

• The Construction phase which should commence within 5 years of the environmental
authorization being granted, and which should not exceed a period of 12 months.

• The Operational phase of the development which is indefinite.

• Decommissioning of the activity will be associated with a separate environmental

authorization application at the time of decommissioning planning. General mitigation and
management measures for the decommissioning phase have nonetheless been included
in the impact assessment and EMPr.

4.1.1 Planning/ Pre-construction phase

This phase of the project poses low risk to the physical and social environment which may be
impacted upon as activities are in preparation for on-site activities and very few activities can
legally occur on site during this phase. Refer to Table 3 for the impacts and mitigation measures
identified for the planning phase of the proposed filling station.

4.1.2 Construction Phase

Construction activities could adversely affect the environment. Impacts and mitigation measures
identified for the construction phase of the proposed filling station are presented in Table 4. The

Mills & Otten 5 MO4261

Environmental Consultants October 2019
EMPr (upon approval of the environmental authorization) must be made binding on all contractors
working on site, and must thus form part of contract data so that potential contractors can take
the provisions of the EMPr into account when providing quotes. At least one copy of the EMPr
must be kept on site throughout the construction phase.

The construction phase of the development will involve temporarily fencing the site for security
purposes, establishing the construction camp and associated storage facilities, land clearing and
earthworks, construction of buildings, parking areas, and installation of underground storage
tanks (USTs), pumps and pipework.

The environmental aspects which may be impacted by these activities include fauna and flora,
surface and ground water, soils, air quality, traffic, safety and security, and socio-economic
aspects. The project may generate off-site impacts due to the generation of dust, noise and
waste on the site being disposed elsewhere. In the absence of any mitigation, the significance of
the environmental impacts associated with construction varies from Low to Moderate. The
implementation of mitigation and management measures lower the significance of potential
impacts to Negligible or Low.

4.1.3 Operational Phase Management Measures

Refer to Table 5 for the impacts and mitigation measures identified for the operational phase of
the project. The operational phase will have the longest duration of all the project phases the
responsible parties may not be the same throughout the operational phase.

Activities associated with the operational phase of the project include filling of the underground
tanks with product, storage and dispensing of fuel, and the day to day running of the service
station and retail facilities.

Potential contamination of soil and/or water resources from spillages or leaks was identified as
one of the most significant potential impacts during the operational phase. Safety of employees
and the public was also considered. The implementation of the proposed management and
mitigation measures will reduce the significance of the identified impacts from Moderate-Low
without mitigation, to Negligible to Low significance.

4.1.4 Decommissioning Phase Management Measures

It is not expected that the facility will be decommissioned in the foreseeable future. It should be
noted that at the time that the filling station might be due for closure, legislation for the
decommissioning and closure of a filling station may have changed. Additionally, the surrounding
environment will almost certainly have changed. Therefore, legislation must be re-evaluated and
the mitigation measures and the EMPr should be amended in order to implement the relevant

Mills & Otten 6 MO4261

Environmental Consultants October 2019
legislation. Activities and (preliminary) potential impacts associated with the decommissioning
phase are described and assessed in Table 6

5 IMPACT MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES

The impact management objectives of this EMPr are to limit or minimize the consequence of an
identified impact (by shortening its duration, limiting its extent or intensity) or to minimize the
likelihood that an impact would occur. The specific impact management objectives for all phases
of the development include:

• Comply with applicable environmental legislation, regulations, by-laws, standards and

guidelines.

• Demonstrate to authorities and stakeholders that activities associated with the

development (throughout all project phases) comply with legislated environmental quality
objectives and achieve good environmental performance.

• Encourage the implementation of environmental best-practice principles to ensure sound

environmental practices are implemented, monitored and adapted based on the
outcomes of monitoring programmes and the principles of continuous improvement of
environmental performance.

• Develop and implement sound waste management, based on the hierarchy of prevention,
minimization, recycling / re-using, treatment and environmentally acceptable disposal if
necessary.

• Provide practical environmental guidelines to:

o Avoid or minimize disturbance of the natural environment;

o Protect the quality and quantity of water resources;

o Prevent or minimize pollution and the potential effects of off-site pollution caused
by incorrect waste management or pollution containment measures;

o Promote sustainable development;

o Prevent soil erosion and loss of topsoil, and encourage re-instatement of viable
soils and landscaping after construction;

o Promote the sustainable use of resources and prevent unnecessary waste (e.g.
of water, electricity etc.)

Mills & Otten 7 MO4261

Environmental Consultants October 2019
6 COMPLIANCE MONITORING

Effective implementation of the management and mitigation measures outlined in the BAR and
this EMPr (as well as the Environmental Authorization, if / when granted) is key to obtaining the
environmental goals and targets outlined in this EMPr. Compliance monitoring is thus vital to
ensure that the environmental requirements described in this EMPr are implemented on site.

Compliance monitoring also allows for ongoing impacts to be tracked so that the effectiveness of
the mitigation can be measured. Monitoring allows for the early detection of environmental
impacts and allows for timeous intervention or remedial action to be implemented accordingly, in
the interest of continuous improvement of environmental performance.

Compliance monitoring must incorporate regular audits to ensure that procedures are appropriate
and that environmental objectives and targets are being achieved. Regular environmental audits
will assist in identifying existing and/or potential problems affecting the environment, and can
assist to determine what actions are required to comply with legal and internal requirements.

It is recommended that an on-site designated environmental officer (DEO) be appointed by the

contractor, to monitor compliance to the EMPr and environmental best practice on the site for the
duration of the construction phase. An example of an on-site checklist that could be used for this
purpose is provided in Appendix B. The DEO will also be responsible for ensuring environmental
awareness training is conducted and environmental records (training, waste disposal etc.) are
kept.

It is further recommended that an independent Environmental Control Officer (ECO) be appointed

by the developer prior to any activities commencing on site. During the construction phase, the
ECO must conduct monthly site inspections and measure compliance of the construction
activities against the measures stipulated in this EMPr. Table 3 and Table 4 have been compiled
to be used as an on-site checklist for this purpose during the pre-construction (planning) and
construction phase.

During the operational phase it is recommended that environmental checks be conducted by a

designated employee at least once every month, and that environmental compliance audits be
conducted by an independent environmental specialist annually. Table 5 refers specifically to the
operational phase environmental management measures.

Table 6 identifies measures to be implemented during the decommissioning phase. However, it

is recommended that a comprehensive EMPr be compiled in preparation for decommissioning as
decommissioning will be associated with a separate application for environmental authorization.

Mills & Otten 8 MO4261

Environmental Consultants October 2019
6.1 Roles and Responsibilities
The implementation of this EMPr is ultimately the responsibility of the Applicant, as granting of the
environmental authorization will make the measures stipulated in the authorization, BAR and
EMPr legally binding on the holder of the authorization. The following parties are involved in
ensuring sound environmental management takes place during the construction phase:

During the operational phase of the filling station, the Holder of the Environmental Authorisation
will still be ultimately responsible for ensuring sound environmental management and legislative
compliance at the site. The Site Operator is often assigned many of the environmental
management responsibilities on the site. He/she in turn may appoint designated personnel to
assume responsibilities in terms of waste management, maintenance, record keeping etc.

6.2 Compliance Reporting

Regulation 34 of GN 982 (as amended) stipulates the requirements for auditing of compliance
with an environmental authorization and environmental management programme. In summary:

• The holder of an environmental authorization must, for as long as the authorization is

valid, ensure compliance with the conditions of the authorization and the EMPr, and that
such compliance is audited, and that an environmental audit report is submitted to the
relevant competent authority.

• The contents of the environmental audit report are stipulated in the regulations. The
audit report must be compiled by a suitably qualified, experienced and independent
person.

• The frequency of audits must be stipulated in the environmental authorization.

Mills & Otten 9 MO4261

Environmental Consultants October 2019
The EMPr must be updated upon receipt of the Environmental Authorisation to ensure that all
conditions are included in the EMPr. In addition, a Record of Environmental Incidents (spills,
impacts, legal transgressions, etc.) must be maintained throughout the construction and
operational phases of the proposed development along with records of corrective and
preventative actions that were taken. A Complaints Register must also be maintained throughout
the construction and operational phases of the proposed development in which all complaints
received, and actions taken are recorded.

7 ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS PLAN

An environmental awareness plan must be implemented throughout the construction and (with
varying frequency) during the operational phases of the development. The plan must stipulate
the manner in which the applicant intends to inform employees of any environmental risk which
may result from their work, and how such risks must be dealt with in order to avoid pollution or
degradation of the environment.

During the construction phase, environmental awareness training will be presented to all
employees on the site. The training will be given prior to any on-site activities commencing and
refresher training will be provided as required. The training will include a legislative component,
emphasizing the need to comply with the conditions of the EMPr and environmental authorization,
and the consequences of non-compliance. Training records will also be kept by the developer /
principal contractor. The ECO can assist in presenting this training. An example of typical topics
that will be covered in the training is presented in Appendix C.

As a minimum, the training will include the following:

• The importance of conforming to the requirements of the EMPr and the consequences of
non-conformance to the EMPr or reasonable instructions given by the Designated
Environmental Offices (DEO) or Environmental Control Officer (ECO).

• The potential or actual consequences (impacts) the activities on site.

• Benefits of improved environmental performance.

• Mitigation measures to be implemented on site.

Mills & Otten 10 MO4261

Environmental Consultants October 2019
8 CONCLUSION

This EMPr presents management and mitigation measures which must be implemented
throughout the construction (including the planning phase), operational and decommissioning
phases of the proposed filling station. Implementation of these measures must be monitored and
adapted if required in the interest of continuous improvement of environmental performance.
These measures aim to prevent environmental impacts from occurring, or where impacts cannot
be avoided, to reduce the significance of these impacts by reducing their duration, extent and/or
intensity. Successful implementation of these measures should lessen the impact significance to
acceptably low levels.

Mills & Otten 11 MO4261

Environmental Consultants October 2019
Figure 1: Sensitivity Map. The site is not located within areas designated as CBA or ESA in terms of the GDARD Conservation Plan.
There are no environmental sensitivities located on the proposed project site.

Mills & Otten 12 MO4261

Environmental Consultants October 2019
9 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME: PRE-CONSTRUCTION AND PLANNING PHASE

Table 3: EMPr for the proposed filling station on Portion 101 (a portion of Portion 82) of the Farm Langlaagte 186-IR, Heidelberg: Pre-
Construction / Planning Phase
Responsible
Impacts / Issues Action Frequency
Party
PRE-CONSTRUCTION (PLANNING) PHASE:
The responsible authority (GDARD) as well as the environmental
impact management section of the local municipality must be
Project Once-off, two weeks prior
1.1 notified of the intent to commence with construction two weeks
Proponent to commencement
prior to site establishment and construction activities
commencing on site.
The EMPr must be made binding on all contractors working on
site, and must thus form part of contract data so that potential Project Once-off prior to
1.2
contractors can take the provisions of the EMPr into account Proponent appointment of contractor
when providing quotes.
A copy of the EMPr must be distributed to each contractor and
sub-contractor as well as the site operator. This EMPr does not Project
1.3 Once-off
absolve the contractor from complying with any other relevant Proponent
legislation.
All activities are to be in line with the OH&S Act and other Project
1. General 1.4 Continuous
relevant regulations. Proponent
The project proponent must appoint an independent ECO prior
to site establishment commencing. The ECO must be appointed Project Monthly for the duration
1.5
for the duration of the construction phase to conduct monthly site Proponent of construction
inspections and monitor compliance with the EMPr and EA.
The principal contractor must appoint a designated
environmental officer (DEO) who will conduct weekly inspections
of environmental aspects on the construction site, be Once-off appointment for
1.6 responsible for record-keeping, environmental training and other Contractor the duration of
tasks associated with responsible environmental management of construction.
the construction activities. A sample checklist is provided in
Appendix B.
The contractor(s) must compile, implement and maintain an Once-off compilation,
1.7 Contractor
emergency preparedness response plan and review it after each ongoing implementation

Mills & Otten 13 MO4261

Environmental Consultants October 2019
 Responsible
Impacts / Issues Action Frequency
Party
emergency incident, or annually, whichever is more frequent.

The contractor must ensure that the contact details of relevant

1.8 emergency services are available at the construction site Contractor Continuous
(include police, ambulance, fire department at least).
The project site must be fenced off prior to the commencement
of construction activities and appropriate signage must be
displayed (e.g. prohibiting entry of unauthorized persons onto
1.9 Contractor Once-off
site). Areas within the property which are not part of the
development footprint must also be fenced off so as to prevent
unauthorised access of staff onto sensitive areas.
Only one contractor’s camp will be established. The Camp will
include facilities for meetings, a change room for staff, material
and equipment storage and parking. Prior to establishment of
Once-off prior to
1.10 the site camp, the Contractor or DEO shall produce a plan Contractor / ECO
construction
showing the positions of all buildings, yards and other
infrastructure on site. This plan will be subject to approval by the
ECO and must be within the development footprint.
Copies of the following documents must be provided to the
Department of Water and Sanitation prior to the commencement
of activities:
• Management plan on how erosion and contaminated
stormwater runoff will be prevented during construction.
• A copy of approval of layout and installation from local
municipality.
Once-off prior to
• A copy of the relevant letters of agreement that the Contractor /
1.11 commencement of
developer agrees to safely and legally dispose of all the Developer
construction activities
different types of construction waste at the appropriate,
licensed disposal sites.
• A copy of the services agreement between the contracted
services provider and the waste disposal facility
confirming sufficient capacity to dispose waste
generated form the site.
• A copy of the service agreement letter for the supply of

Mills & Otten 14 MO4261

Environmental Consultants October 2019
 Responsible
Impacts / Issues Action Frequency
Party
potable water from the municipality.
• A copy of the stormwater management plan and design.
• A copy of the emergency response plan depicting
measures the mitigation measures that will be followed
when a spillage above ground and/or underground
occurs.
All records related to monitoring & auditing must be kept on site Project
and made available to all relevant authorities on request. Record Proponent,
2. Record Keeping 2.1 Continuous
keeping incorporates all activities on site, problems identified, Contractor &
transgressions noted and corrective actions taken. ECO
A detailed stormwater management plan (SWMP) for the site
has been designed by a suitably qualified professional and must
be submitted to the local authority (Lesedi Local Municipality) for
approval prior to the commencement of construction on site. The
plan includes stormwater management measures to be
implemented temporarily during the construction phase and
permanent measures to be installed for the operational phase. Project Once-off design and
3.1 Proponent, construction, continuous
The SWMP must ensure that stormwater which has been in Contractor maintenance
3. Stormwater contact with any potentially polluted area (parking areas, roads,
Management forecourt etc.) does not discharge to sewer, municipal
stormwater infrastructure or the environment without the
necessary licenses (under the National Water Act and/or
Municipal by-laws). All contact water must pass through a
separator prior to discharge.
Once-off during design
Should the filling station include a car wash facility, oil traps must Project engineers
3.2 phase. Implementation
be installed at the car wash bays. / contractor
during construction.
The following measures must be incorporated at the design
phase for implementation during construction:
Once-off during design
4. Maintenance and • Install automatic shut off nozzles. Project
phase. Implementation
Management 4.1 • Protect tanks and piping against corrosion to prevent leaks. Proponent,
during construction
Activities • Install anti-siphon valves between the pumps and the tanks Engineers
phase.
to prevent tank from draining if the line breaks.
• Make sure fill-up hoses are long enough so vehicles can be

Mills & Otten 15 MO4261

Environmental Consultants October 2019
 Responsible
Impacts / Issues Action Frequency
Party
kept at a safe distance from the tanks.
• Ground the pumps and vehicles to avoid build-up of static
electricity, explosions and fires.
Project Once-off during design
Recommendations for the foundations were made by the
5. Geotechnical Proponent, phase. Implementation
5.1 geotechnical engineer. These recommendations must be
Stability Engineers, during construction
implemented during construction
Contractor(s) phase.
Should the site be closed, an application for decommissioning
Project
must be submitted to the Competent Authority. The application Once-off during planning
Proponent,
6. Decommissioning 6.1 for decommissioning must comply with the relevant legislation at phase of
Engineers,
that time. The application for decommissioning must include a decommissioning.
Contractor(s)
rehabilitation plan for the site.

Mills & Otten 16 MO4261

Environmental Consultants October 2019
10 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME: CONSTRUCTION PHASE

Table 4: EMPr for the proposed filling station on Portion 101 (a portion of Portion 82) of the Farm Langlaagte 186-IR, Heidelberg:
Construction Phase
Responsible
Impacts / Issues Action Frequency of Action
Party
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
A copy of the EMPr and EA must be available at the construction
1.1 Contractor Continuous
site throughout the construction phase.
The contact details of the local emergency services (Police, Hospital
1.2 / EMT and Fire Department) will be available on site and employees Contractor Continuous
must know whom to contact in the event of an emergency.
The project site must be fenced at the earliest stages of site
establishment and appropriate signage must be displayed. Strict Once off and continuous
1.3 Contractor
access control to the site must be maintained throughout the maintenance
construction phase.
Installation of the underground fuel storage tanks, pumps and
1.4 services must be in accordance with the applicable SANS Contractor Once-off installation
1. General
requirements.
Before the underground tanks and associated pipework become
operational, the necessary leak tests must be conducted in Once-off prior to
1.5 accordance with the specifications and requirements of the Contractor commencement of
appointed fuel supply company and the SABS codes of practice operational phase
relevant for the petroleum industry.
On completion of construction, the Contractor shall remove from the
site all construction materials (surplus materials, foundations,
Once-off on completion of
1.6 plumbing and other fixtures, rubbish and temporary works of every Contractor
construction
kind). Once this is cleared the area must be graded and scarified
before topsoil placement and vegetating of relevant areas.
Topsoil must be stripped (where present) from the site prior to
development commencing and stockpiled separately. Stockpiles Once-off prior to
2. Topsoil must be protected from erosion and contamination (including development.
2.1 Contractor
Management establishment of alien invasive plant species). Stockpiled topsoil Maintenance & protection
must be used in rehabilitation and landscaping areas as soon as continuous.
possible. Stockpiles must not be higher than 2.5m and the slopes of

Mills & Otten 17 MO4261

Environmental Consultants October 2019
 Responsible
Impacts / Issues Action Frequency of Action
Party
soil stockpiles must not be steeper than 1:1.5.

The development footprint must be demarcated at the earliest

stages of the construction phase and movement of personnel and
vehicles beyond the demarcated footprint must not be allowed. Once-off site
3. Development
3.1 Construction personnel must not be allowed to access private Contractor demarcation, continuous
footprint
property as well as “No-go” areas. Vegetation disturbance and maintenance
removal must be limited to the development footprint. Where
possible, existing indigenous vegetation must be retained.
Stormwater on the site must be managed as determined in the
4.1 Contractor Continuous
approved stormwater management plan.
No stockpiles or construction materials may be stored or placed
within any drainage lines on site.
4.2 Contractor Continuous
No stockpiles of material with pollution potential will be allowed
closer than 500m from any surface water resource.
Silt netting must be installed along the boundary fence on downslope Installation prior to soil
4.3 Contractor
side of site to prevent any sediment from leaving the site. disturbance
The site must regularly be inspected for signs of erosion, problem
4. Stormwater 4.4 areas addressed and measures implemented to prevent erosion Contractor Weekly
management from occurring.
All trenches and excavation works must be demarcated while open
and properly backfilled and compacted as soon as possible.
4.5 Contractor Continuous
Trenches and excavation works must occur sequentially to ensure
that excavations are not left open and idle for extended time periods.
Construction equipment and machinery must be kept in a
demarcated area. The loss of oils and fuel onto the ground must be
4.6 prevented, and accidental spillages must be contained. Where oils Contractor As required
have leaked into the soil, this soil must be removed and
appropriately stored for disposal at an approved landfill site.
An adequate number of portable / chemical toilets must be provided Contractor /
5. Sanitation 5.1 for labourers (ratio of 1:30). Toilets shall be supplied with toilet Service Daily / As required
paper, hand sanitizer (or hand washing facilities) and shall be Provider
cleaned and serviced regularly by a professional service provider.

Mills & Otten 18 MO4261

Environmental Consultants October 2019
 Responsible
Impacts / Issues Action Frequency of Action
Party
No use of open veld or surrounding open areas for ablution
purposes will be allowed.
Toilets shall be secured to prevent them from toppling. Discharge of Contractor /
5.2 waste from toilets into the environment and burial of waste is strictly Service Continuous
prohibited. Provider
No spillage shall occur when the toilets are cleaned or emptied and Contractor /
5.3 the contents shall be properly stored and transported to a nearby Service Ongoing
sewage treatment works by the service provider. Provider
All ablution facilities are to be inspected on a regular basis to ensure
the above requirements are being met. Keep a maintenance register Contractor,
5.4 Daily, Monthly
on file. Records of waste disposal must be kept to ensure that waste DEO, ECO
is being disposed in authorised and responsible manner.
Sufficient potable water must be available to the construction
5.5 Contractor Daily
workers at all times.
A designated eating area must be established for employees. The
6.1 Contractor Continuous
eating area must provide seating and be shaded.
No cooking shall be permitted on site. It is recommended that
6.2 Contractor Continuous
employees bring their lunch with them to site daily.
The designated eating area shall receive daily maintenance and
6.3 cleaning. All rubbish bins are to be emptied as necessary (when full) Contractor Daily
to the central waste storage area.
6. Designated
Eating Area 6.4 Rubbish bins are to be covered to prevent dispersal of litter by wind. Contractor Continuous

No accommodation will be provided for workers on site, and no

6.5 employees will be allowed to sleep over on the site. The only Contractor Continuous
personnel who will be on site 24/7 will be security personnel.
Smoking will only be allowed in designated area(s) which will not be
6.6 in close proximity to storage areas. Receptacles for cigarette butts Contractor Continuous
will be provided, no cigarettes may be disposed of onto the ground.

7.1 Noise levels shall be kept within acceptable limits, and construction Contractor Ongoing
7. Noise and air
crew must abide by local by-laws regarding noise. Any complaints

Mills & Otten 19 MO4261

Environmental Consultants October 2019
 Responsible
Impacts / Issues Action Frequency of Action
Party
quality must be noted and registered and follow-up action documented in
the site’s Complaints Register.
Construction will only take place from 07:00 – 18:00 Mondays to
7.2 Fridays and 08:00 – 15:00 on Saturdays. No construction activities Contractor Continuous
shall take place on Sundays or public holidays.
Construction vehicles and equipment must be maintained in good
7.3 Contractor Continuous
working order so as not to create unnecessary noise or emissions.
The Contractor shall provide suitable hearing protection to all their
7.4 Contractor Daily
staff and others entering areas with high noise levels.
The Contractor shall provide suitable dust masks to all their staff and
7.5 Contractor Daily
others entering areas with significant dust.
No burning of waste or cleared vegetation is allowed. No fires will be
7.6 Contractor Ongoing
allowed anywhere on the site or the surrounding veld.
Dust generated during site clearance and the construction phase
must be mitigated through dust control measures. Should water
7.7 Contractor As required
spraying be chosen, ensure that water quantity used is minimal so
as to avoid wastage of water.
Measures must be implemented to ensure that materials being
7.8 Contractor Daily
transported cannot be dispersed by wind.
Health, Safety and Environmental Awareness induction is to be
presented to all levels of staff at the commencement of construction. Developer / Once-off and ad hoc for
8.1
All staff must receive the training and an attendance register must be Contractor new staff.
signed by each person on site.
Site and workers are to be managed in strict accordance with the
8. Health & Safety 8.2 OH&S Act, the National Building Regulations and the applicable Contractor Continuous
SANS standards.
Ensure that construction vehicles and equipment are operated by
8.3 Contractor Continuous
trained, licensed (where applicable) and competent staff.
Personal protective equipment (PPE) must be provided to and used
8.4 Contractor Continuous
by all staff at all times.

Mills & Otten 20 MO4261

Environmental Consultants October 2019
 Responsible
Impacts / Issues Action Frequency of Action
Party
Appropriate training regarding the handling of equipment and
8.5 materials, as well as emergency response procedures, must be Contractor Continuous
undertaken.
Arrange for the erection of signage informing motorists of intended
activities, obstructions or detours should this be required. The
9.1 construction area must be cordoned off from the surrounding area to Contractor Continuous
prevent pedestrian or vehicle access to the site (other than
authorized workers and vehicles).
Use existing roads to access the site and ensure that construction
9.2 vehicles use only established and approved routes and access Contractor Continuous
points to the site.
Construction and delivery vehicle movement beyond the property
9.3 boundaries must be limited during peak hours. Strict speed limits Contractor Ongoing
9. Traffic Control will be enforced.
Vehicles shall not be overloaded or used in a manner or for a task
9.4 for which they are not suited or designed. Drivers shall be Contractor Continuous
appropriately trained and licensed.
Plant and materials shall be appropriately secured to ensure safe
passage between destinations. Loads that pose a risk of dust
generation or spillage during transit (e.g. sand, refuse, cement, etc.)
9.5 shall have appropriate cover. The Contractor shall be held Contractor Ongoing, as required
responsible for any clean-up resulting from the failure by his
employees or suppliers to secure transported plant and materials
properly.
Vegetation disturbance and removal must be limited to the
development footprint and where possible, existing indigenous
10.1 vegetation must be retained. Environmental awareness training will Contractor Ongoing
10. Biodiversity be presented to all employees at the site. No faunal species are to
be removed, killed, maimed or injured during construction.
The use of indigenous plants must be optimized in landscaped
10.2 Contractor Ongoing
areas.
11. Waste Burning or burying of waste on-site or in the surroundings is not
11.1 Contractor Continuous
Management allowed.

Mills & Otten 21 MO4261

Environmental Consultants October 2019
 Responsible
Impacts / Issues Action Frequency of Action
Party
Waste generated at the site shall be collected and placed in suitable
containers on a daily basis. Containers will be fitted with lids to
prevent dispersion of litter by wind. Sufficient bins must be placed
11.2 Contractor Daily
around the site for the collection and temporary storage of general
waste, and any hazardous waste respectively. Waste containers
must be labelled as “general waste” and “hazardous waste”.
Ensure that builders’ rubble is removed from the construction site
11.3 regularly and disposed of at an approved site (e.g. Platkop landfill Contractor Weekly
site in Ekurhuleni).
General waste must be removed from the site for disposal at a
11.4 registered landfill (e.g. Platkop landfill in Ekurhuleni) on a weekly Contractor Weekly
basis or as required.
Hazardous waste must not be stored on site for longer than 90 days.
11.5 Contractor Ongoing
Safe Disposal certificates must be kept on site.
Any material which can be recycled must be taken to a licensed
11.6 recycler. Waste manifests and quantities recycled must be kept on Contractor Continuous
site.
Fuel and other hazardous materials, such as oils, lubricants, etc.
must be stored in designated impermeable, lined, bunded and
secured area(s) to prevent any spillage onto soil. Access to and use
12.1 Contractor Continuous
of such materials must be controlled. Such substances may not
stand around on site without appropriate spill prevention being
implemented.
12. Handling and
Storage of Sufficient care must be taken when handling hazardous materials
Hazardous such as fuel, oil, cement, bitumen, etc. to prevent pollution. Only
12.2 Contractor Continuous
Materials trained and authorized personnel will be allowed to handle
hazardous materials.

12.3 All hazardous materials on site shall be associated with an MSDS. Contractor Continuous

Hazardous material containers shall be disposed of as hazardous

12.4 Contractor Continuous
waste when empty and not be used for any other purpose.

Mills & Otten 22 MO4261

Environmental Consultants October 2019
 Responsible
Impacts / Issues Action Frequency of Action
Party
In the event of a spill, the relevant emergency response procedure
12.5 Contractor Continuous
shall be implemented immediately.
The hazardous material storage area shall be equipped with the
13.1 appropriate warning signage, no smoking and no naked flame signs Contractor Continuous
and will be equipped with the necessary firefighting equipment.
All site employees shall be trained in the emergency procedure(s) to
13.2 Contractor Ongoing
be followed in the event of spills or leaks occurring.
Spill kits (of appropriate size and substance) must be available on
13.3 Contractor Continuous
site at all times. Staff must be trained in using the spill kits.
No vehicles or machinery may be serviced on site during normal
conditions. All routine servicing of vehicles and machinery to be
undertaken at a designated workshop off-site. In the event of a
13.4 Contractor Continuous
breakdown, immediate steps shall be taken to prevent any spillage.
13. Spill prevention Minimal emergency servicing may be undertaken on the site, and
and management appropriate drip trays must then be used in such emergency cases.
All fuelling of vehicles must be undertaken on an impermeable liner /
13.5 drip tray. After re-fuelling drip trays shall be appropriately cleaned Contractor Continuous
(spilled fuel/diesel etc. may not remain in the drip tray on site).
All equipment to be inspected daily by the operator to ensure fitness,
13.6 all defects to be reported and repaired immediately. Leaking Contractor Daily
equipment shall be repaired immediately or removed from Site.
Should any leaks occur from the machinery or vehicles on site, any
13.7 contaminated soil must be removed and appropriately disposed of Contractor As and when required
as hazardous waste.
Oil from drip trays, used oil and any other source of hydrocarbon
13.8 Contractor Ongoing
waste shall be removed on a regular basis to an oil-recycling centre.
Cement mixing must be done in one designated area only on an
impermeable surface or mixing trays. Concrete may not be mixed on
14.1 Contractor Continuous
14. Cement the open ground. Drainage from batching areas must be contained.
Batching No waste water shall be discharged directly into the environment.

14.2 Cleaning of concrete mixing tools and equipment must be done Contractor As required
using appropriate cleaning trays. Cement trucks and cement mixers

Mills & Otten 23 MO4261

Environmental Consultants October 2019
 Responsible
Impacts / Issues Action Frequency of Action
Party
shall not discharge any concrete wash directly onto the ground.

Empty cement bags shall be stored in weatherproof containers to

14.3 prevent windblown dust and water contamination. Empty bags shall Contractor Ongoing
be disposed of regularly and not be used for any other purpose.
The Contractor shall take all reasonable measures to prevent the
spillage of cement / concrete during batching and construction
operations. During pouring, the soil surface shall be protected using
14.4 Contractor Ongoing
plastic and all visible remains of concrete shall be physically
removed on completion of the concrete pour and appropriately
disposed of.
The facility must be equipped with fire extinguishers of suitable type
15.1 and number. Fire extinguishers must be serviced as required by the Contractor Continuous
relevant legislation.
15. Fire-prevention Any welding or other sources of heating materials must be done in a
and fire-fighting 15.2 controlled environment and under appropriate supervision, in such a Contractor Continuous
manner as to minimize the risk and/or injury to workers.
Training must be provided to the workers in the use of the
15.3 Contractor Ongoing
appropriate fire-fighting equipment and records kept of such training.
Environmental awareness training must be presented to all
Once-off training, ad-hoc
employees at the site that will include the identification of potential
training for new
16. Heritage heritage resources, and how to react if the presence of heritage
16.1 Contractor employees,
Resources resources is suspected: If any potential heritage resource is
implementation as
uncovered during construction, all work in the vicinity must be halted
required.
immediately and a heritage resource practitioner consulted.
Ensure that good housekeeping is implemented throughout the site.
The construction site is to be fenced off, and can be screened with
17. Visual Impacts
17.1 shade netting in areas such as storage areas. Rehabilitation of the Contractor Continuous
and Housekeeping
site (making neat, implementing landscaping) as soon as possible
will also mitigate visual impacts of construction.

Mills & Otten 24 MO4261

Environmental Consultants October 2019
11 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME: OPERATIONAL PHASE

Table 5: EMPr for the proposed filling station on Portion 101 (a portion of Portion 82) of the Farm Langlaagte 186-IR, Heidelberg:
Operational Phase
Responsible
Impacts / Issues Action Frequency of Action
Party
OPERATIONAL PHASE
Copies of the EMPr and EA are to be kept at the site throughout the
Project
operational phase. Environmental awareness training presented to
1.1 Proponent, Once-off.
employees must include measures stipulated in these documents
Operator
and the consequences of non-compliance.
The operator of the site must ensure that all applicable laws and
regulations are adhered to this includes but is not limited to the
1. General following:
• National Environmental Management Act No. 107 of 1998;
1.2 • National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998); Operator Continuous
• National Environmental Management: Waste Act (Act 59 of
2008);
• Occupational Health and Safety Act (Act 85 of 1993);
• Lesedi Local Municipality By-Laws
Ensure all employees and contract workers having any function
2.1 related to the filling station development have the necessary Operator Continuous
2. Safety – Worker knowledge and competence to carry out their assigned tasks.
competence,
awareness and All employees must be provided with environmental awareness
training training informing employees of environmental risks which may result
2.2 Operator Ongoing, as required
from their work as well as identifying risks to be dealt with in order to
prevent pollution or degradation of the environment.
The emergency response plan for the facility must be placed at an
accessible location for all employees, and all employees are to be
Training conducted once
3. Safety – trained in procedures for the following:
off for every employee
Emergency 3.1 • Emergency Evacuation Operator
and refresher training as
Procedures
• Fire / Explosion required
• Spills and / or Leaks

Mills & Otten 25 MO4261

Environmental Consultants October 2019
 Responsible
Impacts / Issues Action Frequency of Action
Party
• Bomb Threats
• Robbery and attempted robbery
• Injuries (serious and non-serious)
• Vehicle accidents
• Property Damage
Fire extinguishers must be placed within close proximity of any
Continuous, maintenance
3.2 flammable hazardous wastes (e.g. wastes contaminated with Operator
as required
3. Safety – hydrocarbon products) and throughout the forecourt.
Emergency Spill control measures must be in place in the event of a spill. If a
Procedures spill occurs, the source of the spill must be identified and controlled, Once-off, continuous
3.3 Operator
the spilled material must be contained and clean-up procedures maintenance
implemented immediately.

All employees must be supplied with and wear the correct personal
4.1 Operator Continuous
protective equipment (PPE).

The facility must be kept tidy with no litter or stray objects lying
4.2 Operator As required
around.

Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) must be available on site for

all chemicals and hazardous substances to be used on-site, including
4.3 information on their ecological impacts, how to minimize the impacts Operator Continuous
in case of spillages, correct storage and handling and correct
disposal.
4. Safety - General
The facility must be fitted with the required health and safety warning
and information signage that is required and suitable for such Once-off prior to
4.4 Operator
installations. The warning and information signage must comply with commencement
international norms and standards.
The amount of fuel delivered, utilized and remaining in the tanks
must be determined daily and records maintained of these values.
Any discrepancies in fuel volumes must be reported immediately.
4.5 Operator Continuous, Daily
Should any discrepancies in fuel volumes be recorded, a detailed
assessment must be undertaken and suitable remedial measures
implemented.

Mills & Otten 26 MO4261

Environmental Consultants October 2019
 Responsible
Impacts / Issues Action Frequency of Action
Party

Training must be provided to the workers in the use of the

5.1 Operator Once-off
appropriate fire-fighting equipment and records kept of such training.

5. Fire Prevention There should be close co-operation with the local fire authority to
ensure that they know the layout of the facility, what equipment and
5.2 Operator Once-off
facilities are available, where they are located and how they are
used.

Any cracks in paving, which expose the underlying soils, must be

6.1 Operator Ongoing
repaired immediately to prevent the ingress of spills into the soils.

The storm water management plan shall provide for all potentially
contaminated surface runoff to drain towards a separator, which shall
6.2 discharge to municipal sewer in accordance with a discharge permit Operator Annually
issued by the Local Municipality. Discharge quality shall be monitored
at least annually and the results submitted to the Local Authority.
6. Stormwater The stormwater system, separator tanks, etc. must be monitored
Management regularly and after every storm to ensure they are functioning
6.3 properly and that there are no blockages or damages to the system. Operator Ongoing
The separator system must be cleaned out regularly to ensure
maximum retainer capacity is present, should a spill occur.
No surface runoff that is potentially contaminated will be discharged
without the proper licenses being in place and treatment of the runoff
6.4 to ensure that pollution will not be carried downstream. Under no Operator Ongoing
circumstance will fuel or potentially contaminated water be released
onto unprotected soil surfaces or water resources.

All operational surfaces must be installed with spill containment areas

as per the relevant SANS standards. Regular training in product
handling and facility operations will be presented to all relevant staff.
7.1 Operator Ongoing
Proper monitoring of the product levels in the tanks must take place
7. Groundwater to eliminate the risk of overfilling. Regular tank and pipeline
inspections are required to eliminate the risk of leaks.

Spillage control procedures must be in place according to SANS

7.2 10089-1 and SANS 10013-2 standards, including drainage Operator Ongoing
separation around fuel handing areas to ensure containment of any

Mills & Otten 27 MO4261

Environmental Consultants October 2019
 Responsible
Impacts / Issues Action Frequency of Action
Party
product. Surfaces must be resistant to fuels to avoid deterioration
and ingress of product into the subsoils.

All fuelling must only be conducted on surfaces provided for this

purpose. The procedures followed to prevent environmental damage
7.3 during service and maintenance, and compliance with these Operator As required
procedures, including the correct use of sumps and regular reporting
of spillages must be audited and corrections made where necessary.

Tank monitoring wells must be installed around the tank farm, to be

used as an early warning system in the event of a leak. These wells
Once-off installation,
7.4 must be inspected on a monthly basis and should product be Operator
monthly monitoring
detected an integrity test must be immediately undertaken and
remedial measures undertaken as necessary.

Monitoring wells have to be checked monthly for signs of

7.5 Operator Monthly
contamination (product residue, smells etc.).

All venting systems and procedures have to be designed and

8. Air Quality 8.1 Operator Ongoing
operated according to SANS standards.

The facility is to be equipped with rubbish bins and a waste storage

area. Separate facilities for the temporary storage of hazardous and
Operator (or
9.1 general waste must be provided (and the bins clearly marked). Ongoing
contractor)
Ensure that litter is not dispersed from bins or the storage area by
wind. Ensure bins are emptied regularly and not overflowing.
Suitable, leak-proof drums for the disposal of oils and greases must
Operator (or
9. Waste 9.2 be positioned at areas where such materials are likely to be Ongoing
contractor)
Management generated.
Hazardous waste and contaminated soil is to be collected in
Operator (or
9.3 designated bins and disposed of at an approved hazardous waste Ongoing
contractor)
facility.

No hydrocarbon waste or contaminated items to be disposed of in

9.4 Operator Ongoing
domestic or other waste bins and vice versa.

Mills & Otten 28 MO4261

Environmental Consultants October 2019
 Responsible
Impacts / Issues Action Frequency of Action
Party
All disposal certificates acquired from landfill facilities associated with
the disposal of hazardous waste must be kept on file. Record must Operator (or
9.5 Ongoing
also be kept of the quantities of waste removed from site and must contractor)
be a reflection of the waste quantities stated on the disposal sheets.

Any spills or leaks to be cleaned with absorbent material which is to

9.6 Operator Ongoing
be disposed as hazardous waste

Recycling of solid waste streams such as plastic, glass, paper and

9.7 cans must be encouraged and suitable receptacles provided so that Operator Ongoing
employees can easily implement recycling strategies.
The separator shall be cleaned by a professional service provider at
9.8 least every six months, or sooner if it becomes full and records Operator At least every six months
thereof maintained.
Once off Training and ad-
All employees are to receive training in prevention of spills and
10.1 Operator hoc refresher training as
response to spills.
required
All pipelines, tanks and associated fuel transfer systems are to be
10.2 Operator Ongoing
inspected routinely and maintained in a leak-free condition.

Monitor fuel usage and levels to ensure that there are no undetected
10. Spill prevention 10.3 Operator Ongoing
leakages from the systems.
and management
10.4 Spill kits must be made available on site at all times. Operator Continuous
Routine checks on fuel levels in the tank together with a balance
10.5 Operator Ongoing
sheet must be used to determine unaccounted losses from the tanks.
Maintain and test emergency response procedures, associated
10.6 equipment and personnel for responding to potential on-site Operator Ongoing
hazardous materials releases.
In the event of a spill of oil or fuel, steps must be taken to clean
Operator &
11. Spill Response 11.1 product with absorbent material which is to be disposed as As required
contractor(s)
hazardous waste.

Mills & Otten 29 MO4261

Environmental Consultants October 2019
 Responsible
Impacts / Issues Action Frequency of Action
Party
In the event of a spill, the source of a spill shall be isolated and the
11.2 spill shall be contained and clean-up procedures implemented Operator Ongoing
immediately.
Any leaks from pipelines or tanks must be attended to immediately,
11.3 the leak isolated, spill and contaminated materials recovered and the Operator Ongoing
general area treated with an absorbing agent.
In the event of a large spill, the operator shall immediately inform the
local Fire Department and the Oil Company. Appropriate
professional spill management professionals shall be appointed to
Operator &
11.4 ensure that the extent of contamination is determined and the As required
contractor(s)
affected area(s) cleaned up appropriately. The Department of Water
and Sanitation, as well as the Local Authority shall be informed of the
incident and remedial actions taken.

Appropriate buffer zones will be implemented in the design of the

12.1 facility. Staff must at all times be aware of the precautions Operator Ongoing
associated with the handling of products as described in the MSDS.

Employees must be trained in emergency procedures such as fire

control and spill management. An emergency response plan must be
12.2 Operator Ongoing
compiled and implemented on site and all employees must be
familiar with the contents thereof.
12. Fires /
explosions
Sufficient water must be available for fire-fighting purposes. Relevant
personnel must be trained in responsible fire protection measures
and good housekeeping. Enough spill kits must be available on site
12.3 Operator Ongoing
to accommodate potential spillages. Regular inspections must be
carried out to inspect and test fire-fighting equipment and pollution
control materials.

12.4 Relevant SANS Standards shall be implemented at the facility. Operator Ongoing

13. Alien invasive An invasive species and weed management and control plan must be
species 13.1 implemented to ensure that surrounding natural areas do not become Operator Ongoing
management susceptible to invasion by alien invasive species or weeds.

Mills & Otten 30 MO4261

Environmental Consultants October 2019
12 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME: DECOMMISSIONING PHASE

Table 6: EMPr for the proposed filling station on Portion 101 (a portion of Portion 82) of the Farm Langlaagte 186-IR, Heidelberg:
Decommissioning Phase
Impacts / Responsible
Action Frequency of Action
Issues Party
DECOMMISSIONING PHASE
The decommissioning of existing facilities or infrastructure for storage, or
storage and handling, of dangerous goods of more than 80 cubic metres is
an activity that requires Environmental Authorisation in terms of the EIA
Regulations (2014), as amended, and NEMA (Act 107 of 1998).
Management and mitigation measures for the decommissioning of the site In preparation for
Legislation 1 Operator
will be compiled at such time as the application for environmental decommissioning
authorization for decommissioning is submitted. Allowing such planning at a
future time, nearer the closure event, will ensure that the prevailing
legislation at that time can be applied to the decommissioning of the facility.
As a minimum, the following management measures are recommended.
Once-off prior to the
Inform the relevant authorities (local municipality, GDARD, DWS) of closure commencement of
General 2 Operator
of the filling station. decommissioning
activities
Restrict vehicle movement to necessary trips. Dust suppression to be
carried out according to prevailing site-specific conditions. Ensure proper
Air Quality and vehicle maintenance. Restrict work times to normal working hours. Operator /
3 Continuous
Noise Refuelling to be done off-site or over appropriate drip trays / in appropriate Contractor
bunded facilities. Vehicles and machinery to be properly maintained to
reduce noise and emissions.
Plan movement of vehicles off site so as not to coincide with peak-hour
Traffic 4 traffic. Ensure vehicles are well maintained and that building rubble is Contractor Continuous
covered so as not to be dispersed by wind when traveling.
The tanks will be removed in strict accordance with the relevant SANS Contractor /
Pollution 5 Standards and by a competent, sufficiently qualified and experienced service Continuous
Developer
provider. A contamination assessment must be undertaken to identify and

Mills & Otten 31 MO4261

Environmental Consultants October 2019
 determine the extent and potential significance of any hydrocarbon
contamination present on site. Remediation in terms of the NEMWA (Act 59
of 2008) Part 8 must be followed. Financial provision for this remediation is
required from the developer.

Strict access control to the site must be implemented to ensure unauthorized

persons do not access the site. The site must be managed in strict
6 Contractor Continuous
accordance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act and strict safety
Safety and
standards.
Security
A community liaison officer may assist during the decommissioning phase to
7 Contractor Continuous
address community concerns related to the decommissioning activities.

A rehabilitation plan must be compiled for the Decommissioning application Once-off prior to
Project
Rehabilitation 8 for the site. The rehabilitation plan must be approved by the Competent commencement of
Proponent
Authority. decommissioning.

Signed as acceptance of conditions on behalf of Project Manager:………………………………………………………………………………..

Date: ……………………………………………………..

Signed as acceptance of conditions on behalf of Principal Contractor:……………………………………………………………………………

Date: ……………………………………………………..

Mills & Otten 32 MO4261

Environmental Consultants October 2019
APPENDIX A: CV OF THE EAP
 CURRICULUM VITAE

NAME : KIRSTIN MARY OTTEN (Pr.Sci.Nat.)

EDUCATION : University of the Witwatersrand

QUALIFICATIONS : 1981 B.Sc. (Chemistry, Biochemistry, Genetics)

MEMBERSHIP : Institute of Waste Management, Member IAIAsa, EWT, NICOLA

REGISTRATION : Professional Environmental Scientist (Pr.Sci.Nat.) 400088/97

Registered Environmental Assessment Practitioner 2019/237

LANGUAGES : English and Afrikaans.

CAREER : 1982 - 1983 Research Scientist at Central Laboratory, South African

Breweries. 1983 - 1987 Employed in various positions by Waste-tech
(Pty) Ltd. Positions held included Laboratory Manager, Hazardous
Waste Officer and Environmental Protection Manager, with EIA and
auditing responsibilities as well as government liaison for permitting
purposes. 1987 - 1992 Freelance environmental consultant.
1992 - Present. Director, Mills & Otten Environmental Consultants (Pty)
Ltd.
EXPERIENCE
Waste Management: Responsible for the operation of hazardous waste
facilities including laboratory; identification of new disposal sites;
development of environmental auditing systems and personnel training.
Consulting work done on numerous projects such as the identification,
investigation, design, commissioning, operation, closure and permitting of
landfill sites as well as strategy development for metropolitan areas and
Town Councils. Waste minimisation strategies developed for industrial
clients.

Impact Assessments: Numerous environmental impact assessments

have been undertaken for different development proposals. Impact
matrices are developed for each individual project and detailed public
participation is undertaken.

Environmental Auditing: Ongoing auditing of different facilities for due

diligence purposes and EMP auditing. A specific audit procedure for
petrochemical depots and service stations which includes the
determination of relative risk to the environment was developed. Audits
are conducted in terms of current legislation across all disciplines of
relevant Acts and Regulations and in terms of IFC criteria.

Contamination Assessments: Monitoring of contamination of surface and

groundwater as well as soils. Extensive investigation of the nature and
significance of contamination and determination of suitable remediation
methodology, such as bioremediation or chemical treatment.

Research: Assessment of different analytical techniques, specifically for

petroleum contamination, in association with local and international
laboratories. Investigation into the specific chemistry of petroleum
products in water and the environmental consequences thereof.

Licensing: Air Emission license, Waste Management License and Water

Use license applications on behalf of various clients for existing and
proposed facilities.

Mills & Otten

Environmental Consultants Tel: (011) 486 0062, Fax: (011) 486 0088
APPENDIX B: WEEKLY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (EXAMPLE)
 CONSTRUCTION PHASE WEEKLY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Date

Time

Checked By (Name)

Checked By (Signature)

INSTRUCTIONS

• This checklist is to be completed on a weekly basis whilst construction activities are occurring on site.
• These checklists must be kept on file and provided to the ECO monthly during site visits.
• Photographic evidence of observations, as well as any remedial action undertaken must also be kept.
• The requirements listed in the Table below must be rated on a weekly basis as one of the following:

Yes If the requirement is being met in full and the site is compliant
No If the requirement is not being met and the site is thus not complying with this
requirement
Partial If the requirement is not met in full, but concerted effort has been made to meet the
requirement and no environmental impacts are occurring from the current situation.
Please include an explanation in the “comments” column (if there is insufficient
space you may attach a separate page to this checklist).
Not Applicable (N/A) If the requirement is not applicable to the current phase of the construction
activities. Please include an explanation in the “comments” column (if there is
insufficient space you may attach a separate page to this checklist).
No Requirement Yes No Partial N/A
1 Is there a copy of the environmental authorization and EMP available at the site?
2 Are the contact details of the emergency services displayed at the site?
3 Are fire-fighting facilities present on site and have these been serviced?
4 Is security and access control at the site adequate?
5 Do all workers have access to the required PPE and is the use of PPE enforced?
6 Are all materials, vehicles and machinery stored in secure and appropriate areas?
7 Is there any evidence of fires being made on site?
8 Are there adequate chemical toilets on site and being used?
9 Is there sufficient potable water for drinking and ablution purposes on site?
10 Are there any dangerous or toxic substances being stored on site?
11 If any dangerous or toxic substances are being stored on site are MSDS available?
12 Has any vehicles maintenance occurred on site today?
13 Is there any evidence anywhere on the site of hydrocarbon spills?
14 Is there any evidence of cement mixing, outside of the designated area?
15 Are the stockpiles and spoil heaps protected from erosion? Is there any erosion on the site?
16 Have the access points to the site been cleaned of dust and mud?
17 Has any construction occurred outside of the allowed working hours?
18 Have any complaints regarding the construction activities been received?
19 Are there adequate waste bins on site (for general and hazardous waste respectively)?
20 Has any waste been removed from the site?
21 Has any hazardous waste been removed? (Chain of custody, safe disposal certificates?
22 Is there litter on the site?
23 Is contaminated storm water discharging to sewer, stormwater or surrounding environment?
24 Are there adequate warning signs displayed to manage traffic?
25 Has the weekly inspection been undertaken and has the checklist been filed?
26 Any other observations:
APPENDIX C: ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS TRAINING POSTER FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION PHASE (EXAMPLE)
 Appendix I:

Other Information
Appendix I-1: Impact Assessment Tables
 IMPACT ASSESSMENT: CONSTRUCTION PHASE

Nature of the Impact

(with no mitigation)
Significance Rating

Significance Rating

Risk of Mitigation
(with mitigation)
With or without
environmental
Environmental

importance of

implemented
Consequence
Sensitivity /

Significance
Magnitude

Probability
Intensity /
mitigation

not being
Duration
Activity

Impact
aspect
Aspect

Extent
Function and/or processes of the
Impact Impacts on
Moderately affected environmental aspect is Highly
3 without neighbouring 2 Permanent 5 3 13 4 52
sensitive: disturbed to an extent where it probable Medium: the mitigation
mitigation properties
Loss of habitat Contains unique temporarily ceases proposed is not standard
Construction Activities Loss of habitat quality / ecological
and features, under Negative Moderate Low practice or is often ignored by
(Site clearing) processes and ecosystem services.
biodiversity threat and/or of The activity affects the aspect in such a contractors, but is not difficult
value to some Impact With Activity Footprint or way that the aspect is altered, but or complicated to implement
3 1 Permanent 5 2 11 Probable 3 33
stakeholders Mitigation site only functions and processes continue in a
modified way
Construction or Function and/or processes of the
Impact Impacts on entire
decommissioning affected environmental aspect is Highly
Moderate to 4 without neighbourhood or 3 2 3 12 4 48
period (less than 1 disturbed to an extent where it probable Medium: the mitigation
highly sensitive: mitigation town
Construction Activities year) temporarily ceases proposed is not standard
pristine, rare,
(Site clearing, building, Surface water Contamination of water resources Negative Moderate Low practice or is often ignored by
under threat and Construction or The activity affects the aspect in such a
etc) Impacts on contractors, but is not difficult
valuable to the Impact With decommissioning way that the aspect is altered, but
4 neighbouring 2 2 2 10 Probable 3 30 or complicated to implement
community Mitigation period (less than 1 functions and processes continue in a
properties
year) modified way

Construction or The activity affects the aspect in such a

Impact Impacts on entire
decommissioning way that the aspect is altered, but
5 without neighbourhood or 3 2 2 12 Probable 3 36
period (less than 1 functions and processes continue in a
mitigation town
year) modified way
Highly sensitive:
protected by
Construction Activities Low: the mitigation proposed is
legislation,
(Site clearing, building, Groundwater Contamination / Water quality Negative Low Low standard practice in the
pristine, unique,
etc) Construction or The activity affects the aspect in such a industry
valued by Impacts on
Impact With decommissioning way that the aspect is altered, but Possible but
community 5 neighbouring 2 2 2 11 2 22
Mitigation period (less than 1 functions and processes continue in a unlikely
properties
year) modified way

Impact The activity affects the aspect in such a

Activity Footprint or For the life of the
1 without 1 4 way that natural processes are not 1 7 Probable 3 21
site only operation
Not sensitive - mitigation affected
Construction Activities widespread, Low: the mitigation proposed is
Geotechnical Potentially collapsible soils could result in
(Site clearing, building, disturbed, not of Negative Low Negligible standard practice in the
stability structural damage.
etc) concern to industry
I&APs Construction or
The activity affects the aspect in such a
Impact With Activity Footprint or decommissioning Possible but
1 1 2 way that natural processes are not 1 5 2 10
Mitigation site only period (less than 1 unlikely
affected
year)

Construction or Function and/or processes of the

Impact Impacts on
decommissioning affected environmental aspect is Highly
2 without neighbouring 2 2 3 9 4 36
Somewhat period (less than 1 disturbed to an extent where it probable
mitigation properties Medium: the mitigation
sensitive: not year) temporarily ceases
Construction Activities proposed is not standard
Soil pollution totally unique, of Contamination, erosion, quality /
(Site clearing, building, Negative Low Low practice or is often ignored by
and Erosion value to some quantity / Sedimentation of wetland Construction or The activity affects the aspect in such a
etc) contractors, but is not difficult
I&APs but not Impact With Activity Footprint or decommissioning way that the aspect is altered, but
2 1 2 2 7 Probable 3 21 or complicated to implement
the majority Mitigation site only period (less than 1 functions and processes continue in a
year) modified way

Construction or The activity affects the aspect in such a

Impact Impacts on
decommissioning way that the aspect is altered, but Highly
Moderately 3 without neighbouring 2 2 2 9 4 36
period (less than 1 functions and processes continue in a probable
sensitive: mitigation properties
year) modified way
Construction Activities Contains unique Low: the mitigation proposed is
(Site clearing, building, Air Quality features, under Dust / nuisance Negative Low Low standard practice in the
etc) threat and/or of industry
value to some Construction or
The activity affects the aspect in such a
stakeholders Impact With Activity Footprint or decommissioning
3 1 2 way that natural processes are not 1 7 Probable 3 21
Mitigation site only period (less than 1
affected
year)

Construction or The activity affects the aspect in such a

Impact Impacts on
Moderately decommissioning way that the aspect is altered, but
3 without neighbouring 2 2 2 9 Probable 3 27
sensitive: period (less than 1 functions and processes continue in a
mitigation properties
Construction Activities Contains unique year) modified way Low: the mitigation proposed is
Noise
(Site clearing, building, features, under Noise nuisance, nearby residential areas Negative Low Negligible standard practice in the
Disturbance Construction or
etc) threat and/or of The activity affects the aspect in such a industry
value to some Impact With Activity Footprint or decommissioning Possible but
3 1 2 way that natural processes are not 1 7 2 14
stakeholders Mitigation site only period (less than 1 unlikely
affected
year)

Construction or The activity affects the aspect in such a

Impact Impacts on
decommissioning way that the aspect is altered, but
Somewhat 2 without neighbouring 2 2 2 8 Probable 3 24
period (less than 1 functions and processes continue in a Medium: the mitigation
sensitive: not mitigation properties
Construction Activities year) modified way proposed is not standard
totally unique, of
(Site clearing, building, Traffic Impact Traffic delays, Safety Negative Low Negligible practice or is often ignored by
value to some Construction or The activity affects the aspect in such a
etc) Impacts on contractors, but is not difficult
I&APs but not Impact With decommissioning way that the aspect is altered, but Possible but
2 neighbouring 2 2 2 8 2 16 or complicated to implement
the majority Mitigation period (less than 1 functions and processes continue in a unlikely
properties
year) modified way

Construction or The activity affects the aspect in such a

Somewhat Impact Impacts on
decommissioning way that the aspect is altered, but
sensitive: not 2 without neighbouring 2 2 2 8 Probable 3 24
Construction Activities period (less than 1 functions and processes continue in a Low: the mitigation proposed is
totally unique, of mitigation properties
(Site clearing, building, Visual Impact Impact on aesthetic nature of the area Negative year) modified way Low Negligible standard practice in the
value to some Construction or
etc) The activity affects the aspect in such a industry
I&APs but not Impact With Activity Footprint or decommissioning Possible but
2 1 2 way that natural processes are not 1 6 2 12
the majority Mitigation site only period (less than 1 unlikely
affected
year)
Impact Impacts on Construction or The activity affects the aspect in such a
Moderate to Highly
4 without neighbouring 2 decommissioning 2 way that the aspect is altered, but 2 10 4 40
highly sensitive: probable
Construction Activities mitigation properties period (less than 1 functions and processes continue in a Low: the mitigation proposed is
pristine, rare,
(Site clearing, building, Safety Workers and Public Safety Negative Construction or The activity affects the aspect in such a Moderate Low standard practice in the
under threat and
etc) Impact With Activity Footprint or decommissioning way that the aspect is altered, but industry
valuable to the 4 1 2 2 9 Probable 3 27
Mitigation site only period (less than 1 functions and processes continue in a
community
year) modified way

Highly sensitive: Impact Construction or Function and/or processes of the

Activity Footprint or Possible but Medium: the mitigation
protected by 5 without 1 decommissioning 2 affected environmental aspect is 4 12 2 24
Construction Activities site only unlikely proposed is not standard
Cultural or legislation, mitigation period (less than 1 disturbed to an extent where it
(Site clearing, building, Heritage items Negative Construction or Function and/or processes of the Low Negligible practice or is often ignored by
Historical Sites pristine, unique,
etc) Impact With Activity Footprint or decommissioning affected environmental aspect is contractors, but is not difficult
valued by 5 1 2 4 12 Improbable 1 12
Mitigation site only period (less than 1 disturbed to an extent where it or complicated to implement
community
year) permanently ceases
Moderately Impact Impacts on entire Construction or Function and/or processes of the
Highly
sensitive: 3 without neighbourhood or 3 decommissioning 2 affected environmental aspect is 3 11 4 44 Medium: the mitigation
probable
Construction Activities Contains unique mitigation town period (less than 1 disturbed to an extent where it proposed is not standard
Waste
(Site clearing, building, features, under Pollution of air, soil and water resources Negative Construction or The activity affects the aspect in such a Moderate Low practice or is often ignored by
Generation
etc) threat and/or of Impact With Activity Footprint or decommissioning way that the aspect is altered, but contractors, but is not difficult
3 1 2 2 8 Probable 3 24
value to some Mitigation site only period (less than 1 functions and processes continue in a or complicated to implement
stakeholders year) modified way
Moderately Impact Construction or The activity affects the aspect in such a
Activity Footprint or Possible but Medium: the mitigation
sensitive: 3 without 1 decommissioning 2 way that natural processes are not 1 7 2 14
Construction Activities site only unlikely proposed is not standard
Contains unique mitigation period (less than 1 affected
Socio-
(Site clearing, building, features, under Employment Positive Construction or Negligible Low practice or is often ignored by
Economic Impacts on entire The activity affects the aspect in such a
etc) threat and/or of Impact With decommissioning contractors, but is not difficult
3 neighbourhood or 3 2 way that natural processes are not 1 9 Probable 3 27
value to some Mitigation period (less than 1 or complicated to implement
town affected
stakeholders year)
 IMPACT ASSESSMENT: OPERATIONAL PHASE

With or without

Rating (with no
environmental
Environmental

Mitigation not
importance of

implemented
Nature of the

Consequence
Sensitivity /

Rating (with
Significance

Significance

Significance
Probability

mitigation)

mitigation)
Magnitude
Intensity /
mitigation

Duration
Activity

Impact

Impact
Aspect

aspect

Extent

Risk of

being
Function and/or processes of the
Impact Impacts on entire
For the life of the affected environmental aspect is
Moderate to highly 4 without neighbourhood or 3 4 3 14 Probable 3 42
operation disturbed to an extent where it
sensitive: pristine, mitigation town Low: the mitigation
Operation of Pollution / temporarily ceases
Surface Water rare, under threat Negative Moderate Low proposed is standard
filling station Sedimentation
and valuable to the The activity affects the aspect in such a practice in the industry
Impacts on entire
community Impact With For the life of the way that the aspect is altered, but Possible but
4 neighbourhood or 3 4 2 13 2 26
Mitigation operation functions and processes continue in a unlikely
town
modified way

Function and/or processes of the

Impact Impacts on
For the life of the affected environmental aspect is
Moderate to highly 4 without neighbouring 2 4 3 13 Probable 3 39
Soils and operation disturbed to an extent where it
sensitive: pristine, mitigation properties Low: the mitigation
Operation of Groundwater temporarily ceases
rare, under threat Pollution / Erosion Negative Low Low proposed is standard
filling station Pollution and
and valuable to the The activity affects the aspect in such a practice in the industry
Erosion
community Impact With Activity Footprint For the life of the way that the aspect is altered, but Possible but
4 1 4 2 11 2 22
Mitigation or site only operation functions and processes continue in a unlikely
modified way

Impact Impacts on The activity affects the aspect in such a

For the life of the Possible but
2 without neighbouring 2 4 way that natural processes are not 1 9 2 18
operation unlikely
mitigation properties affected
Somewhat sensitive:
Low: the mitigation
Operation of not totally unique, of
Noise Noise Disturbance Negative Negligible Negligible proposed is standard
filling station value to some I&APs
practice in the industry
but not the majority
The activity affects the aspect in such a
Impact With Activity Footprint For the life of the
2 1 4 way that natural processes are not 1 8 Improbable 1 8
Mitigation or site only operation
affected

The activity affects the aspect in such a

Impact Impacts on
For the life of the way that the aspect is altered, but
2 without neighbouring 2 4 2 10 Probable 3 30
operation functions and processes continue in a
mitigation properties
modified way
Somewhat sensitive:
Low: the mitigation
Operation of not totally unique, of Impact on aesthetic
Visual Impact Negative Low Negligible proposed is standard
filling station value to some I&APs nature of area
practice in the industry
but not the majority
The activity affects the aspect in such a
Impacts on
Impact With For the life of the way that the aspect is altered, but Possible but
2 neighbouring 2 4 2 10 2 20
Mitigation operation functions and processes continue in a unlikely
properties
modified way

The activity affects the aspect in such a

Impact Impacts on
For the life of the way that the aspect is altered, but Possible but
4 without neighbouring 2 4 2 12 2 24
operation functions and processes continue in a unlikely
mitigation properties
Moderate to highly modified way
sensitive: pristine, Low: the mitigation
Operation of Contamination / Air
Air Pollution rare, under threat Negative Low Negligible proposed is standard
filling station Quality
and valuable to the practice in the industry
community The activity affects the aspect in such a
Impacts on
Impact With For the life of the way that the aspect is altered, but
4 neighbouring 2 4 2 12 Improbable 1 12
Mitigation operation functions and processes continue in a
properties
modified way

The activity affects the aspect in such a

Impact Impacts on
For the life of the way that the aspect is altered, but
2 without neighbouring 2 4 2 10 Probable 3 30
operation functions and processes continue in a
mitigation properties
modified way
Somewhat sensitive:
Low: the mitigation
Operation of not totally unique, of
Traffic Impact Traffic flow Negative Low Negligible proposed is standard
filling station value to some I&APs
practice in the industry
but not the majority
The activity affects the aspect in such a
Impacts on
Impact With For the life of the way that the aspect is altered, but Possible but
2 neighbouring 2 4 2 10 2 20
Mitigation operation functions and processes continue in a unlikely
properties
modified way

Function and/or processes of the

Impact Impacts on
For the life of the affected environmental aspect is Highly
2 without neighbouring 2 4 3 11 4 44
operation disturbed to an extent where it probable
mitigation properties
temporarily ceases
Somewhat sensitive:
Low: the mitigation
Operation of Waste not totally unique, of
Pollution Negative Moderate Low proposed is standard
filling station Generation value to some I&APs
practice in the industry
but not the majority
The activity affects the aspect in such a
Impact With Activity Footprint For the life of the way that the aspect is altered, but
2 1 4 2 9 Probable 3 27
Mitigation or site only operation functions and processes continue in a
modified way

Function and/or processes of the

Impact Impacts on entire
For the life of the affected environmental aspect is Possible but
4 without neighbourhood or 3 4 4 15 2 30
operation disturbed to an extent where it unlikely
mitigation town
Moderate to highly permanently ceases
sensitive: pristine, Low: the mitigation
Operation of
Safety rare, under threat Fires and explosions Negative Low Negligible proposed is standard
filling station
and valuable to the practice in the industry
community Function and/or processes of the
Impacts on
Impact With For the life of the affected environmental aspect is
4 neighbouring 2 4 4 14 Improbable 1 14
Mitigation operation disturbed to an extent where it
properties
permanently ceases

The activity affects the aspect in such a

Impact Impacts on
For the life of the way that the aspect is altered, but
2 without neighbouring 2 4 2 10 Probable 3 30
Somewhat sensitive: operation functions and processes continue in a
mitigation properties Low: the mitigation
Operation of not totally unique, of modified way
Negative Low Negligible proposed is standard
filling station value to some I&APs
practice in the industry
but not the majority The activity affects the aspect in such a
Impacts on
Impact With For the life of the way that the aspect is altered, but Possible but
2 neighbouring 2 4 2 10 2 20
Mitigation operation functions and processes continue in a unlikely
properties
modified way

Function and/or processes of the

Impact Impacts on
For the life of the affected environmental aspect is Highly
2 without neighbouring 2 4 3 11 4 44
Somewhat sensitive: operation disturbed to an extent where it probable
mitigation properties Low: the mitigation
Operation of not totally unique, of temporarily ceases
Negative Moderate Low proposed is standard
filling station value to some I&APs The activity affects the aspect in such a practice in the industry
but not the majority Impact With Activity Footprint For the life of the way that the aspect is altered, but
2 1 4 2 9 Probable 3 27
Mitigation or site only operation functions and processes continue in a
modified way
 IMPACT ASSESSMENT: DECOMMISSIONING PHASE

With or without

Rating (with no
environmental
Environmental

Mitigation not
importance of

Nature of the

implemented
Consequence

Rating (with
Sensitivity /

Significance

Significance
Significance
Magnitude

Probability

mitigation)

mitigation)
Intensity /
mitigation

Duration
Activity

Impact

Impact
Aspect

aspect

Extent

Risk of

Moderately sensitive: 3
Contains unique
Decommissioning and
features, under
removal of structures Noise and Dust
threat and/or of
and infrastructure
value to some
stakeholders 3 2
Moderate to highly
Decommissioning and sensitive: pristine,
removal of structures Surface Water rare, under threat
and infrastructure and valuable to the
community
Moderate to highly
Decommissioning and sensitive: pristine,
removal of structures Groundwater rare, under threat
and infrastructure and valuable to the
community
Moderately sensitive: 3
Contains unique
Decommissioning and
features, under
removal of structures Soil Pollution
threat and/or of
and infrastructure
value to some
stakeholders 3 2
Moderately sensitive:
Contains unique 3 without
Decommissioning and
Waste features, under
removal of structures
Generation threat and/or of
and infrastructure
value to some
stakeholders 3 1
Somewhat sensitive:
Decommissioning and
not totally unique, of
removal of structures Traffic Impact
value to some I&APs
and infrastructure
but not the majority
being
Construction or The activity affects the aspect in such
Impact
Impacts on decommissioning a way that the aspect is altered, but
without 2 2 2 9 Probable 3 27
neighbouring properties period (less than 1 functions and processes continue in a Low: the mitigation
mitigation
year) modified way proposed is standard
Nuisance Negative Low Negligible
practice in the
Construction or The activity affects the aspect in such
industry
Impact With Impacts on decommissioning a way that the aspect is altered, but Possible but
2 2 9 2 18
Mitigation neighbouring properties period (less than 1 functions and processes continue in a unlikely
year) modified way
Construction or Function and/or processes of the
Impact
Impacts on entire decommissioning affected environmental aspect is
4 without 3 2 3 12 Probable 3 36
neighbourhood or town period (less than 1 disturbed to an extent where it Low: the mitigation
mitigation
Contamination of surface year) temporarily ceases proposed is standard
Negative Low Negligible
water run off Construction or The activity affects the aspect in such practice in the
Impact With Impacts on decommissioning a way that the aspect is altered, but Possible but industry
4 2 2 2 10 2 20
Mitigation neighbouring properties period (less than 1 functions and processes continue in a unlikely
year) modified way
Construction or Function and/or processes of the
Impact
Impacts on entire decommissioning affected environmental aspect is
4 without 3 2 5 14 Probable 3 42
neighbourhood or town period (less than 1 disturbed to an extent where it Low: the mitigation
mitigation
Contamination of year) permanently ceases proposed is standard
Negative Moderate Low
groundwater Construction or Function and/or processes of the practice in the
Impact With Impacts on entire decommissioning affected environmental aspect is Possible but industry
4 3 2 5 14 2 28
Mitigation neighbourhood or town period (less than 1 disturbed to an extent where it unlikely
year) permanently ceases
Construction or Function and/or processes of the
Impact
Impacts on decommissioning affected environmental aspect is
without 2 2 3 10 Probable 3 30
neighbouring properties period (less than 1 disturbed to an extent where it Low: the mitigation
mitigation
Contamination of soil year) temporarily ceases proposed is standard
Negative Low Low
resources Construction or Function and/or processes of the practice in the
Impact With Impacts on decommissioning affected environmental aspect is Possible but industry
2 3 10 2 20
Mitigation neighbouring properties period (less than 1 disturbed to an extent where it unlikely
year) temporarily ceases
Medium: the
Construction or Function and/or processes of the mitigation proposed
Impact
Impacts on decommissioning affected environmental aspect is is not standard
2 2 3 10 Probable 3 30
neighbouring properties period (less than 1 disturbed to an extent where it practice or is often
mitigation
Pollution Negative year) temporarily ceases Low Low ignored by
Construction or contractors, but is not
The activity affects the aspect in such
Impact With Activity Footprint or site decommissioning difficult or
2 a way that natural processes are not 1 7 Probable 3 21
Mitigation only period (less than 1 complicated to
affected
year) implement
Construction or The activity affects the aspect in such
Impact
Impacts on decommissioning a way that the aspect is altered, but
2 without 2 2 2 8 Probable 3 24
neighbouring properties period (less than 1 functions and processes continue in a Low: the mitigation
mitigation
year) modified way proposed is standard
Traffic Flow / Safety Negative Low Negligible
Construction or practice in the
The activity affects the aspect in such
Impact With Impacts on decommissioning Possible but industry
2 2 2 a way that natural processes are not 1 7 2 14
Mitigation neighbouring properties period (less than 1 unlikely
affected
year)

Construction or The activity affects the aspect in such

Impact
Activity Footprint or site decommissioning a way that the aspect is altered, but
Moderately sensitive: 3 Negative without
only
1
period (less than 1
2
functions and processes continue in a
2 8 Probable 3 24
Contains unique mitigation Low: the mitigation
Decommissioning and year) modified way
features, under proposed is standard
removal of structures Safety Injuries / Safety Low Negligible
threat and/or of practice in the
and infrastructure Construction or The activity affects the aspect in such
value to some industry
stakeholders Impact With Activity Footprint or site decommissioning a way that the aspect is altered, but Possible but
3 Negative 1 2 2 8 2 16
Mitigation only period (less than 1 functions and processes continue in a unlikely
year) modified way

Construction or Function and/or processes of the

Impact
Impacts on decommissioning affected environmental aspect is
4 Negative without 2 2 3 11 Probable 3 33
Moderate to highly neighbouring properties period (less than 1 disturbed to an extent where it
mitigation Low: the mitigation
Decommissioning and sensitive: pristine, year) temporarily ceases
Residual proposed is standard
removal of structures rare, under threat Pollution Low Low
contamination practice in the
and infrastructure and valuable to the Construction or The activity affects the aspect in such industry
community Impact With Activity Footprint or site decommissioning a way that the aspect is altered, but
4 Negative 1 2 2 9 Probable 3 27
Mitigation only period (less than 1 functions and processes continue in a
year) modified way