Case Decision - 352953

Interim Comment:

The following comments are made as requirement in terms of section 3(4) of the NEMA Regulations and section 38(8) of the NHRA in the format provided in section 38(3) of the NHRA.

• The HIA report is not comprehensive and does not meet the requirements of section 38(3). 
• The desktop study identified a cemetery which was not identified by the field-based assessment. 
• The HIA recommends the fencing of the cemetery which was not identified during the field-based assessment. 
• A comprehensive consultation of communities was not undertaken as the submitted proof shows a circulation of the BID without responses from adjacent community members and stakeholders.
• Section 38(3)a of the NHRA requires the identification of all heritage resources in the proposed development area; therefore, it appears that the proposed development footprint was not thoroughly walked hence the cemetery identified on Google Earth was not identified during the field study. 
• A field study covering the entire development footprint is required.
• Section 38(3)e of the NHRA requires “the results of consultation with communities affected by the proposed development and other interested and affected parties regarding the impact of the development on heritage resources”;
• As such, the identification of the cemetery must be confirmed through comprehensive consultation with communities as cited above.
• The assessment of significance of all identified heritage resources in terms of section 38(3)b of the NHRA.
• A tracklog of the survey must be added to the revised HIA.
• Further comments will be issued upon submission of the revised Heritage Impact Assessment that meets the requirements of section 38(3) as outlined, including the DEIA with associated appendices.