The following risk management measures are applicable to a NEW INFRASTRUCTURE development within the GRNP.
| 4.1 |
A proponent of a new infrastructure development seaward of the CML must demonstrate that the following principles have been followed with the proposed development. |
| 4.1.1 |
The proponent sought to avoid development of the proposed infrastructure seaward of the CML but there are sound reasons why this cannot be achieved, which are articulated in the development proposal. |
| 4.1.2 |
The footprint of the proposed development area is only located seaward of the CML to the extent that this is necessary for the structural integrity, safety of the development and the aesthetic value of the development, which cannot be achieved by locating the development landward of the CML. |
| 4.1.3 |
That the impact of predicted hazards to the proposed development will be minimised by employing suitable design modifications, for example the use of stilts; and |
| 4.1.4 |
mitigate impacts on proposed development where development seaward of the CML is deemed necessary. |
| 4.2 |
Where development of new infrastructure is proposed seaward of the CML in the GRNP, the following rules will apply. |
| 4.2.1 |
SANParks should only develop or approve the development of infrastructure seaward of the CML— |
| (a) |
if the proposed infrastructure, by their nature, require them to be situated seaward of the CML; or |
| (b) |
if alternative development proposals were investigated and presented to the delegated official responsible for approving infrastructure development within the GRNP as part of any development proposal and approval process. |
| 4.2.2 |
In circumstances where no alternative locations are feasible or reasonable, such infrastructure must be located so as to minimise risk faced by the infrastructure from dynamic coastal processes and must be developed in such a way to minimise impacts on the environment, surrounding infrastructure and other users of the area. |
| 4.2.3 |
Any new development must take into account shifting risks and the level of vulnerability such as the likelihood of shifting the coastal risk e.g. shifting risk downstream when retention walls are placed along estuaries, as well as the likelihood of liabilities. |
The following risk management measures are applicable to EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE developments.
| 4.3 |
Where maintenance of infrastructure is proposed in areas at risk to dynamic coastal process which may adversely affect the structural integrity of the infrastructure or the safety of those who occupy it, the following will apply. |
| 4.3.1 |
A feasibility study on the maintenance of infrastructure seaward of the CML must be completed within 10 years of publication of this CML and which must address— |
| (a) |
costs estimates associated with the infrastructure over a ten (10) year horizon if the infrastructure is to be retained as well as if the infrastructure is to be moved landwards of the CML; and |
| (b) |
the long-term implications on the GRNP if such infrastructure is revenue generating infrastructure. |
| 4.3.2 |
Should the maintenance of existing infrastructure be considered unfeasible or uneconomical by SANParks or the competent authority, SANParks must develop a plan for moving such infrastructure landwards of the CML or for the removal of such infrastructure, including time frames for the moving of that infrastructure. |
| 4.3.3 |
Should the maintenance of existing infrastructure be considered feasible or economical, SANParks must— |
| (a) |
prepare a plan, within 10 years of the publication of this CML, which is aligned with the GNRP Management Plan, to provide for the modification of structures to reduce any adverse impacts from coastal processes; and |
| (b) |
develop a strategy within 10 years of publication of this CML which addresses the movement of infrastructure which is at risk of being adverse impacted by coastal processes to locations landward of the CML. |
South African Institute for Drug Free Sport Act, 1997
