Skukuza Hotel Progress (Kruger National Park)

[Lisbeth]

I'm looking forward to the minutes of the meet

[Toko]

I'm looking forward to the minutes of the meet

[Richprins]

Big media confab at Skuks tomorrow...Hotel and poaching!

[Mel]

Are you invited, RP?

[Richprins]

No...but who knows?

[H. erectus]

Here we go,....




Meeting Minutes for Review: Skukuza Safari Lodge Public Meeting 29 November 2014

Dear attending party

Please find attached the draft meeting minutes for review of the meeting held on the 29th of November 2014 at the SANParks Head Office.

We would appreciate if you could provide us with feedback on the minutes by the 14th of January 2015.

Kind regards




MINUTES FOR THE PRETORIA SKUKUZA SAFARI LODGE BAR PUBLIC MEETING
Date: 29 November 2014 Meeting Minutes
Time: 10:10 Place: SANParks Head Office
Attendees that commented (for the full list of attendees kindly refer to the attendance register):
Please refer to attendance register for full list and further attendees details.
Name Organisation
David de Waal (DdW)
)
AECOM (independent facilitator)
Lanette Smit (LS) Private
Gerhard Smit (GS) AIKONA
Nigel Fernsby (NF) Private
Fred de Groot (FdG) Africa Wild
Elise Tempelhoff (ET) Media 24
Henk Bredenoord (HB) Premier Hotels
Herman Gildenhuys (HG) Exigo Sustainability
Tom Hatting (TH) TH Architects
Corli Havenga (CH) Corli Havenga Traffic engineers
Graham Young (GY) NLA
Blake Schraader (BS) SANParks
Alan Kemp (AK) EcoAgent
Buks Henning (BH) Exigo Sustainability
Neels Kruger (NK) Exigo Sustainability
Glenn Phillips (GP) SANParks
Freek Venter (FV) SANParks
Joep Stevens (JS) SANParks
Giju Varghese (GV) SANParks
Annemi van Jaarsveld (AvJ) SANParks
Blake Schraader (BS) SANParks
Jutta Berns-Mumbi (JB) Ecolution Consulting, Ecocentric and Solid Green
Andries Venter (AV) Sivest
Apologies
Salomon Joubert Private
Ria Milburn Private
Notes Action
1. Introduction and Welcoming
All the attendees from the applicant and the Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) were
introduced. David de Waal (DdW) requested the I&APs present to also introduce themselves and state
their interest in the project.
2. Meeting Formalities (Agenda, Purpose of the Meeting and Meeting Conduct)
DdW presented that the purpose of the meeting is to give feedback on the studies, discuss potential
impacts and discuss the way forward.
DdW presented the meeting conduct namely:
Fair and structured meeting, Work via the Chairperson, Please switch off cell phones, Don’t get
personal, Please do not interrupt others, For minute purposes: Briefly introduce yourself (name and
interest in the project) before asking a question or making a comment, Please keep questions or
comments to the discussion. Only clarification questions are allowed during the presentation and the
attendees were requested to keep detailed questions for the discussion at the end. Everyone agreed to
the conduct.
The agenda for the meeting was presented and everyone agreed thereto.
3. Project description
Project Overview: Herman Gildenhuys (HG) presented the project localities and description via a
Google Earth Satellite Image presentation. HG explained that the project entails various aspects;
including the lodge and associated infrastructure. HG showed the boundary of the Skukuza Rest Camp
and indicted that the lodge will be situated inside Skukuza Rest Camp, while the ‘Back of House’ will be
located adjacent and within the area used for staff offices. The site is currently used for s taff
accommodation which is earmarked to be moved outside of the Rest Camp into Skukuza Village.
Certain of the lodge staff will not be able to stay outside of the Park due to shifts arrangements and
therefore a 16 sleeper unit for staff is proposed next to the lodge. HG further indicated on the satellite
image that some of the Scientific Services Offices, Working for Water Offices and a small nursery (used
for biological control of alien species) will need to be moved to make way for the lodge. He pointed out
the proposed new locations of these structures. He also indicated the location of four staff houses
proposed where there are currently Park Homes. He explained that 20 houses for staff is proposed
directly to the east of the Living Quarters, as well as a Construction Camp directly to the south. An
anaerobic digester is also proposed next to the existing sewage treatment works. HG also indicated the
proposed positions of the sewage pipeline, water gravity main, water supply pipeline, new reservoir,
and upgrade (new module) at the water treatment works. He indicated that electrical lines are
proposed from the existing Skukuza substation to the lodge. These will be placed underground to
minimise the impact.
Design of the lodge: Tom Hattingh (TH) (architect) described the design of the lodge. The concept
included to create various loose standing structures opposed to a single block building in order to
minimise the visual impact of the lodge. The design also includes the thatched roof sections that are
not covering the whole roof. This reduces the height as the thatch roof needs to be at an angle. The
amount of rooms and the area provided necessitated a double storey (the building will not be higher
than a double storey). The bedroom wings are out to the side. The Lodge will have a courtyard area in
the centre. Deliveries during the operational phase will not be through the Rest Camp as all deliveries
will be from behind on the service road (through Skukuza Village). During the construction phase all
deliveries will be from the west and will also not take place through the Rest Camp. Due to the lodge’s
introvertic design it will give the guest an outdoor experience without compromising the rest of the
camp. Lights will be directed to the centre of the building. Natural material will be used for
construction. Five bungalows will have to be removed to accommodate the lodge. There will also be a
lattice screen in between the bungalows and the lodge which will act as a visual screen.
Gerhard Smit (GS) wanted to know which bungalows will be removed and asked whether any of the
luxury bungalows will be impacted. TH showed the applicable bungalows on the presentation. The
luxury bungalows are situated closer to the Sabie River and will not be impacted.
TM referred to the ‘virgin view’ on slide 10. He showed the lattice screen around the side. Two views of
the lodge (from the north and east) were shown in between the current trees. He indicated that
balconies are proposed only in the VIP suites.
Green building principles: Jutta Berns-Mumbi (JB) explained that she is part of the sustainability
consultants appointed to assist with the green building aspects. They guide the project team on best
international green building guidelines. She referred to the Categories listed on slide 11. They are
making recommendations to ensure that the design is as green as possible and will also recommend
sustainable site erosion control. They assist in ensuring that the project will be socially and
environmental acceptable. They also look at minimisation of water consumption including not to use
drinking water for non-potable uses. They are also looking at ways to lower energy consumption and to
maximise recycling. Recommendations are made regarding the removal of VOCs that is generally found
in paint. The aim is to implement international best practice principles and interventions in line with
recognised and renowned green building rating systems, as well as SANS 1162:2011 for Responsible
Tourism.
Services of the lodge: HG stated that sufficient electricity is available from the current Eskom
agreement. The electricity provision will be supplemented with solar power. Solar panels to be placed
out of view from the tourists staying inside Skukuza Rest Camp. The water required for the lodge will
be within the limits set in current water use licence and no additional water abstraction rights from the
Sabie River will be required. Grey water will be re-used where possible. The sewage upgrades will
include the pipeline and addition of the anaerobic digester. Henk Bredenoord (HB) wanted to know if
there will be a back-up generator. Andries Venter (AV) stated that the existing Skukuza generator still
has enough capacity for the lodge as well.
Motivation: GP gave a presentation on the motivation for the project. He explained the demand for
this type of development. He also stated that SANParks is promoting the Meetings, Incentives,
Conferences and Events (MICE) market. He added that this is an old concept as there are already
conference facilities in the Kruger National Park (KNP). This is used as an exposure mechanism to
people who might not on their own visit the National Parks. They offer research conferences and
international conferences. He added that Skukuza was selected as a suitable location for the lodge due
to various reasons. Firstly to make better use of the conference facility (“use what we have”). The
airport has been re-opened and is currently being used. The Charter services are less now that the
airport is open and using scheduled flights. Unemployment is high around the park and SANParks need
to incorporate people and create jobs. The current occupancies in Skukuza is 85% and is steadily
growing. GP referred to a graph over the years were the amount of visitors spike every time there is a
new addition to infrastructure in the park. GP explained the SANParks’ site selection process and
explained that transport was the major issue and therefore the proximity to the conference the
deciding factor.
Alternatives proposed: HG explained that various alternatives were looked at for the placement of the
lodge. Glenn Phillips (GP) stated that the site was the most suitable due to the proximity to the
conference facility. Two alternative locations were considered: at the Skukuza golf course and directly
to the east of Skukuza Rest Camp. Tom Hattingh (TH) added that it reduces the amount of vehicle
movement of people in the camp.
HG explained that various areas were investigated in terms of housing alternatives in order to ensure
that the environmentally most acceptable sites were selected. These sites were identified by means of
various factors that included specialist input.
4. Specialist feedback:
Visual Impact Assessment: Graham Young (GY) explained the visual assessment. He explained that
Skukuza is the most ‘commercial’ of the camps and occurs in the high intensity leisure zone; however it
could be vulnerable to change if the proposed develop is inappropriately handled. Protection,
restoration and enhancement of the existing character of the camp is therefore important. Areas with
the strongest visual and aesthetic appeal are those areas along the Sabie River and the heavily treed
areas dotted with the typical round rondavels/bungalows. The landscape in the vicinity of the lodge
and housing units have a moderate value as it exhibits some positive character, but there is also
evidence of alteration/degradation/erosion of features. GY explained the viewsheds and showed the
visual representation of the lodge in the landscape (refer to slide 17-21). He explained that the
proposed lodge will have a localised impact. The vegetation and existing rondavels already screen the
development. It will however be further mitigated with the planting of vegetation (in particular trees
and shrubs). The visual screening methods proposed will be effective. Driving past the lodge to the
rondavels in the western section of the camp will generate the main impact. The rondavels are all
facing away from the lodge towards the Sabie River and when sitting at the rondavel you won’t be able
to see the lodge. Natural colours and thatch are proposed to be used for the lo dge (as is the case with
the existing infrastructure in the camp). With time the thatch will turn to grey as is the case with the
existing rondavels.
GS enquired where the parking area is located. GY showed the parking area on the layout (north-west
of the lodge).
Fred de Groot (FdG): Referred back to the previous question on which rondavels will be removed and
will they be placed elsewhere? GY showed the five rondavels to be removed. GP responded that they
won’t be built somewhere else at this stage as the lodge will cater for the lost accommodation.
GS wanted to know if any of the semi-luxury units in the vicinity of the diplomatic camp (dip camp) will
be demolished for purposes of the spa. GP explained that the Dip camp is a conference room and not
accommodation and that the changes to the Dip Camp will not involve the demolishing of
accommodation units.
Traffic Impact Assessment: Corli Havenga (CH) presented the Traffic study. The traffic impact
assessment utilized the gate entry data dating 2007 to 2012, the Traffic Impact Study done for the
Conference Facility, dated May 2008 as well as the Traffic Assessment (TA) done for the Marula Region
Strategic Environmental Assessment Kruger Park, dated July 2008. The measurements were done at
the major intersections (refer to slide24 for counting stations). She stated that the guidelines that are
normally used are for sub-urban areas which are not applicable in this instance. CH stated that that the
Park has decided on density of two vehicles per kilometre as a guideline density measure. Three gates
are expected to be (predominantly) used by tourists travelling to the conference facility/lodge; The
Numbi, Phabeni and Kruger Gates. Gate data was used from 2008 to derive current expected traffic.
Traffic from staff staying outside of the park is expected to be minimal as they will be transported by
bus. Currently some conference delegates stay outside the Kruger Park due to lack of appropriate
accommodation inside Skukuza, adding additional trips. The provision of the lodge is expected to lower
the number of vehicles travelling in and out of the park. Currently a lot of the conference goers also
stay inside Skukuza Rest Camp, but drive to the conference facility to avoid the long walk. Driving and
parking vehicles inside the camp could be avoided if the lodge is next to Conference Facility. This also
creates a shortage in parking space. CH stated that they expect a maximum of 128 trips per day (worst
case scenario). In the study they recognise there will be more trips on the (game viewing) roads
surrounding Skukuza as a result of the lodge. They have looked at four different scenarios: Scenario 1:
All the Safari Lodge guests use the Numbi Gate; Scenario 2: All the Safari Lodge guests use the Phabeni
Gate; Scenario 3: All the Safari Lodge guests use the Paul Kruger Gate; Scenario 4: The Safari Lodge
guests use all three of the above mentioned gates in equal numbers. CH stated that the road between
Kruger Gate and Skukuza is already above the KNP’s guideline density (more than 2 vehicles / km).
Some mitigation currently proposed include a Park & Ride facility that will be built at the Kruger Gate
and those visitors shall be incentivised through an accommodation discounting structure for mak ing
use of the Park & Ride facility.
GS: wanted to know what the plans are to reduce the density. Has any allowance been made if
everybody is using their own vehicles. CH stated that their report will be updated to make reference to
this scenario and it will be taken into account. GS wanted to know if it has been considered. DdW
stated that the question and response will be moved to the discussion se gment of the meeting. NF
asked if it is taken into account that one person will be attending the conference and the person with
them will be driving around. DdW stated that only clarity questions are allowed at this stage the
question will be moved to the discussion segment.
Heritage Impact Assessment: Neels Kruger (NK) presented the Heritage Impact Assessment
component. NK explained that various heritage features were identified in Skukuza, however these are
located away from the proposed developments. The surface areas around the proposed lodge site and
associated infrastructure are largely disturbed. Two features of potential heritage concern were
identified. These are two baobabs which apparently were planted by Col. Stevenson Hamilton. These
two baobabs will be retained and be incorporated into the landscaping of the lodge. NF: wanted to
know if NK was employed by the Kruger National Park. NK stated that he is an independent outside
consultant from Exigo. NF enquired about the location of Col. Stevenson Hamilton’s dwelling. NK
wanted to know if NF is talking about his dwelling in 1940. Joep Stevens stated that as far as he is
aware his last dwelling was outside the camp.
Flora Impact Assessment: Dr. Buks Henning presented the Flora findings. He stated that the vegetation
units vary from completely modified gardens to slightly degraded thickets, open woodland and riparian
woodland areas. The preferred sites are mostly degraded. A few alternative sites that were
investigated are now not being considered for development due to scarce tree species on those sites.
The baobab trees were incorporated into the design of the lodge. Michelle Hoffmeyer (Skukuza
Nursery) and her team will move the big trees to the nursery and then replant then after construction.
The cycads present on the lodge site do not naturally occur in the area and merely represent garden
ornamentals. SANParks do not require a permit for the movement of these cycads. They will be moved
and transplanted after construction. Sensitive areas identified in the study area are the Sabie and
N’waswitshaka rivers. These areas will largely not be impacted except where the sewage pipeline
crosses the N’waswitshaka river. The pipeline crossing over the N’waswitshaka river will be on the
existing bridge.
Fauna Impact Assessment: Dr. Alan Kemp (AK) presented the findings regarding vertebrate fauna. He
explained that he will be presenting the three groups they have investigated in the study namely
Mammals, Avifauna and Herpetofauna.
Mammals: AK stated that the terrestrial habitat has been transformed with the exception being the
building plots in the eastern staff village. In the rest camp, administrative and worker compounds,
terrestrial habitat is functionally isolated by perimeter fences. 103 mammal species occur in the
Skukuza district of which 30 are regarded as Red Data species. None of the red data species are located
in the footprint areas. The proposed development is spatially insignificant. The smaller and flying
mammals (bats) are not restricted by the fences around the camp. The larger mammals are kept out by
the fences around the camp.
Avifauna: AK explained that the most important habitats for avifauna is the widespread bushveld
habitat and the riverine wetlands. The area was assessed as follows: Good-medium for local
movements and feeding for most species; Less suitable as medium-poor for roosting; Poor for nesting
for most of the species. No threatened bird species is expected to be affected by the proposed
developments, other than possibly very slightly by the marginal increase in the footprint of the Skukuza
complex.
Herpetofauna: AK said that the area is rich in reptile and amphibian species. The three drainage lines,
especially the Sabie River, function as important dispersal corridors. 2 red data species is present in the
study site and another one has a small possibility of occurrence. None of the Red Data Listed species is
expected to be affected by the proposed developments.
HG provided a summary of the impacts identified by the specialists. Mitigation measures were
proposed in the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) and these mitigation measures He stated that
the EMP will be the “bible” of construction and needs to implemented. An onsite Environmental
Control Officer (ECO) as well as an independent ECO will be involved to ensure implementation of the
EMP. No impacts were identified that are not mitigatable or of high significance following mitigation.
Fauna and visual impacts during construction are the most significant impacts identified. Long term
impacts are expected to be of low to negligible significance.
HG provided an overview of the way forward: The draft Basic Assessment Report (BAR) will be on
review until 14 Jan 2015. Another public meeting will be held on the 10
th
of January in Skukuza. The
comments and concerns raised by Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs) will be included in the final
BAR, which will also be provided to I&APs to comment on. DdW explained the final BAR will show the
marked changes. An appeal process is also allowed for under the National Environmental Management
Act (NEMA).
5. Discussions:
HB wanted to know if the meeting on the 10
th
will be the same as this meeting. DdW confirmed that it
will be the same (similar agenda and discussion points).
GS enquired on when the comment period for final BAR will be. HG responded that it will only be after
the comments have been incorporated and after the meeting in Skukuza.
GS enquired about the vehicles usage in the traffic study. He stated that game drives of individuals in
their own vehicles need to be considered. This comment was noted for action. GS stated that he can
see that there is a lot of wonderful work being done and that if the development was outside the park
they would have had his full support.
GS requested that the meeting minutes be sent for review and amended before submission. He
requested that a follow up meeting be held where unclear matters can be discussed. This can be done
when the final report is available. DdW stated that he thinks it is a valid request for a focus group
meeting.
NF stated that in the past they have been invited to meetings for the Malelane project and then also
another meeting in Skukuza, however a week before it was supposed to happen the participation was
cancelled (informed that they could not attend). DdW wanted to know from the SANParks team for
clarification who the applicant is of the Malelane project? GP stated that it is Malelane Safari Lodge
Investment. DdW stated that the Malelane issues are to be discussed within the Malelane
Environmental Process. Annemi van Jaarsveld (AvJ) added that she is not sure what happened in the
past but that she knows that one meeting was held at Groenkloof and one at the Malelane gate. This
aspect was noted for discussion on bilateral level. HB requested that they keep the discussion relevant
to this project.
FdG wanted to know if the Traffic assessment has taken the other developments into consideration
(including the Malelane project). CH stated that other further projects were not taken into
consideration. DdW stated that it will be noted and considered.
GS stated that he has typed up questions and handed them to the EAP that he would like answers on.
GS asked GP what his title is and since when he has been in that position. GP responded to say that he
is Managing Executive of tourism and marketing and he has been in the position since 2002 (12.5
years). DdW wanted to know how the questions are relevant to the project. GS assured him there will
be relevance regarding developments in the park.
NF stated that the park is already to over commercialised. Canada’s National Parks have been trying to
communicate to SANParks regarding over-commercialisation. He mentioned that there are parks in the
USA that is also already over commercialised. He said that he can see KNP going in the same direction.
In 2010 when they asked the question of how many hotels will be build they heard about 6. And if this
is how it is going, we know why “Custos Naturae” has been removed from the logo of SANParks. He
requested if anybody can state why it has been removed as it states that SANParks is the custodians of
National Parks. He stated that when they did surveys people were against cell phones in KNP and then
they still went ahead. The amount of traffic in the southern section of the park is already bad and then
people are talking on their cellphones calling other people to sightings. The poachers are also using
cell phones. DdW asked that he put this concern in writing and then send it on to SANParks (Glen
Phillips).
Traffic study to be
updated with these
comments
Additional focus group
meeting to be held to
discuss traffic concerns
SANParks discuss on
bilateral level.
Traffic study to obtain
Malelane project info
and include in the
assessment
NF to provide this
comment in writing to
SANParks
FdG wanted to know what SANParks’ core mandate is. GP stated that if they would like him to do his
presentation at that stage as it clarifies the questions. DdW stated that they have agreed before the
meeting that SANParks will do a presentation after this meeting as a separate meeting to provide
clarity on the bigger picture (projects and aspects outside the scope of this Basic Assessment).
GS enquired who handles the strategic decisions on tourism in the KNP. GP confirmed that it is his
team. GS wanted to know if SANParks knew they needed a lodge while working on the conference
facility. GP stated that when they were busy with construction of the conference facility it came to light
that they might need more accommodation, but they were not sure of what type of accommodation
they would need to develop. GS wanted to know why it was not mentioned in that process. DdW
wanted to know what his point was in order for everybody to understand. GS stated that they have
requested a lot of information in the past and the information was not provided. GS wanted to know
when the plans came to light that they need a lodge. GP stated that they knew when they built the
conference facility. He added to say he would have rather wanted the accommodation to be sorted
before the built the conference facility, but due to funding not being available at the time they needed
to go ahead with the conference facility first. DdW stated that the purpose of the meeting is to raise
comments on the report that is out on review and not necessarily on the strategic planning of
SANParks. GS then wanted to know how he will then go about clearing his answers. DdW stated that
SANParks will formally need to respond on the written notes. GP added that the d ocuments have been
ready for collection for a long time and that GS was notified of the fact and that it was not yet
collected.
FdG said that the people feel that all these developments taking place in KNP is f ragmented and they
feel they need to be consolidated. DdW explained that the EIA meetings have a very specific focus and
that, although cumulative impacts are taken into account, to an extend it is not on a strategic level. He
understands the need for a forum where the strategic projects of KNP gets shown and he asked
whether a map with all the projects can be added. This will include planned projects. He added that it
must be seen as planning and planning can change as well. He added that it is a challenge to
consolidate these aspects when different applicants do developments although they might share a
similar larger area (e.g. KNP). HG stated that Exigo will, with the assistance of the traffic engineers, talk
to the specialist on traffic on the Malelane project and include it in the Skukuza traffic s tudy as a
cumulative impact.
NF wanted to know what measures have been incorporated into the designs of the lodge for bats to
not occupy the roofs. NF said that he feels that the KNP has had a poor history with bats. TH stated
that nothing specifically was included; and he has not had problems on the lodges he has designed. He
added that where there are normally problems were there are dark enclosed spaces in the roofs,
which will not be case here. AK stated that it has been highlighted in their report as an issue. He
requested that Dr. Naas Rautenbach, the mammologist on the project, also elaborate. Dr. Rautenbach
stated that he was involved in various bat studies in the Kruger National Park. He added that the EAP
has requested him to look at bats and they have looked at the design (including the proposed solar
panels) and there are no areas that are particularly suitable to act as bat habitats. Blake Schrader (BS)
added that bats have been in KNP for a very long time and they will still be long after the people who
are presented there are gone. He stated that they have never seen entirely bat proof structures to
date; but they are however improving designs continuously. The KNP has a Standard Operating
Procedure for handling/managing bats, which can be made available and if there are suggestions they
will gladly hear them out.
GS wanted to know within which times the lodge will operate for guests to arrive (gate times). GP
confirmed that they will be the same as the normal gate times. GS stated that he is pleased that only
normal gate times will be used. GS wanted to know why the Malelane Lodge is different. DdW stated
that this is not relevant to this project and that he needs to put the question in writing for response.
GS wanted to know who will transport the staff to the site. BS confirmed it will be by the SANParks
staff bus.
A map of all projects to
be provided by
SANParks – to be
included in final BAR.
Cumulative traffic
impact to be
incorporated into the
BAR
GS wanted to know if the possible approval of the plans for the Skukuza lodge set a precedent for more
hotels/lodges in the KNP. DdW stated that that question will be handled in the SANParks presentation
after the meeting.
GS wanted to know where the funds are derived from. Giju Varghese (GV) stated that R240mil is
received from the state. The proposed infrastructure will come from state funded money and the
revenue derived from it will go to SANParks. GS stated that he would like the budget not to be overspent.
GS said that he is very pleased that the baobabs will be preserved. His concern is however that baobab
roots are shallow extensive roots. He was concerned that the roots will be damaged or the roots will
cause damage to structures. DdW referred the question to BH. BH stated that he has inspected the
design and that it allows for enough space. He added that they have also looked at the protection of
the trunks from graffiti. The KNP botanist Michelle Hofmeyer has also indicated that they will
landscape the area around the trees with creepers and shrubs to avoid people from going to the trees.
GS enquired that due to the fact that the baobabs do not naturally occur in the area; is it not be better
to move them where they will flourish? DdW asked if it is possible. BH responded that it is possible and
that it has been done with great success; however the trees also have heritage value. GS stated that
he has much appreciation for the fact that they will be preserved he is just hoping that they will not in
a few years’ time see that they should not have done this.
GS stated that they believe that additional development will lead to:
 Increased violation to Park Rules given the current approach to control and compliance.
 Increased potential for poachers and other criminals to lose themselves in the crowd.
 Increased chemical pollution, combustion fumes and oil spills on roads.
 Increased visual pollution.
 Increased light pollution
 Increased noise pollution
 Increased human pollution.
 Increased environmental destruction.
 Increased road kills to animals by shuttle vehicles.
DdW said that these concerns will be noted.
GS said that a study in 2004 and 1999 by UNISA has stated that the southern part has already been
over-utilised and that is their concern. DdW requested that GS send the study to the EAP if they don’t
have that already.
HB wanted to know if the traffic study was an extrapolation of the current traffic situation in the park
or if it has specifically been that of the MICE market. HB explained to same that the traffic from the
MICE market differs from the normal traffic patterns in the park. The MICE market tends to be single
occupancy and travel in by bus and air. He wanted to know if they looked at the traffic patterns and it
the traffic situation will be worsened (‘by a certain percentage’). DdW stated that it will be noted for
further clarification (in the final BAR). TH stated that the report is clear they have added 128 cars for
the 128 rooms and placed that on the existing traffic. TH said that what HB is actually alluding to is that
the impact will be much less. DdW stated that even though he was not involved in any survey, he was
at a conference at the conference facility at the end of October and about 50% of the people that
attended came by organised transport. TH stated that the consultant has looked at the worst case
scenario on traffic. Dr. Rautenbach wanted to know if the amount of vehicles will not be the same as
what is now allowed through the gates. BS stated that if they sleep over they will be part of the
overnight guests and if they come in as a day visitor to the conference they will be part of the day
visitor quotas. FV stated that they are aware that traffic on the Kruger Gate road is already a problem
due to services and staff also using that road and that they are looking at options like loop roads for
the guest to drive on.
GS wanted to know if there are any scientific studies available for the need of lodges in KNP. GP stated
GS to forward study to
Exigo
Clarity to be provided
regarding traffic
concerns in the final
BAR
that they have received this comment prior to the meeting and that it was included in the comments
and response report already, so he will read the response “Various research has been concluded, some by
SA Tourism, Universities and internally. Internal surveys to our current customer base (mainly conducted by UNW)
do indicate that a lodge is not required and that the current visitor base are happy staying with the current selfcatering options, however, from a business perspective, with occupancies of 88% in Skukuza, additional
accommodation is required. As part of our Responsible Tourism Strategy 2022, product diversification is a key
component.” He stated that SANParks need to be relevant to assure the conservation of the park.
FdG said that his sources told him that the project has been out on tender or awarded?
GP stated they should please verify their sources. TH said that all the work being undertaken is of a
preliminary concept design nature. Drawings are not yet completed. The project has therefore not
been out on tender.
GS wanted to know how many similar developments are proposed. GP stated in the Kruger National
park only these two are proposed. GS wanted to know if more lodges have been under discussion. GP
denied that more lodges have been discussed.
ET wanted to know when the lodge will open if all goes according to plan. GP states that the plan is to
open in June 2017 but that depends on all the approvals being in place. ET wanted to know why only a
Basic Impact Assessment was undertaken. HG replied that no listed activities under EIA listed activities
(requiring a Scoping and EIA process) have been triggered. ET enquired when the date is of review of
the Final BAR. HG said that it depends on the amount of comments and updates required to studies
that will need to be done. Only then will the final BAR be placed on review. He stated that all
registered I&APs will be notified once the final BAR is available for review.
FdG asked why some activities are no longer in the listing notice 2 (requiring a Scoping and EIA
process). He wanted to know who changes the listed activities in the government notices . DdW stated
that it is a government process and explained the process by which regulations are changed.
GS thanked everyone for the opportunity to provide comments. He furthermore stated that not a lot of
people are registered on the project because the public is saying “you are wasting your time it will go
ahead”. DdW stated that his comment was noted.
6. Conclusion
DdW thanked everyone for the attendance and input and closed the meeting . Meetings minutes will
be out in 10 working days. HG stated that the review period will fall over the holiday period. GS stated
that they are happy to review the minutes over the holidays. The meeting was adjourned at 13:10.
Exigo to provide
meeting minutes
Meeting notes by Reneé Kruger


Reneé Kruger M. Environmental Management
Environmental Consultant
Tel: +27 (0) 12 751 2160 | FAX: +27 (0) 86 607 2406

[nan]

will wait for the first posts of Wildies
which would help me a little bit

[H. erectus]

Can I help you???

[nan]

Can I help you???

not yet, thank you... will wait to see what they post

[Lisbeth]

I have started to read it, but need time, so tomorrow or Sunday will be better