Appeal against the 765kv power line proposed by Eskom

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0><tr> <td valign="top" colspan=2 height=90 BGCOLOR="#006699" TEXT="#080000" background="042085a3.jpg"> <div> <I>Appeal against the 765kv power line proposed by Eskom</I></div> <div> </div> </td> </tr><tr> <td valign="top" width=210 BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000" background="043d2e83.jpg"> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="0" CELLPADDING="2" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="146" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 20 WIDTH="140"><div> <A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Witzenberg Information"><B><U>Home</U></B></A></div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 20 WIDTH="140"><div> <A HREF="witzenberg_location.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Witzenberg Location"><B><U>Location</U></B></A></div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 20 WIDTH="140"><div> <A HREF="witzenberg_historical.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Witzenberg Historical"><B><U>Historical</U></B></A></div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 20 WIDTH="140"><div> <A HREF="witzenberg_property.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Witzenberg Property"><B><U>Property</U></B></A></div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 20 WIDTH="140"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="20" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="140" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 20 WIDTH="140"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="20" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="140" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 39 WIDTH="140"><div> <A HREF="political_viewpoints.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Witzenberg Political Viewpoints"><B><U>Political Viewpoints</U></B></A></div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 20 WIDTH="140"><div> <A HREF="political_viewpoints.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Witzenberg Political Viewpoints"><B><U>Local Politics</U></B></A></div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 20 ><NOBR><div> <A HREF="political_viewpoints.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Witzenberg Political Viewpoints"><B><U>Municipal affairs</U></B></A></div> </NOBR></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 20 WIDTH="140"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="20" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="140" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 20 WIDTH="140"><div> <A HREF="contact_us.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Contact Us"><B><U>Contact</U></B></A></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <bR> </td> <td valign="top" height=390 width="100%" BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000" background="04407073.jpg"> <bR> <div> <B>In the matter of:</B></div> <div> <B>Authorisation (embodied in a record of decision dated 12 June 2006) and issued by the national Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism for the proposed construction of a 765kV Eskom transmission power line between the proposed Gamma (Victoria West) and Omega (Koeberg) substations.</B></div> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="0" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="592" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="VOID" RULES="NONE" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 57 WIDTH="419"><bR> <div> <B>The appellants listed in Annexure "A"</B></div> <bR> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><bR> <div> <B>                Appellants</B></div> </NOBR></tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <B>APPEAL IN TERMS OF SECTION 35(3) OF THE ENVIRONMENT CONSERVATION ACT, 73 OF 1989 (AS AMENDED)</B></div> <bR> <div> <I>INTRODUCTION</I></div> <div> <B>This appeal is submitted on behalf of the individuals and organizations identified in Annexure “A” (referred to collectively as the “Appellants” in this appeal).</B></div> <div> <B>It is evident from the above that the Appellants represent a broad cross-section of society including homeowners, landowners and communities who own property and/or are resident in the Witzenberg Municipal area.  With regard to those of the Appellants that constitute committees, associations or organisations with representative capacity, copies of each of those Appellants' respective mandate to lodge this appeal, are attached to the Appeal Questionnaire.  A copy of the Appeal Questionnaire is attached to this document as Annexure "B".</B></div> <div> <B>This appeal is directed to and lodged with the Minister for Environmental Affairs and Tourism (the “Minister” or the “appellate authority” in this appeal), in terms of section 35(3) of the Environment Conservation Act, 73 of 1989 (as amended) (the "ECA") read with the </B><I><B>Regulations regarding activities identified under section 21(1) of the Act</B></I><B> (in Government Notice R1183 of 5 September 1997, as amended, and referred to as the “EIA Regulations” in this appeal.) </B></div> <div> <B>Section 35(3) of the ECA entitles any person aggrieved by a decision of the relevant authority specified therein, to appeal against such decision to the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism or the competent authority in the prescribed manner.  The manner of the appeal is prescribed in terms of regulation 11 of the EIA Regulations, which requires that the appeal:</B></div> <div> <B>must be lodged in writing within 30 days from the date on which the decision was issued;</B></div> <div> <B>must set out all the facts as well as the grounds of appeal;  and</B></div> <div> <B>must be accompanied by all relevant documents or certified copies.</B></div> <div> <B>The Appellants submit that each of the requirements referred to directly above has been complied with by them to the fullest extent possible, and as illustrated as follows:  </B></div> <div> <B>Firstly, the decision against which the Appellants' appeal was issued by the national Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (the "Department") on 12 June 2006 and accordingly, the appeal has been lodged within the prescribed period, which period expires on 12 July 2006.  </B></div> <div> <B>Secondly, the facts relevant to this appeal and the relevant grounds of appeal are set out in section 3 and sections 4 - 8 of this appeal, respectively.  </B></div> <div> <B>Thirdly, where relevant to this appeal, documents that are in the possession of the Appellants have been attached to this appeal.  However, where the Appellants do not hold the documents relevant to this appeal in their original form, it is not possible to attach either the original or a certified copy thereof.  In such case, a copy of such document is attached for ease of reference.  It is respectfully submitted that, in most instances, originals and/or certified copies of all the documentation relevant to this appeal will be in the possession of the Department.  </B></div> <div> <B>Due to the size of the Environmental Impact Report dated March 2002 (the “EIR” in this appeal) submitted (in terms of regulation 8 of the EIA Regulations) to the Department on behalf of the applicant, a copy of that report has not been attached to this appeal.  The Appellants respectfully submit that the Environmental Impact Report must be read in conjunction with this appeal.</B></div> <div> <I>NATURE OF THE APPEAL</I></div> <div> <B>The Appellants are aggrieved by, and hereby appeal against, the record of decision dated 12 June 2006, issued by the Department's Director-General (signed by the Department's Chief Director: Environmental Impact Management - referred to as the “ROD” in this appeal).   A copy of the ROD is attached to this appeal as Annexure “C”.</B></div> <div> <B>The ROD purports to authorise the activity described (in the ROD) "</B><I><B>as the construction of the +- 520km Eskom Gamma-Omega 765kV transmission power line from the proposed Gamma (Koeberg) substation to the proposed Omega (Victoria West) substation, as per the route corridor description in the environmental impact report dated March 2002 and as shown on the locality maps 2a, 2b and 2c of the environmental impact report dated March 2002, the route corridor  described as the central route</B></I><B>."</B></div> <div> <B>In this document the Appellants have addressed argument on the substantive requirement of decision-makers in the position of the Department's Director-General insofar as those obligations relate to authorising activities listed in the Identified Activities Regulations promulgated under the ECA. In essence, it is respectfully submitted that the ROD does not, on the face of it, evidence compliance by the relevant decision-maker with the peremptory obligations imposed on her by the provisions of the ECA, the EIA Regulations and the National Environmental Management Act, 107 of 1998 (referred to in this appeal as "NEMA").  As is set out in more detail below, it is the Appellants' case that the Director-General materially misdirected herself in issuing the ROD and thereby, acted </B><I><B>ultra vires</B></I><B> her powers under the ECA read with the EIA Regulations, NEMA and viewed against the backdrop of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 3 of 2000 (“PAJA”).</B></div> <div> <B>The facts underlying this appeal as well as the grounds of appeal are set out in the sections that follow below and must be read with the contents of the Environmental Impact Report prepared by PD Naidoo & Associates, ACER (Africa) Environmental Management Consultants and PBA International (SA) (collectively referred to as the “environmental consultant” in this appeal).</B></div> <div> <B>It is respectfully submitted that the decision-making powers afforded to the Minister under the provisions of section 35(4) of the Act, by their wording and nature, reflect the fact that this appeal is a so-called “wide” administrative appeal.  In other words, the appellate authority may, after considering the appeal, “confirm, set aside, vary or make such order as [that person] may deem fit ….”.  For the reasons (and based upon the grounds of appeal) set out in detail below, it is respectfully submitted that, in exercising these appeal powers the Honourable Minster should set aside the ROD and request the applicant to submit a fresh application.  In the alternative, it is respectfully submitted that, in view of the substantive and numerous shortcomings in the environmental impact assessment (“EIA”) process undertaken by the environmental consultant, the applicant should be required to commence the EIA process afresh (which process must include a discrete Environmental Impact Assessment, Heritage Impact Assessment and Visual Impact Assessment in respect of the Witzenberg Municipal area).</B></div> <div> <I>FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE ROD </I></div> <div> <U>Factual background to the proposed development </U></div> <div> <B>The application under consideration involves the proposed construction of a 765kV transmission line (approximately 520km in length) by Eskom between the proposed Gamma (near Victoria West) and Omega (near Koeberg) substations.  The proposed construction of the 765kV transmission line forms part of Eskom's strategy to improve the reliability and capacity of the transmission network in the Western Cape - as identified in Eskom's Cape Strengthening Programme which was initiated in November 1999.</B></div> <div> <B>For the sake of brevity, the Appellants have not set out the entire factual background to the proposed development, save to point out that the following facts and background information are particularly relevant to this appeal:</B></div> <div> <B>September 1999 - the environmental consultant was appointed by Eskom for the purpose of undertaking the EIA process.</B></div> <div> <B>December 1999 - background documentation was distributed to I&APs.</B></div> <div> <B>March 2000 - the project was put on hold.</B></div> <div> <B>June 2001 - the EIA for the proposed transmission line was re-commenced.</B></div> <div> <B>September 2001 - a scoping report was submitted to the national and provincial environmental authorities.</B></div> <div> <B>March 2002 - a draft EIR was issued for public comment and made available on Eskom's website.</B></div> <div> <B>April 2002 - the EIR was finalised by the environmental consultant and submitted to the Department.</B></div> <div> <B>March 2003 - the Department issued a letter to PBA International recording that the final EIR had been evaluated by the relevant authorities and that the latter were satisfied with the contents of the final EIR and that all issues had been addressed adequately (a copy of the Department's letter dated 2 March 2003 is attached to this document as Annexure "D").</B></div> <div> <B>12 June 2006 - the Department issued its ROD approving the proposed 765kV transmission line.</B></div> <div> <B>The ROD states that, in reaching its decision to approve the application, the Department considered the following information:</B></div> <div> <B>" </B></div> <div> <B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Wing0a7300a700c800000000.png" HEIGHT="13" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">The environmental impact report dated March 2002.</B></div> <div> <B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Wing0a7300a700c800000000.png" HEIGHT="13" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">All specialist reports included in the Environmental Impact Report dated March 2002.</B></div> <div> <B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Wing0a7300a700c800000000.png" HEIGHT="13" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Addendum to the environmental impact report dated June 2002.</B></div> <div> <B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Wing0a7300a700c800000000.png" HEIGHT="13" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Report on the investigations into different alternatives to accommodate issues raised by the community (undated).</B><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Stylus BT" ><B>"</B></FONT></div> <div> <B>It is clear from the above that the documentation that was considered in the decision-making process included the following:</B></div> <div> <B>A draft EIR dated March 2002.  </B></div> <div> <B>The specialist reports in the draft EIR dated March 2002.</B></div> <div> <B>An Addendum to the EIR dated June 2002.</B></div> <div> <B>It is not clear what document is being referred to by the “Addendum” as the EIR indicates that the EIR was finalised and submitted to the Department on 30 April 2002.  Crucially, the Appellants have not had sight of or been given an opportunity to comment on any document dated June 2002.   In the event that there was a subsequent iteration of the EIR in June 2002 (in whatever form) then interested parties were not provided with an opportunity to comment thereon.  </B></div> <div> <U>Relevant legislative regime</U></div> <div> <B>For the purposes of this appeal, it is important to set out the statutorily prescribed requirements regarding the undertaking of an EIA as provided for in the ECA.</B></div> <div> <B>Section 22 of the ECA provides as follows:</B></div> <div> <B>“(1)     No person shall undertake an activity identified in terms of section 21(1) or cause such an activity to be undertaken except by virtue of a written authorisation issued by the Minister or by a competent authority …</B></div> <div> <B> (2)     The authorisation referred to in subsection (1) shall only be issued after consideration of reports concerning </B><U>the impact of the proposed activity and of alternative proposed activities on the environment</U><B>, which shall be compiled and submitted by such persons and </B><U>in such manner as may be prescribed</U><B>.”</B><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Stylus BT" ><B> (Emphasis supplied)</B></FONT></div> <div> <B>In essence, section 22 of the ECA prohibits the undertaking of an activity (as defined) without first obtaining the necessary authorisation in the manner prescribed in the EIA Regulations. </B></div> <div> <B>The EIA Regulations impose obligations on applicants seeking authorisation under the ECA, and on their environmental consultants.  The relevant provisions, for present purposes, prescribe the following:</B></div> <div> <B>“3. </B><B>Responsibilities in terms of regulations</B></div> <div> <B>(1)     An </B><B>applicant</B><B> -</B></div> <div> <B>must appoint an independent consultant who </B><U>must on behalf of the applicant comply with these regulations</U><B>;</B></div> <div> <B>…</B></div> <div> <B>…</B></div> <div> <B>is responsible the public participation process to ensure that all </B><U>interested parties</U><B>…are given the opportunity to participate in </B><U>all the relevant procedures </U><B>contemplated in these regulations." </B></div> <div> <B>If any provision of subregulation (1) is not complied with by the applicant and not immediately attended to, after having been made aware of it by the relevant authority, the application is regarded to have been withdrawn;</B></div> <div> <B>The</B><B> relevant authority</B><B> must -</B></div> <div> <B>ensure that officers, agent or consultants employed by the relevant authority to evaluate any reports submitted in terms of these regulations have -</B></div> <div> <B>…</B></div> <div> <B>(iv)     a good working knowledge of </B><U>all relevant policies, legislation</U><B>, guidelines, norms and standards …"  (Emphasis supplied.)</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>The EIA Regulations also prescribe that an environmental impact report must contain:</B></div> <div> <B>“(a)     a description of </B><U>each alternative</U><B>, including particulars on </B></div> <div> <B>the </B><U>extent</U><B> and </B><U>significance</U><B> of </B><U>each identified environmental impact</U><B>; and</B></div> <div> <B>the possibility for mitigation of each identified impact;</B></div> <div> <B>a comparative </B><U>assessment of all of the alternatives</U><B>; and</B></div> <div> <B>appendices containing descriptions of</B></div> <div> <B>    the environment concerned; </B></div> <div> <B>   the activity to be undertaken;</B></div> <div> <B>the public participation process followed, including a list of interested parties and their comments;</B></div> <div> <B>any media coverage given to the proposed activity; and</B></div> <div> <B>any other information included in the accepted plan of study</B><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Stylus BT" ><B>.”  (Emphasis supplied.)     </B></FONT></div> <div> <B>Regulation 10 of the EIA Regulations provides that a record of decision </B><B><U>must</U></B><B> include the following:</B></div> <div> <B>"</B><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Stylus BT" ><B>(a)     a brief description of the proposed activity, the extent or quantity or the surface areas involved, the infrastructural requirements and the implementation programme for which the authorisation is issued;</B></FONT></div> <div> <B> (b)     </B><B><U>the specific place where the activity is to be undertaken</U></B><B>;</B></div> <div> <B> (c)     the name, address and telephone number of the applicant;</B></div> <div> <B> (d)     </B><B><U>the name, address and telephone number of any consultant involved</U></B><B>;</B></div> <div> <B> (e)     </B><B><U>the date of, and persons present at, site visits, if any</U></B><B>;</B></div> <div> <B>the decision of the relevant authority;</B></div> <div> <B>the conditions of the authorisation (if any), including measures to mitigate, control or manage environmental impacts or to rehabilitate the environment…" (Emphasis supplied.)</B></div> <div> <B>The requirements of the EIA Regulations, quoted above, are mandatory.  They may not be deviated from unless the applicant has made a written, motivated application as to why it should be exempted from the requirements of one or more of the regulations, and the competent authority has authorised, in writing, such an exemption. As far as the Appellants are aware, no such application for exemption has been made or granted in this case.</B></div> <div> <B>In addition to requiring authorisation (in terms of section 22 of the ECA) for the  proposed transmission line, at the time the EIA process was undertaken </B><I><B>in casu</B></I><B>, the proposed development fell within the ambit of the test for environmental impact assessment contained (at the material time), in section 24 of the NEMA.  Section 24 of the NEMA, prior to the recent amendment to the Act, required that the potential impact on the environment, socio-economic conditions, and cultural heritage of activities that require authorisation or permission by law, must be considered, investigated and assessed prior to implementation, and reported to the relevant regulatory authority.  </B></div> <div> <B>The procedures that were prescribed therein for the investigation, assessment and communication of the potential impact of activities included requirements that:</B></div> <div> <B>the potential impact, including the cumulative effects, of the activity and its alternatives, must be investigated;</B></div> <div> <B>the significance of the potential impact must be assessed;</B></div> <div> <B>mitigation measures which minimise adverse environmental impacts must be investigated;</B></div> <div> <B>the option of not implementing the activity must be considered;</B></div> <div> <B>there must be public participation, independent review and conflict resolution in all phases of the investigation and assessment of impacts; and</B></div> <div> <B>where an activity falls within the jurisdiction of more than one organ of state, there must be co-ordination and co-operation between those organs of state in the consideration of assessments. </B></div> <div> <B>The environmental consultant was therefore obliged to comply with the EIA Regulations </B><B><U>and</U></B><B> section 24(7) of NEMA (as the latter provision was set out prior to its repeal on 7 January 2005) in respect of the proposed transmission line.  However, as is set out in more detail below, the EIA process undertaken by the environmental consultant has been marked by substantive and procedural non-compliance with the obligations in the ECA and the NEMA.  The deficiencies in the environmental consultant's approach in this regard are elaborated on below and, where relevant, in the examination of the ROD which follows.</B></div> <div> <I>GROUNDS OF APPEAL</I></div> <div> <B>In motivating the Appellants' grounds of appeal, this document assesses the legal efficacy of the ROD and measures it against:</B></div> <div> <B>first, the information presented to the Department, and on which the Director-General purportedly based her decision dated 12 June 2006; and</B></div> <div> <B>secondly, the procedural and substantive requirements of the relevant enabling legislation (the ECA read with the EIA Regulations) and certain legislation of general application - principally, NEMA and PAJA. </B></div> <div> <B>An administrative decision-maker is required to ensure the proper and substantive application of his/her mind to the considerations relevant to the exercise of that official's decision-making powers (in this instance under the ECA read with the EIA Regulations).  </B></div> <div> <B>It is the Appellants' respectful submission, for the reasons and on the grounds of appeal set out below, that there could not have been a proper and lawful consideration of relevant considerations by the Director-General in rendering her decision of 12 June 2006 (and which therefore suggest that the Director-General could not properly have applied her mind to the aspect of compliance with the EIA Regulations as required by the ECA, NEMA and PAJA).  That fact alone renders the ROD susceptible to being set aside on appeal.  </B></div> <div> <I>NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE ECA</I></div> <div> <B>Section 22 of the ECA states that "no </B><B><U>person </U></B><B>shall undertake an activity ... or cause such an activity to be undertaken except by virtue of a written authorisation ... "  (Emphasis supplied).  Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that only a person may lawfully apply for, and hold, an authorisation for an identified activity issued by a competent authority in terms of section 22 of the ECA.</B></div> <div> <B>The ROD describes the applicant </B><I><B>in casu</B></I><B> as Eskom Transmission.  It is respectfully submitted that whilst Eskom Holdings Limited is a juristic person in terms of the Eskom Act 40 of 1987, the applicant, namely Eskom Transmission, is merely a division of Eskom Holdings Limited with no separate corporate personality. </B></div> <div> <B>It is respectfully submitted that the ROD is invalid insofar as it authorises a person that does not exist in law (and which, therefore, cannot lawfully undertake the activity of constructing the proposed transmission line).  The Director-General therefore acted </B><I><B>ultra vires</B></I><B> her powers in terms of the ECA.  </B></div> <div> <B>Accordingly, the Appellants appeal against the ROD on the basis that it purports unlawfully to issue the ROD in the name of an applicant that does not constitute  a legal person for the purposes of section 22 of the ECA.</B></div> <div> <I>NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE EIA REGULATIONS</I></div> <div> <B>The final bullet-point on page 1 of the ROD records that the Department issued the ROD on the basis that the EIA undertaken in relation to the proposed activity, complies with the requirements of the EIA Regulations.  It is respectfully submitted that the EIA undertaken by the environmental consultant (and as reflected in the draft EIR) failed to comply with the EIA Regulations in certain material respects, as described below.</B></div> <div> <U>Inadequate public consultation</U></div> <div> <B>The Appellant's appeal against the ROD on the ground that there has been inadequate public consultation in relation to a development of this magnitude which, it is submitted, will result in significant adverse impacts for the Witzenberg Municipal area and its inhabitants.  </B></div> <div> <B>There are two components to this ground of appeal, which are as follows:</B></div> <div> <B>Firstly, as a result of the time that has passed since the public participation process conducted by the environmental consultant in terms of the EIA Regulations was concluded in 2002 and the issuing of the ROD in June 2006, many people have settled in the Witzenberg Municipal area.  As a result, such persons were not aware of the proposed 765kV transmission line until the authorization for this activity (embodied in the ROD) was communicated to them by word of mouth during the month of June 2006.  As a result, the public consultation process conducted by the environmental consultant between 1999 and 2002 is out of date and wholly inadequate.  </B></div> <div> <B>Secondly, the public consultation process conducted by the environmental consultant in terms of the EIA Regulations was procedurally flawed.  </B></div> <div> <B>With regard to the first component of this ground of appeal, one of the mandatory requirements of the EIA Regulations that the EIR must contain a description of "</B><I><B>the public participation process followed, including a list of interested parties and their comments</B></I><B>".  It is submitted that an EIA process undertaken between 1999 and 2002 is not capable of identifying those parties who will be directly affected by the construction and/or erection of a transmission line in 2006 and beyond.  Accordingly, the EIA process </B><I><B>in casu</B></I><B> failed to assess comprehensively the impacts of the proposed development insofar as they relate to the individuals and communities that reside in the Witzenberg Municipal area at present.</B></div> <div> <B>In addition, NEMA provides for various principles that must be applied throughout South Africa to the actions of all organs of state that may significantly affect the environment, including the taking of decisions relevant to environmental matters.  The following NEMA principles are relevant to public participation in the EIA process:</B></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Stylus BT" ><B>“</B></FONT><B>(b) Environmental management must be integrated, acknowledging that all elements of the environment are linked and interrelated, and </B><U>it must take into account the effects of decisions on all aspects of the environment and all people in the environment</U><B> by pursuing the selection of the best practicable environmental option. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>…</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>     (f) </B><B><U>The participation of all interested and affected parties in environmental governance must be promoted</U></B><B>, and all people must have the opportunity to develop the understanding, skills and capacity necessary for achieving equitable and effective participation, and participation by vulnerable and disadvantaged persons must be ensured. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>     (g) </B><B><U>Decisions must take into account the interests, needs and values of all interested and affected parties</U></B><B>, and this includes recognising all forms of knowledge, including traditional and ordinary knowledge. </B></div> <div> <B>          ….” (Emphasis supplied)</B></div> <div> <B>It is submitted that, the Director-General's decision to authorize the proposed 765kV transmission line on the basis of the (inadequate) public participation process conducted prior to 2002, does not comply with the requirements of section 2 of NEMA insofar as the decision-making process has failed </B><I><B>inter alia</B></I><B>:</B></div> <div> <B>to take into account the interests of all interested and affected parties; or</B></div> <div> <B>to ensure that environmental management take into account the effects of decisions on all people in the environment.</B></div> <div> <B>With regard to the second component of this ground of appeal, the Appellants submit the following:</B></div> <div> <B>On the facts of this matter, the applicant failed to comply with one of the mandatory requirements of the EIA Regulations that all interested parties (as defined in the EIA Regulations) are given the opportunity to participate in </B><B><U>all the relevant procedures</U></B><B> contemplated in the EIA Regulations.  This ground of appeal is based on the fact that:</B></div> <div> <B>Interested parties were confined to making submissions on an earlier draft of the EIR (dated March 2002) - in other words, interested parties were not entitled to make further written submission on the final EIR </B><B><U>before</U></B><B> a decision was made by the Department.  Such an approach (in terms of which the environmental consultant seeks to limit the participation of interested parties to the investigation phase of the EIA process -  that is, only up to submission of the final EIR) was held to be "fundamentally unsound" by the High Court (Cape Provincial Division) in the </B><I><B>Earthlife Africa</B></I><B> case.</B><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><B> </B></FONT><B>  It is respectfully submitted, therefore, that the EIA process was fatally flawed on this basis alone.</B></div> <div> <B>New facts (in the form of an Addendum to the EIR (dated June 2002) and a report on investigations into different alternatives), were submitted to the Department and placed before the decision-maker, on behalf of the applicant, without interested parties being afforded an opportunity to comment thereon.  </B></div> <div> <B>In view of the fact that interested parties were not provided with an opportunity to comment on the final EIR, a mandatory and material procedure prescribed by the EIA Regulations was not complied with. It is respectfully submitted, therefore, that on this basis alone the EIA process is fatally flawed and falls to be set aside on appeal.</B></div> <div> <B>The Appellants also respectfully submit that the Department's officials should have identified that regulation 3(1)(f) of the EIA Regulations had not been complied with by the applicant and, further, should have apprised the applicant of the shortcomings in the public participation process.  The Department's failure to do so is indicative of non-compliance with regulation 3(3)(a) of the EIA Regulations.</B></div> <div> <B>In summary, the Appellant's respectfully submit that their rights (as well as the rights of their constituent members, where applicable) stand to be directly and materially adversely affected without them having been afforded an adequate opportunity of commenting on or participating in the decision-making process (and thereby contributing to the discussion and assessment of impacts).   Accordingly, the Appellants appeal against the ROD on the basis that:</B></div> <div> <B>In view of the changes to the demographic composition of the Witzenberg Municipal area that have taken place since March 2002 the public participation process was wholly inadequate</B></div> <div> <B>The opportunities provided to interested parties to comment on the EIR were limited to the draft EIR dated March 2002.</B></div> <div> <B>The decision-making process fails to comply with the national environmental management principles contained in NEMA (in particular, the decision-making process falls short of the standard of decision-making required by virtue of sections 2(4)(f) and (2)(4)(g) of NEMA).</B></div> <div> <B>The applicant and the Department failed to comply with the peremptory requirements of the EIA Regulations.</B></div> <div> <B>The Department based its decision on documents and/or other information that were not previously made available to the Appellants or other interested parties, which has infringed the Appellants' right to procedurally fair administrative action enshrined in section 33(1) of the Constitution, read with section 6(2)(c) of PAJA.</B></div> <div> <U>Inadequate description and assessment of alternatives</U></div> <div> <B>The EIA Regulations provide that the alternatives to each principal activity applied for must be considered and assessed as part of the assessment phase of the EIA process which culminates in the production of such information in an EIR.  The Appellants submit that the approach adopted by the environmental consultant towards the assessment of project alternatives was flawed, with the result that the assessment of alternatives during the EIA process has been unlawfully circumscribed.  This is based on the following grounds:</B></div> <div> <B>The approach by the environmental consultant to the identification and assessment of project alternatives was constrained at the outset, as the EIR records that preliminary planning studies undertaken (presumably by Eskom) during the 1980s and 1990s resulted in Eskom identifying its </B><B><U>preferred route</U></B><B> for the 765kV transmission lines as being via the Ceres and Tulbagh areas, notwithstanding the topographic and social constraints of this preferred route.  </B></div> <div> <B>Based on Eskom's preferred choice of route, various alignment alternatives were identified by the environmental consultant during the scoping phase of the EIA process.  As a result, the focus on Eskom's preferred choice of route was carried through to the assessment phase of the EIA process.    </B></div> <div> <B>As a result of Eskom's predetermined preferred route, the study area itself was geographically limited.  The geographical study area is illustrated in Figure 5 of Chapter 1  of the EIR, which indicates that the corridor width of the study area is only 20 kilometres wide.  At the outset, therefore, studies undertaken by the environmental consultant excluded viable project alternatives that fell outside of the study area.  To illustrate this, by way of an example, the option of placing the 765kV transmission line on a viable route that runs between Beaufort West, Sutherland, Piketberg and Saldanha (and thereafter from Saldanha to the Omega substation) would not have been identified as an alternative alignment of the proposed transmission line simply on the basis that it fell outside the corridor of the study area.  It is submitted that the historical approach to the study has limited the scope and the effectiveness of the EIA process.  </B></div> <div> <B>It is inadequate and/or inappropriate to exclude, as the environmental consultant has done, power generation initiatives from the ambit of the identification and assessment of project alternatives.  This is a mandatory requirement in terms of the EIA Regulations and insofar as parallel power generation initiatives constitute a viable alternative to the proposed activity, they fall to be considered and assessed by the environmental consultant.   </B></div> <div> <B>For the reasons stated elsewhere in this appeal, developments in Eskom's power generation and/or transmission initiatives since 2002 may have given rise to viable alternative sources of power generation and/or transmission (which may have a direct bearing on the contemporary relevance of the transmission line) and which fall to be considered during the EIA process.  </B></div> <div> <B>The exclusion of certain project alternatives by the environmental consultants has more to do with cost sensitivity of the applicant rather than valid environmental considerations.  For example, the alternative of situating the proposed 765kV transmission line underground was not considered in the EIR as a viable alternative on the grounds that it will be approximately 20 times more expensive than the overhead lines supported by pylons.</B></div> <div> <B>In the result, it is respectfully submitted that the EIA process followed was circumscribed and fundamentally flawed in that:</B></div> <div> <B>viable alternatives were considered and subsequently eliminated; and </B></div> <div> <B>other alternatives were not considered at all.</B></div> <div> <B>In support of the above, it is respectfully submitted that the true purpose of an EIA is to serve as a planning tool which informs the regulatory decision-making process (as well as the public) of the environmental consequences of projects so that the project in question can be modified to prevent and/or mitigate substantial detrimental effects on the environment.  By limiting the study area at the outset,  and by focusing on Eskom's preferred choice of route, the consideration of alternatives has been stifled.  In the result, the EIA process has been rendered  ineffective in promoting sustainable development and ensuring that activities described in the Identified Activities Regulations do not have a substantial detrimental effect on the environment. </B></div> <div> <B>In summary, it is submitted that as a direct result of the historical approach to this project and the planning methodologies which informed the project, a comprehensive and objective process (undertaken in the context of the legislative requirements imposed by the current environmental regulatory framework) of identifying and assessing all project alternatives including all alignment alternatives was not undertaken by the environmental consultant.</B></div> <div> <U>Inadequate description of public participation process</U></div> <div> <B>The Fourth bullet-point under the first paragraph of section 2 of the ROD  refers to an undated report on the investigations into different alternatives to accommodate issues raised by the Eskom Transmission Line Action Committee and certain members of the Tulbagh community.</B></div> <div> <B>The completion of the EIR predates the compilation by the applicant of the Report on Alternatives and the EIR, therefore, does not comply with the requirements of the EIA Regulations in its current form as it does not describe the further engagements that took place between interested parties and the applicant subsequent to the completion of the EIR.</B></div> <div> <U>Inadequate description of the place where the activity is to be undertaken</U></div> <div> <B>With regard to the description, extent and location of the activity, the ROD records that:</B></div> <div> <B>"</B><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Stylus BT" ><B>The development entails the construction of a +- 520 km Eskom Gamma-Omega 765kV transmission power line from the proposed Gamma (Koeberg) substation to the proposed Omega (Victoria West) substation, as per the route corridor description in the environmental impact report dated March 2002 and as shown on the locality maps 2a, 2b and 2c of the environmental impact report dated March 2002, the route corridor described as the Central Route.</B></FONT><B>"</B></div> <div> <B>The EIA Regulations prescribe that a record of decision (issued in terms of regulation 10(1) of the EIA Regulations) must include a description of the </B><B><U>specific</U></B><B> place where the identified activity is to be undertaken.  However, instead of clearly identifying the exact alignment of the proposed transmission line that has been authorised, the ROD refers broadly to the route corridor description in the EIR (and as reflected on Maps 2a, 2b and 2c of the EIR).  By way of further clarification, the ROD refers to “</B><I><B>the route corridor as being described as the Central Route.</B></I><B>”</B></div> <div> <B>It is submitted that the use of the term “route corridor” is misleading and vague and is not used anywhere in the EIR itself.  The Appellants presume, therefore, that this term is used to refer to the study area corridor (which has a width of 20 kilometres) and which study area contains </B><B><U>all</U></B><B> of the alignment alternatives.  Importantly, Map 2a of the EIR does not assist in clarifying which alignment has been authorised by the Department as the aforementioned map reflects all of the so-called "Proposed Route Alternatives" and none of which is described on the map itself as "the Central Route" (as this term is used in the ROD to describe the alignment that apparently has been authorised by the Department).  It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that the ROD is vague and incapable of reasonable interpretation and/or implementation.  In this regard, it is submitted that the Director-General has failed to comply satisfactorily with one of the mandatory requirements of the EIA Regulations.</B></div> <div> <B>In addition, the lack of clarity regarding the specific route alignment for the 765kV transmission line is illustrated with reference to the Report on Alternatives prepared by Eskom in 2004 (i.e. after the EIR had been submitted to the Department for adjudication).  In terms of this report, Eskom amended the proposed alignment in order to take into account concerns raised by the local community in the Tulbagh area.  The final route chosen by Eskom (and as recorded in the Report on Alternatives) constitutes the mean of Routes 1 and 3 (as reflected on page 3 of the Report on Alternatives) which differs markedly from the proposed alternative route alignments that formed the basis of the EIR.</B></div> <div> <U>Inadequate description of the consultants </U></div> <div> <B>The EIA Regulations prescribe that a record of decision </B><B><U>must</U></B><B> include the name, address and telephone number of </B><B><U>any</U></B><B> consultant involved in the EIA process.</B></div> <div> <B>Notwithstanding the fact that the EIR reveals that a range of consultants were involved in the EIA process, the ROD refers only to PD Naidoo & Associates as being the environmental consultant.  Accordingly, it is submitted that a mandatory requirement in terms of the EIA Regulations has not been complied with by the Director-General and the ROD should be set aside on this basis alone.</B></div> <div> <U>Inadequate description of site visits</U></div> <div> <B>The EIA Regulations provide that a record of decision </B><B><U>must</U></B><B> include a description of the date of any site visits undertaken (as well as the names of the persons present at the site visits.  </B></div> <div> <B>The ROD falls short of this mandatory requirement of the EIA Regulations in that it records in general terms that a “</B><I><B>number of site visits were undertaken by the applicant, consultants, specialists and officials from the Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, the Northern Cape Department of Tourism, Environment and Conservation and the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism</B></I><B>.”</B></div> <div> <B>It is not possible to determine from the aforementioned description whether any of the site visits allegedly undertaken were in respect of the Witzenberg Municipal area.   </B></div> <div> <I>GAPS IN THE EIA PROCESS</I></div> <div> <B>The first bullet-point on page 2 of the ROD records that one of the key factors informing the Department's decision was that "[</B><I><B>n</B></I><B>]</B><I><B>o fatal flaws have been identified during the EIA process and review of the information submitted</B></I><B>."  It is submitted that the Director-General failed to apply her mind properly to the review of the application for authorisation, for the following reasons:</B></div> <div> <B>It should have been clear that an EIA process which limits the public participation process to the submission of comments on a draft EIR is fundamentally unsound and procedurally unfair.</B></div> <div> <B>It should have been readily apparent that issuing a ROD in respect of a linear development (that will entail significant adverse impacts on the environment, cultural heritage, human health and well-being and socio-economic considerations of directly affected communities) some four years after the identification and assessment of such impacts in the context of the EIR is in itself fundamentally flawed.</B></div> <div> <U>Inadequate and/or irrelevant information</U></div> <div> <B>The second paragraph under section 2 of the ROD lists (in the form of 10 bullet-points), the findings made by the Department after having reviewed the documentation placed before the decision-maker.  The first two bullet-points relate to the motivation for the proposed construction of the power line and provide as follows:</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>"</B></div> <div> <B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Wing0a7300a700f000000000.png" HEIGHT="16" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> The proposed development is part of Eskom's new capacity installation programme and is intended to meet the future peak electricity demands of South Africa.</B></div> <div> <B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Wing0a7300a700f000000000.png" HEIGHT="16" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> The Gamma-Omega 765kV transmission power line is a major component of the Cape Strengthening Programme being undertaken by Eskom transmission with the aim to improve the reliability of the existing network and to upgrade the transmission capacity of the network to the Western Cape to meet the increased demand for reliable supply of electricity."</B></div> <div> <B>Whilst the need and desirability for a 765kV transmission line between Gamma and Omega substations was justified (in the EIR) in 2002, it is not possible (on the basis of the information that served before the Department) to assess what effect (if any) the recent transmission and/or generation initiatives in the Western Cape have had on Eskom's strategic planning process.  </B></div> <div> <B>As a result of the effluxion in time between the date on which the motivation for the proposed transmission line was prepared and the date on which the Department authorised the activity in question, has resulted in the Director-General's decision being based upon out of date factual information and, therefore, irrelevant considerations.</B></div> <div> <B>It is submitted that the Department is obliged to consider and assess the applicant's application for authorisation (in terms of section 22 of the ECA) against the backdrop of all relevant factual considerations.  This was not possible to achieve on the facts of the present matter for the following reasons:</B></div> <div> <B>The Department cannot discharge this obligation on the basis of an EIR prepared in 2002.  It is respectfully submitted that in the six years that have passed since the environmental consultant was first appointed to undertake the EIA components of Eskom's Cape Strengthening Programme, there would have been developments in Eskom's power generation and power transmission strategies that may impact directly on the need for the 765kV transmission line.  </B></div> <div> <B>An EIR prepared in 2002 is incapable of accounting for Eskom's parallel power generation and/or transmission initiatives that have occurred since then.  </B></div> <div> <B>The EIR acknowledges the gaps in information relevant to the EIA process by stating that (at the time of undertaking the EIR in 2002) "</B><I><B>there is no certainty on the future of these </B></I><B>[</B><I><B>power</B></I><B>]</B><I><B> generation alternatives… it is recognised that a further environmental review will need to be undertaken closer to the intended construction time</B></I><B>".</B></div> <div> <B>The second bullet-point on page 2 of the ROD records that "[i]nformation submitted by the independent environmental consultant is deemed to be sufficient and adequate to make an informed decision".  On the contrary it is respectfully submitted that the information submitted by the environmental consultant is inadequate and insufficient for the following reasons:</B></div> <div> <B>The information contained in the EIR was gathered during or before 2002 and, therefore, the information contained therein is largely out of date.</B></div> <div> <B>There have been substantive and material social, economic and environmental changes in the Witzenberg Municipal area since 2002 (which differ markedly from the facts recorded in the documents that were submitted to the Department) and which changes have rendered the information in the EIR obsolete.  For example, the proposal by the Witzenberg Municipality (as evidenced in the municipality's Spatial Development Framework dated January 2005) to relocate informal settlements to the south of the town of Tulbagh impacts directly on the proposed transmission line).</B></div> <div> <B>The information in relation to alternatives to this project is inadequate (see the submissions set out in paragraph 6.11 </B><I><B>et seq</B></I><B>. of this document).</B></div> <div> <B>In view of the above, we respectfully submit that concerns regarding and/or flowing from the proposed transmission line and which relate principally to the impact of the proposed development on the environment have not been assessed properly in accordance with the requirements of the ECA.  </B></div> <div> <B>Insofar as the current factual circumstances relating to the Witzenberg Municipal area have changed and differ markedly from those recorded in the EIR, it is respectfully submitted that the decision-maker either failed to apply her mind to relevant considerations, or </B><B><U>alternatively</U></B><B> considered irrelevant considerations.  The failure by the decision-maker to consider all relevant factors renders the ROD susceptible to setting aside on appeal.</B></div> <div> <B>Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that for the reasons outlined above, the Director-General's decision was based on inadequate and out of date information and, as such, the Director-General's decision to approve the application is fatally flawed because irrelevant considerations were taken into account during the decision-making process and/or relevant considerations were not considered by the Director-General.</B></div> <div> <U>Inadequate identification/assessment of heritage impacts</U></div> <div> <B>It is respectfully submitted that the heritage specialist studies undertaken as part of the EIR do not adequately address the minimum requirements for a heritage impact assessment (HIA) required for a proposed linear development of this nature (set out in section 38 of the National Heritage Resources Act, 25 of 1999).</B></div> <div> <B>In particular there is no evidence to suggest that the Department has complied with the </B><I><B>proviso</B></I><B> to section 38(8) of the National Heritage Resources Act, which stipulates that “</B><I><B>the consenting authority must ensure that the evaluation </B></I><B>[i.e. an EIA undertaken in terms of the ECA]</B><I><B> fulfils the requirements of the relevant heritage resources authority in terms of subsection (3), and any comments and recommendations of the relevant heritage resources authority with regard to such development have been taken into account prior to the granting of the consent</B></I><B>.”</B></div> <div> <B>The level of heritage specialist input in the EIA process was limited to a Heritage Review, which in general terms implies a “scoping level” of heritage assessment and not a full heritage impact assessment (“HIA”).  It is respectfully submitted that, in view of the nature and scale of proposed intervention in the landscape by the proposed transmission line, and the significance and sensitivity of the affected heritage contexts, the EIA process undertaken </B><I><B>in casu</B></I><B> should have complied with, as a bare minimum, the minimum requirements for HIA set out in section 38(3) of the National Heritage Resources Act.  It is submitted that the level of heritage specialist input involved in the EIA process only partially complied with the abovementioned legal requirements. </B></div> <div> <B>Further, it is submitted that the scope and expertise of heritage specialist input involved in the EIR did not provide a sufficient basis to inform appropriate decision-making with respect to the range and complexity of heritage issues relating to the proposed transmission line.  The Appellants support this contention on the following grounds:</B></div> <div> <B>The scope of study undertaken in the Heritage Review report was inadequate in that it was limited to the identification and mapping of potential archaeological and palaeontological sites, and buildings, graves, cemeteries, built structures and landscape features of historical significance. </B></div> <div> <B>The limited scope of study undertaken in the Heritage Review report provides for a very limited definition of heritage resources, which does not take into account the broad definition of heritage resources in the National Heritage Resources Act, in terms of which heritage resources are defined as places and objects of cultural significance for aesthetic, architectural, historical, scientific, social, spiritual, linguistic and/or technological reasons. Accordingly, this definition includes both tangible forms of heritage (e.g. archaeological remains and historical fabric), as well as intangible forms of heritage (e.g. the experiential qualities/character of a place, and cultural traditions, values and meanings associated with a place).</B></div> <div> <B>The scope of study does not clearly take into account the broad criteria for assessing heritage significance of a place or object as outlined in section 3(3) of the National Heritage Resources Act, namely:  </B></div> <div> <B>The scope of study does not refer to the system for grading of heritage resources as outlined in the National Heritage Resources Act, namely:</B></div> <div> <B>Grade 1: significant within a national context;</B></div> <div> <B>Grade 2: significant within a provincial or regional context; and</B></div> <div> <B>Grade 3: significant within a local context.</B></div> <div> <B>The Heritage Review report states that fieldwork and the desktop survey undertaken were severely limited and allowed for a cursory assessment only.  It is submitted that any limitations to the survey information relating to archaeological and palaeontological sites should have been subject to professional opinion from experts within these disciplines.</B></div> <div> <B>The Heritage Review report largely relies on a list of existing formally declared heritage sites and published survey information (e.g. Fransen & Cook (1980)).  It is submitted that such survey information is generally regarded by heritage practitioners and heritage resources authorities as incomplete and limited, especially with respect those outlying areas of the Swartland, Boland and Karoo regions affected by the proposed transmission line. Further, the emphasis of such previous surveys is on the identification of heritage resources based on historical and architectural criteria rather than the intangible and contextual heritage criteria defined in terms of the National Heritage Resources Act.</B></div> <div> <B>The expertise of the specialist (The Agency for Cultural Resource Management) has not been established as the Agency is a consultancy specialising in the field of pre-colonial archaeology. In terms of the accreditation criteria of the Association of Heritage Practitioners in the Western Cape (“AHAP”), the Agency is accredited as a heritage specialist in precolonial archaeology.   It is submitted, therefore, that the Agency does not have the relevant expertise to address the range and complexity of heritage issues involved in the project, namely historical archaeological, cultural landscape or intangible heritage issues. </B></div> <div> <B>Notwithstanding the fact that cultural landscapes provide the essential context for a range of heritage resources, which can take a variety of forms and are themselves a heritage resource, the Heritage Review report focuses on individual heritage resources (in the form of historical farmsteads, outspans, fortifications, routes, etc.) without sufficient consideration having been given to the cultural landscape context, whilst best practice in heritage management, as well as the recently published DEA&DP Guidelines for Involving Heritage Specialists in EIA processes (2005) recognises cultural landscape analysis as a critical aspect in the identification and management of heritage resources.  </B></div> <div> <B>The primary overarching heritage issue relating to the proposed transmission line is the potential impacts on varying cultural landscape contexts through which the transmission line will pass. Some of the significant cultural landscapes affected by the proposed project include the following:</B></div> <div> <B>Palaeontological landscapes e.g. the fossil remains of the Great Karoo.</B></div> <div> <B>Historical farmlands, e.g. Tulbagh Valley, which has a history of agricultural production and settlement dating to the late 17th century. </B></div> <div> <B>Historical rural towns and missions settlements and associated settings, (e.g. the historical core of Tulbagh and the nearby Steinthal Mission).</B></div> <div> <B>Pristine/natural or wilderness landscapes, e.g. adjacent proclaimed Nature Reserves and Fynbos/riverine areas.</B></div> <div> <B>Historical farm werfs and their associated settings, e.g. Bartholomews Klip and Elandsfontein. </B></div> <div> <B>Scenic/visual amenity landscape contexts, e.g. scenic route network. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>The potential adverse heritage impacts of the proposed transmission line on the cultural landscape contexts have not been adequately assessed.  The potential adverse impacts include </B><I><B>inter alia</B></I><B> the following:</B></div> <div> <B>Incompatibility of an industrial land use within a rural or natural landscape context. </B></div> <div> <B>Functional and visual-spatial severance of a cultural landscape context in terms of historical patterns of access, visual linkages and settings.</B></div> <div> <B>Strong linearity of the proposal in relation to historical geometries and related settlement patterns.</B></div> <div> <B>Over-scaled nature of the intervention in relation to the sense of fit of historical settlement patterns with their surroundings.</B></div> <div> <B>Visual intrusion into scenic corridors, gateway conditions.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>There is a degree of overlap between the visual and heritage issues of the proposed project, which should have involved the integration of the two specialist studies, especially in terms of addressing scenic resources and landscape character (including both natural and cultural attributes).   It is submitted that the absence of such integration is due to the limited scope of the HIA with respect to the definition of heritage resources and insufficient consideration given to heritage related visual issues.</B></div> <div> <B>Further, the Visual Impact Assessment (“VIA”) tends to focus on the natural physical elements of landscape character (e.g. landform and vegetation), with limited consideration being given to cultural attributes (e.g. historical patterns of land use and settlement, relationships between places and their settings).  While the VIA addresses scenic route issues, it does not give sufficient attention to the range of potential visual-spatial impacts of the proposed project on the regional scenic network, including historical passes, gateway conditions and approach roads.</B></div> <div> <B>The proposed management recommendations of the Heritage Review are inadequate and/or inappropriate for the following reasons:</B></div> <div> <B>No clear indication is given to the preferred alternative routes from a heritage perspective.</B></div> <div> <B>Despite the very cursory nature of the assessment and the identification of  potentially high to moderate negative impacts on a number of historical sites, no further detailed heritage assessment was recommended.</B></div> <div> <B>The Heritage Review recommends that suitable mitigation measures for historical sites be resolved at detailed planning and design stages. This is inappropriate in the context of where moderate to high negative heritage impacts have been identified, e.g. Bartholomews Klip (Section 1), Steinthal mission settlement near Tulbagh (Section 2) and Karoopoort Outspan (Section 3). In this regard, the “No-Go” option or modification to the proposal have not been sufficiently considered, as well as what specific methods of mitigation need to be considered in this regard.  </B></div> <div> <B>The Heritage Review report states that the recommendations outlined in report should be subject to SAHRA approval, yet this recommendation has not been carried through into the EIR.  It is submitted that this falls short of the requirements of section 38(8) of the National Heritage Resources Act which require that the decision-making authority consult with the relevant heritage authority prior to reaching a final decision. </B></div> <div> <B>The broader Tulbagh Valley is a landscape context of special cultural significance in terms of the following:</B></div> <div> <B>It is an intact, representative and coherent agricultural landscape.</B></div> <div> <B>It has a rich temporal and thematic layering of history.</B></div> <div> <B>It has unique scenic qualities related to valley condition and interface between agricultural, natural mountain slopes and sheer mountain backdrop.</B></div> <div> <B>It has a history of agricultural production and settlement spanning more than 300 years.</B></div> <div> <B>It has a concentration of heritage places including historical farmsteads, the historical town of Tulbagh and the mission settlement of Steinthal.</B></div> <div> <B>It is traversed by a number of regional and local scenic routes.</B></div> <div> <B>It a number of architectural-historical set pieces, namely Church Street in Tulbagh, which is a provincial heritage site.</B></div> <div> <B>The Appellants submit that the proposed transmission line will undoubtedly have significant negative visual impacts on the surrounding area and inevitably will detract from the scenic and historical rural character of the area.  In this regard, the VIA concludes that the central route through the Tulbagh Valley just south of the town of Tulbagh is preferred from a visual perspective due to the fact that it is aligned along existing infrastructure, e.g. transmission lines and roads, is in close proximity to fewer towns, and is located along a valley floor which can more easily accommodate tall structures or changes to landform due to the presence of the mountain backdrop. However, without due consideration of the above mentioned cultural landscape qualities, the above conclusion cannot be substantiated on heritage grounds.</B></div> <div> <B>A recent heritage scoping study undertaken by CS Design and Melanie Attwell Associates (2006) for the Schalkenbosch Golf Estate in the Tulbagh Valley identified a range of heritage resources located within the immediate vicinity of the town. The diagram (attached hereto as Annexure “E”) gives an indication of the range of heritage resources likely to be affected by the preferred central route.</B></div> <div> <B>In summary, it is respectfully submitted that insufficient heritage and visual assessment has been given to this local cultural landscape context in order to assess the potential heritage/visual impacts of the proposed project.  The Appellants submit that in view of the flawed and/or inadequate assessment of heritage impacts in the EIR, the ROD should be set a side on this basis alone.</B></div> <div> <U>Inadequate identification/assessment of socio-economic impacts</U></div> <div> <B>The Appellants submit that the adverse socio-economic impacts of the proposed transmission line have not been adequately assessed during the EIA process and considered during the EIA process.</B></div> <div> <B>The terms of reference for the Social and Socio-economic Specialist Study (the "Socio-economic Study" in this document), did not include an assessment of the possible adverse impacts on human health and, in particular, those impacts caused by exposure to electromagnetic radiation.  In this regard, the Socio-economic Study states that the impact of Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) "</B><I><B>has been left open in the event that further conclusive research evidence is released during the assessment phase</B></I><B>".  There is nothing in the EIR to suggest that any attempts were made by the environmental consultants to obtain up to date research information on this issue.</B></div> <div> <B>It is respectfully submitted that an assessment (supposedly) based on research information available during the assessment phase (the Socio-Economic Study expressly records that the information used for the purposes of the study was collated during 2000-2001) would differ significantly from an assessment based on current research material that exists at the time a decision was rendered (i.e. some 5 years later). </B></div> <div> <B>It is respectfully submitted that any assessment of socio-economic aspects of the proposed transmission line, and specifically the potential adverse impacts on human health should have included a comprehensive literature review which examines the contemporary research in terms of the impact of electromagnetic radiation. The fact that this has not occurred constitutes a major gap in the EIA process.</B></div> <div> <B>The Socio-economic Study states that any changes in alignment will require “</B><I><B>further investigations to assess the implications</B></I><B>".  In view of the fact that changes to the route alignment were mooted in 2004 (in the Report on Alternatives) it is evident that insofar as these variations post-date the undertaking of the Socio-economic Study that no such assessment of alternative alignments has taken place.  </B></div> <div> <B>On the contrary, the nature of the proposed linear development appears to have informed a "cart before horse" approach to the EIA process, insofar as the Socio-economic Study records that site specific assessment of impacts will need to be undertaken "once the servitude has been finalised".   It is respectfully submitted that this defeats the purpose behind an EIA, which is to identify potential adverse impacts and mitigation measures </B><B><U>in advance</U></B><B> so that the proposed development may be adjusted, where necessary and, in particular, where the adverse impact of a proposed development is deemed to be unacceptably high.  In the case of a transmission line, the servitudes will be finalised only </B><B><U>after</U></B><B> the route alignment has been finalised.  Accordingly, undertaking an assessment/identification of impacts at the stage where the servitude has already been finalised will be an academic exercise and of no relevance to the EIA process.</B></div> <div> <B>The substantial changes to the social fabric of the Witzenberg Municipal area since the data for the undertaking of the Socio-economic Study was collated in 2001, have rendered the information contained therein obsolete.  For example, the Chris Hani informal settlement has expanded considerably since 2000 and the impacts of the proposed transmission line have not been comprehensively assessed insofar as they may impact on that community.  The economic viability of subsequent developments has similarly not been assessed nor taken into account in the decision-making process.  For example, the development of the proposed Golf Estate at Schalkenbosch is at an advanced stage and the substantial adverse impact of the proposed transmission line on the economic viability of that development has not been assessed nor taken into account in the decision-making process.</B></div> <div> <B>Finally, whilst acknowledging the aesthetic qualities of the Tulbagh Valley and its importance from a tourism point of view, the Socio-economic Study recommends that "[e]fforts should be made to continue to ensure that the transmission line is constructed away from high potential tourist areas".  This statement reveals that the Socio-economic Study has failed to appreciate and assess properly the significance of the impacts of the proposed transmission line on the tourism value of the Tulbagh Valley as the valley itself is an important tourist area.  Whilst it may be possible to mitigate the adverse impacts of certain kinds of linear developments, it is submitted that this is not the case with regard to the nature and scale of the proposed 765kV transmission line.  Accordingly, it is submitted that there is no basis for attributing a low level of significance (after mitigation) to the impacts of the proposed transmission line on the tourism value of the Tulbagh Valley.  Indeed, the cumulative impact of having more than one transmission line traversing the Tulbagh Valley will result in an unacceptably high adverse impact on the pristine qualities of the valley.  </B></div> <div> <B>On the basis that the Socio-economic Study has failed to assess properly the true nature and scale of the adverse impacts of the proposed transmission line on the tourism value and economic development of the valley, it is submitted that a related impact (i.e. the adverse impact on property values in the Tulbagh Valley) has similarly been inadequately assessed.  Whilst the Appellants concur with the findings of the Socio-economic Study that the occurrence of a reduction in property values will be highly probable, the Appellants submit that there is no basis for concluding that the level of significance of this impact is Moderate or Low (after mitigation).   In view of the aforegoing, it is submitted that the impact of the proposed transmission line on the economic viability of the Tulbagh Valley has been grossly underestimated in the Socio-economic Study and the finding therein should have been “High” in both respects.  </B></div> <div> <B>For the reasons set out above, it is respectfully submitted that the methodologies used in preparing the Socio-economic Study were flawed and, as a result, it does not provide an accurate reflection of the issues and impact associated with the proposed transmission line.</B></div> <div> <U>NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES</U></div> <div> <B>It is respectfully submitted that the section 2 NEMA principles are applicable to the ROD as the decision to authorise the proposed transmission line may significantly effect the environment.  It is submitted further that the Director-General's decision falls short of the requirements of section 2 of NEMA in more than one respect, and as described in detail below.</B></div> <div> <B>The cultural landscape incorporating the Tulbagh Valley forms an integral component of South Africa's cultural heritage, and the construction of the proposed 765kV transmission line through the valley will result in significant disturbance of this landscape in such a manner that will incapable of being minimised and/or remedied.  Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that the Director-General's decision is incompatible with section 2(4)(a)(iii) of NEMA and falls to be set aside on appeal on this basis alone.</B></div> <div> <B>The EIR records that the transmission line will pass close to towns, informal settlements (such as the Chris Hani informal settlement in Tulbagh) and various homesteads.  However, the EIR has not assessed the potential adverse impacts on human health of the proposed transmission line.  In addition, the potential significant adverse impacts on wildlife and livestock in particular, have not been identified, investigated, considered or assessed.  In the result, the adverse impacts of the proposed transmission line on the environment and on human health and on well-being have not been taken into account by the decision-maker.  It is respectfully submitted, that there is a lack of scientific certainty regarding the nature and extent of the effects of exposure to electromagnetic radiation from such transmission lines on human health and the environment in general.  Research undertaken since the 1970's has revealed a possible link between transmissions lines and the increased incidence of cancers.  It is respectfully submitted that based on the paucity of information in the EIR in this regard, this is an instance in which the Director-General should have applied a risk-adverse and cautious approach which acknowledges the limits of current knowledge regarding the adverse impacts associated with EMF radiation.  The failure to do so has rendered the Department's decision incompatible with the national environmental management principles and falls to be set aside on appeal on this basis alone.</B></div> <div> <B>Notwithstanding the confusion regarding the precise alignment of the proposed transmission line, it is apparent that it will be situated in close proximity to the Chris Hani informal settlement.  Of particular importance is the fact that the informal settlement has significantly increased in size since the period when the EIA process was undertaken (the Chris Hani informal settlement now accommodates more than 4000 people).  The effects of the proposed transmission line on this community (in its current form) have, therefore, not been assessed during the EIA process.  It is respectfully submitted that the Director-General's decision may have a disproportionately high and adverse impact on the human health and environmental rights of low income and/or historically disadvantaged communities in a manner which renders the Director-General's decision incompatible with the national environmental management principles.</B></div> <div> <B>For the reasons which are set out in detail above, the participation of all interested parties in the decision-making process has not been achieved in relation to the EIA process.  Indeed, in view of the fact that interested parties were not afforded an opportunity of commenting on the final EIR and/or the additional documents submitted to the Department,  the Director-General was not capable of taking into account the interests, needs and values of all interested parties in the decision-making process.  Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that the Director-General's decision fails to comply with the requirements of the national environmental management principles.</B></div> <div> <B>It is respectfully submitted that the nature of the proposed transmission line on the environment (with particular reference to the cultural properties of the affected environment as NEMA requires that "the disturbance of landscapes and sites that constitute the nation's cultural heritage is avoided, or where it cannot altogether be avoided, is minimised and remedied") have not been properly assessed and evaluated during the EIA process.  In addition, the assessment of social and economic impacts of the proposed transmission line (as recorded in Chapter 10 of the draft EIR is similarly defective and based on obsolete and irrelevant information).</B></div> <div> <B>Section 2 of NEMA requires, among other things, that environmental management "must place people and their needs at the forefront of its concern, and serve their physical, psychological, developmental, cultural and social interests equitably".  We respectfully submit that the proposed development will have a potentially devastating impact on the health, well-being and economic prosperity of those individuals and communities that inhabit the Witzenberg Municipal area.  The environmental management envisaged by the ROD gives rise to a situation in which the regional interest is favoured over the physical, psychological, development, cultural and social interests of the Appellants and the communities they represent in an inequitable manner which is wholly inconsistent with the national environmental management principles.</B></div> <div> <I>CONCLUDING REMARKS</I></div> <div> <B>In conclusion it is respectfully submitted by the Appellants that:</B></div> <div> <B>The environmental consultant's failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of the EIA Regulations and section 24 of NEMA (prior to its repeal) is fatally defective to the application.   </B></div> <div> <B>The EIA process in respect of the proposed development was irregular and procedurally flawed in that the environmental consultant and the relevant authority (i.e. the Department) failed to ensure that the public participation process complied with the mandatory requirements of the EIA Regulations and/or NEMA.</B></div> <div> <B>In authorizing the proposed development on the basis of the approach to the EIA process, the decision-maker accordingly acted </B><I><B>ultra vires</B></I><B> her decision-making powers.</B></div> <div> <B>If the decision-maker had properly had regard to the information before her (in particular the applicant's failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of the EIA Regulations), she would have  refused to authorise the proposed transmission line on the basis of the EIR in its present form, and requested the applicant to make the amendments to the EIR deemed necessary. </B></div> <div> <B>The decision-maker failed to have due regard to the Department's obligations regarding the protection and conservation of South Africa's cultural heritage landscape.</B></div> <div> <B>The effluxion in time between the date on which the motivation for the proposed transmission line was prepared and the date on which the Department authorised the activity in question, has resulted in the Director-General's decision being based upon out of date factual information and, therefore, irrelevant considerations.</B></div> <div> <B>Accordingly, the appellate authority should set aside the ROD on the basis that the decision-maker could not have had regard to substantively relevant information placed before her, </B><B><U>alternatively</U></B><B> she could not have considered it properly, otherwise she could not reasonably have come to the decision that she did and as reflected in the ROD, as the latter is framed.</B></div> <div> <B>Finally, the Appellants respectfully point out to the appellate authority that the Appellants will, if deemed necessary by the appellate authority,  make available those of its representatives and/or professional advisors insofar as the  Minister wishes to hear oral submissions in the discharge of the (widely framed) appeal powers under section 35(4) of the ECA.  Insofar as the powers of a wide appeal could include an order from the appellate authority regarding the preparation and submission of legal argument, the Appellants will prepare, on notice from the appellate authority, appropriate heads of argument.</B></div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>DATED at CAPE TOWN this 12</B><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><B>th</B></FONT><B> day of JULY 2006.</B></div> <bR> <div> <I><B><U>                              </U></B></I></div> <div> <I><B>Per:</B></I></div> <bR> <div> <B>NICHOLAS SMITH & ASSOCIATES </B></div> <div> <B>For and on behalf of the Appellants</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Fifth Floor, Poyntons Building</B></div> <div> <B>24 Burg Street</B></div> <div> <B>CAPE TOWN</B></div> <div> <B>8000</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Telephone:        (021) 424 5826</B></div> <div> <B>Fax:           (021) 424 5825</B></div> <div> <B>E-mail:       rwsummers@law.co.za</B></div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <bR> <div> <B><U>ANNEXURES TO THIS APPEAL</U></B></div> <bR> <div> <B>"A" -  List of Appellants</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>"B" -   Appeal Questionnaire</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>"C" -   Record of Decision dated 12 June 2006</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>"D" -   Letter dated 2 March 2003 from the Department to PBA International</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>"E" -    Diagram prepared by Attwell & Associates.</B></div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <B>ANNEXURE "A"</B></div> <div> <B><U>ORGANISATIONS</U></B></div> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="607" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 39 WIDTH="29"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="39" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="29" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="304"><div> <B>NAME OF ENTITY</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="136"><div> <B>CONTACT PERSON</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="113"><div> <B>CONTACT NUMBER</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="607" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 39 WIDTH="29"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="39" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="29" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="304"><div> <B>African Methodist Episcopal Church, Wolseley</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="136"><div> <B>A. Berendo</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="113"><div> <B>073 417 9589</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="607" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 39 WIDTH="29"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="39" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="29" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="304"><div> <B>African National Congress, Ward 4 Branch, Witzenberg;</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="136"><div> <B>J.J. Visagie</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="113"><div> <B>073 829 7119</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="607" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 39 WIDTH="29"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="39" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="29" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="304"><div> <B>BDB Farming (Pty) Ltd, Route 46, Tulbagh</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="136"><div> <B>-</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="113"><div> <B>(023) 231 0350</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="607" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 39 WIDTH="29"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="39" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="29" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="304"><div> <B>Bellevista Branch of Democratic Alliance</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <B>Stephan Louw</B></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="113"><div> <B>-</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="607" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 39 WIDTH="29"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="39" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="29" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <B>Christian Brethen Church, Tulbagh</B></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="136"><div> <B>H. Baadjies</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="113"><div> <B>073 230 9109</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="607" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 39 WIDTH="29"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="39" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="29" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="304"><div> <B>Eskom Transmission Line Action Committee </B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <B>John Veschini</B></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="113"><div> <B>082 6538229</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="607" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 39 WIDTH="29"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="39" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="29" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <B>Gesonheids Forum, Wolseley</B></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="136"><div> <B>M. Bailey</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="113"><div> <B>(023) 231 1091</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="607" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 39 WIDTH="29"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="39" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="29" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="304"><div> <B>Hamlet R. V. K;</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="136"><div> <B>G. Laban</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="113"><div> <B>072 741 1700</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="607" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 39 WIDTH="29"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="39" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="29" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="304"><div> <B>Local Management Committee Witzenberg</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <B>Kevin Klaasen</B></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="113"><div> <B>-</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="607" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 39 WIDTH="29"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="39" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="29" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="304"><div> <B>Obiqua Department of Correctional Services, Tulbagh;</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="136"><div> <B>M.H. Jansen</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="113"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="39" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="113" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="607" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 39 WIDTH="29"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="39" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="29" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <B>Pinkstereenheid van Suid Afrika</B></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="136"><div> <B>S. Cupido</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="113"><div> <B>(023) 230 1333</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="607" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 39 WIDTH="29"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="39" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="29" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="304"><div> <B>Prince Alfred's Hamlet Maatskaplike Komitee;</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="136"><div> <B>A. Januarie</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="113"><div> <B> 082 366 8192</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="607" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 39 WIDTH="29"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="39" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="29" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <B>Prince Alfred's Hamlet Youth Forum;</B></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <B>M. Bezuidenhout</B></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="113"><div> <B>073 108 5318</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="607" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 39 WIDTH="29"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="39" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="29" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="304"><div> <B>Rijk's Country Hotel, P O Box 340, Tulbagh</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="136"><div> <B>-</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="113"><div> <B>(023) 230 1006</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="607" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 39 WIDTH="29"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="39" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="29" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="304"><div> <B>Rijk's Private Cellar, P O Box 400, Tulbagh</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="136"><div> <B>-</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="113"><div> <B>(023) 230 1622</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="607" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 20 WIDTH="29"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="20" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="29" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <B>St Peter's Church, Tulbagh </B></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="136"><div> <B>-</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="113"><div> <B>-</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="607" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 39 WIDTH="29"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="39" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="29" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="304"><div> <B>Tulbagh 4 Star Hotel (22 van der Stel Street, Tulbagh)</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="136"><div> <B>-</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="113"><div> <B>(023) 230 0071</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="607" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 20 WIDTH="29"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="20" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="29" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <B>Tulbagh Branch of Democratic Alliance</B></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <B>Kenneth Julius</B></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="113"><div> <B>-</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="607" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 20 WIDTH="29"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="20" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="29" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <B>Tulbagh Gemeenskap Aksie Komitee;</B></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="136"><div> <B>S. Williams</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="113"><div> <B>-</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="607" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 39 WIDTH="29"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="39" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="29" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <B>Tulbagh Landbou Vereniging;</B></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="136"><div> <B>A.C. Hauptfletsch</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="113"><div> <B>-</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="607" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 20 WIDTH="29"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="20" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="29" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="304"><div> <B>Tulbagh Tourism Bureau</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="136"><div> <B>A.V Buttle</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="113"><div> <B>-</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="607" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 20 WIDTH="29"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="20" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="29" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <B>United Independent Front Party - Nduli</B></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="136"><div> <B>Zola Mdala</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="113"><div> <B>-</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="607" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 20 WIDTH="29"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="20" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="29" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <B>United Reformed Church, Tulbagh</B></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <B>R.C. Simpson</B></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="113"><div> <B>-</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="607" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 85 WIDTH="29"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="85" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="29" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <B>United Reformed Church, Wolseley</B></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="136"><div> <B>C.R. Phillips</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="113"><div> <B>073 330 9976/</B></div> <div> <B>(023) 231 0086</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="607" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 20 WIDTH="29"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="20" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="29" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <B>Ward 3 Branch of Democratic Alliance</B></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <B>Kevin Klaasen</B></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="113"><div> <B>-</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="607" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 20 WIDTH="29"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="20" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="29" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <B>Ward 5 Branch of Democratic Alliance</B></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <B>Jonathan Nel</B></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="113"><div> <B>-</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="607" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 20 WIDTH="29"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="20" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="29" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="304"><div> <B>Waveren High School</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <B>F.S. Schippers</B></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="113"><div> <B>-</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <div> <B><U>INDIVIDUALS</U></B></div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="650" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 39 WIDTH="34"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="39" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="34" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <B>FIRST NAME </B></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <B>SURNAME </B></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="220"><div> <B>ADDRESS</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="142"><div> <B>CONTACT NUMBER</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="650" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 131 WIDTH="34"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="131" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="34" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="118"><div> <B>Nadine</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="106"><div> <B>Aikman</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <B>P O Box 140, Tulbagh</B></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="142"><div> <B>T: (023) 230 1470</B></div> <div> <B>F: (023) 230 1500</B></div> <div> <B>Cell: 083 306 6768</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="650" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 131 WIDTH="34"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="131" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="34" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="118"><div> <B>Henry </B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="106"><div> <B>Aikman</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <B>P O Box 140, Tulbagh</B></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="142"><div> <B>T: (023) 230 1470</B></div> <div> <B>F: (023) 230 1500</B></div> <div> <B>Cell: 083 306 6768</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="650" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 39 WIDTH="34"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="39" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="34" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="118"><div> <B>C.A</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="106"><div> <B>Algar</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="220"><div> <B>38 van der Stel Street, Tulbagh</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="142"><div> <B>T: (023) 230 1231</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="650" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 39 WIDTH="34"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="39" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="34" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="118"><div> <B>S.M.L.</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="106"><div> <B>Algar</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="220"><div> <B>38 van der Stel Street, Tulbagh</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="142"><div> <B>T: (023) 230 1231</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="650" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 85 WIDTH="34"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="85" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="34" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="118"><div> <B>M.D.</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="106"><div> <B>Ashley-Cooper</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="220"><div> <B>36 van der Stel Street, Tulbagh</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="142"><div> <B>T: (023) 230 0244</B></div> <div> <B>Cell: 083 281 7071</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="650" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 39 WIDTH="34"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="39" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="34" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="118"><div> <B>Meryl</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="106"><div> <B>Ashley-Cooper</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="220"><div> <B>36 van der Stel Street, Tulbagh</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="142"><div> <B>T: (023) 230 0244</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="650" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 131 WIDTH="34"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="131" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="34" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="118"><div> <B>Kenton</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="106"><div> <B>Bagshaw</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <B>Paddagang Restaurant</B></div> <div> <B>P O Box 193, Tulbagh</B></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="142"><div> <B>T: (023) 230 0242</B></div> <div> <B>F: (023) 230 0433</B></div> <div> <B>Cell: 072 159 0013</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="650" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 85 WIDTH="34"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="85" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="34" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <B>Tony Christine</B></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="106"><div> <B>Bond</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <B>P O Box 246, Wolseley</B></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="142"><div> <B>T: (023) 231 0427</B></div> <div> <B>F: (023) 231 0427</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="650" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 85 WIDTH="34"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="85" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="34" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="118"><div> <B>Mina, N</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="106"><div> <B>Burgan</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="220"><div> <B>29 Piet Retief Straat, Tulbagh</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="142"><div> <B>T: (023) 230 1492</B></div> <div> <B>Cell: 072 953 0316</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="650" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 39 WIDTH="34"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="39" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="34" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="118"><div> <B>Anne</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <B>Christensen</B></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <B>2 Loop Street, Tulbagh</B></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="142"><div> <B>Cell: 084 661 2864</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="650" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 131 WIDTH="34"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="131" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="34" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <B>Daniel, Wynand</B></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="106"><div> <B>De Jager</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <B>10 Marais Straat, Tulbagh</B></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="142"><div> <B>T: (023) 230 0233</B></div> <div> <B>F: (023) 230 0233</B></div> <div> <B>Cell: 083 522 8666</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="650" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 66 WIDTH="34"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="66" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="34" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="118"><div> <B>Joe</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="106"><div> <B>De Villiers</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <B>Erf 79, Tulbagh Road,</B></div> <div> <B>P O Box 333, Tulbagh</B></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="142"><div> <B>F: (023)  230 0685</B></div> <div> <B>Cell: 230 0685</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="650" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 131 WIDTH="34"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="131" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="34" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="118"><div> <B>A.N.</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <B>Dorrington</B></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <B>P O Box 400, Tulbagh</B></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="142"><div> <B>T: (023) 230 1622</B></div> <div> <B>F: (023) 230 1650</B></div> <div> <B>Cell: 082 455 8700</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="650" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 131 WIDTH="34"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="131" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="34" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="118"><div> <B>H.</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="106"><div> <B>Du Plessis</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <B>P O Box 297, Tulbagh</B></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="142"><div> <B>T: (023) 230 1234</B></div> <div> <B>F: (023) 230 1234</B></div> <div> <B>Cell:  072 274 8972</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="650" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 131 WIDTH="34"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="131" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="34" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="118"><div> <B>R.J.</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="106"><div> <B>Du Plessis</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <B>Bloekombossie Restaurant</B></div> <div> <B>P O Box 221, Tulbagh</B></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="142"><div> <B>T: (023) 230 1172</B></div> <div> <B>F: (023) 230 1405</B></div> <div> <B>Cell: 082 966 3101</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="650" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 85 WIDTH="34"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="85" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="34" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="118"><div> <B>C.I.O</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="106"><div> <B>Du Toit</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <B>Groot Vallei, Tulbagh</B></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="142"><div> <B>T: (023) 230 1796</B></div> <div> <B>Cell: 084 268 1068</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="650" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 131 WIDTH="34"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="131" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="34" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="118"><div> <B>John</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="106"><div> <B>Haddad</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <B>Odessa Farm, Tulbagh</B></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="142"><div> <B>T: (023)230 0480</B></div> <div> <B>F: (023) 230 0480</B></div> <div> <B>Cell:  082 345 2258</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="650" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 131 WIDTH="34"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="131" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="34" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="118"><div> <B>Eustav, Dietrich</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="106"><div> <B>Haumann</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="220"><div> <B>Buitenkant Straat 12, Tulbagh</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="142"><div> <B>T: (023) 230 1553</B></div> <div> <B>F: (023) 230 1553</B></div> <div> <B>Cell: 072 231 6985</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="650" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 85 WIDTH="34"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="85" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="34" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="118"><div> <B>Berindiena</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="106"><div> <B>Horing</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <B>Schoonderzicht Farm</B></div> <div> <B>P O box 267</B></div> <div> <B>6820</B></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="142"><div> <B>T: (023) 230 0673</B></div> <div> <B>Cell: 072 223 7373</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="650" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 66 WIDTH="34"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="66" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="34" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="118"><div> <B>Peter</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="106"><div> <B>Jackson</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="220"><div> <B>Schalkenbosch Estate, Tulbagh</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="142"><div> <B>T: (023) 230 0654</B></div> <div> <B>Cell: </B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="650" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 131 WIDTH="34"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="131" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="34" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="118"><div> <B>Friederich</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="106"><div> <B>Jesch</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="220"><div> <B>15 Magnolia Street, Tulbagh</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="142"><div> <B>T: (023) 230 1631</B></div> <div> <B>F: 086 672 5897</B></div> <div> <B>Cell: 083 446 7005</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="650" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 131 WIDTH="34"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="131" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="34" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="118"><div> <B>Jean</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="106"><div> <B>Kotze</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <B>Linde Vineyards</B></div> <div> <B>P O Box 343, Tulbagh</B></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="142"><div> <B>T: (023) 230 0742</B></div> <div> <B>F: (023) 230 2838</B></div> <div> <B>Cell:  082 320 7589</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="650" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 131 WIDTH="34"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="131" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="34" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="118"><div> <B>Danie </B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="106"><div> <B>Kotze</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <B>Ra Brayere Farming</B></div> <div> <B>P O Box 274, Tulbagh</B></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="142"><div> <B>T: (023) 230 0808</B></div> <div> <B>F: (023) 230 0808</B></div> <div> <B>Cell: 082 492 1710</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="650" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 131 WIDTH="34"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="131" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="34" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="118"><div> <B>L.J.</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="106"><div> <B>Le Roux</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <B>P O box 225, Wolseley</B></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="142"><div> <B>T: (023) 231 0042</B></div> <div> <B>F: (023) 231 1571</B></div> <div> <B>Cell: 082 492 3775</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="650" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 131 WIDTH="34"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="131" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="34" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="118"><div> <B>M.</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="106"><div> <B>Loubser</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <B>P O Box 89, Tulbagh</B></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="142"><div> <B>T: (023) 230 0307</B></div> <div> <B>F: (023) 230 0307</B></div> <div> <B>Cell: 083 788 0350</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="650" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 47 WIDTH="34"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="47" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="34" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="118"><div> <B>Jesmien</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="106"><div> <B>Marais</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="220"><div> <B>25 Essenhoutsingel, Witzenville, Tulbagh</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="142"><div> <B>T: -</B></div> <div> <B>F: -</B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></B></div> <bR> <div> <B> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="650" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 131 WIDTH="34"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEI