4.3 The case study of the Small Craft Harbour
4.3.4 The Extended Scoping Phase
The Draft Scoping Report was thus compiled by Pravin Amar Development Planners as the EIA consultant, with input from the relevant Professional Team of specialists and I&APs. As part of the process, a set of seven options were identified as alternatives for the development and were described in the report (See Appendix I; Round One). The report is summarised as follows:
"The Draft Scoping Report identified seven different options, of which only five involved the development of a Small Craft Harbour. These options were developed by the initial team of consultants and were based on the key concepts contained in the Framework Plan. Only four of these alternatives supported the notion of a Small Craft Harbour on the Point Precinct. These four options were conceptually similar, with their major variation being the position of the Northern breakwater. The major debates therefore revolved around maximising economic benefits vs minimising ecological impacts. Hence, the position of the breakwater was the fundamental defining factor" (Oelofseet ai,2005).
The Report was submitted for review by the public and authorities on 21 May 2004, with the deadline for review scheduled on 30 June 2004. A public meeting was thus scheduled for 17 June 2004 to discuss all issues and concerns raised from the Draft Scoping Report.
However, the City considered the proposed set of options presented in the Draft Scoping Report inadequate, as the alternatives did not meet the broader goals of the City. This reflected the growing tension between the goals of the public and private sectors. As a result, on 19 July 2004 the City placed a request to investigate further alternatives and on 5 August 2004 it was motivated that the Scoping Phase would be extended and would include an additional team of independent specialists (Pravin Amar Development Planners, 2005b). This Professional Team included two financial/economic consultants and one social consultant and their involvement signified an expansion of the previous network of actors. These specialists would work with the existing team to devise a new set of more adequate alternatives, opening up the process to more deliberation and negotiations. Their involvement corresponded with the duration of the Extended Scoping Phase which ran from July 2004 until April 2005. This process is outlined as follows.
of the Scoping Phase, Pravin Amar Development Planners as the EIA consultant facilitated the series of meetings and workshops. See Appendix 2 for a summarised chronology.
1st Professional Team Workshop - 23August 2004
The first workshop consisted of City Officials, the original consultants, the three new consultants (the Professional Team), a Moreland Planner and the EIA consultant. The aim was to brief the consultants about the project and to define their role within the process. They were required to review the Draft Scoping Report for comment at the following workshop. In addition, the team members set out to identify key issues; the terms of reference (ToR) for the alternatives study, the principles to be followed for the alternatives study; the purpose and objectives of the study; the parameters and limitations to the study; and the methodology for the study (Pravin Amar Development Planners, 2005b). By having the opportunity to refine their own terms of reference, the team members had the ability to set their own 'rules' and define the process in terms of their own experience and understanding. An international comparative literature review was also to be undertaken.
2ndProfessional Team Workshop-14September 2004
This workshop consisted of City Officials, Moreland representatives, the extended consultant team, and the EIA consultant. The team provided feedback on the options presented in the Draft Scoping Report as well as on the comparative literature review and there was discussion around these two topics. A number of key issues arising from the latter were classified as social issues, economic viability and technical issues. The group formulated an approach for the review, thereby outlining their own 'rules' to guide the process and this is outlined as follows (Pravin Amar Development Planners, Minutes, 14/09/04: 13):
1. "Identify the alternatives/options and group them
2. Establish the viability of each alternative/option by examining supporting data and overall objectives
3. Shortl ist alternatives/options
4. Assess the viability of alternatives in relation to:
- meeting overall objectives
- limitations and assumptions of the proposed alternative/option 5. Establish the criteria for which each option is to be assessed".
The team then devised a number of innovative options or components thereof in a brainstorming session (See Appendix 3). As a result of the deliberation around these ideas, 11 options were
formulated (See Appendix I; Round Two). It is important to note that the Developer's preferred option from the original Scoping Exercise; Option 5 the Integrated Option (Appendix I; Round One) was carried through to this Second Round and was renamed Option 2 (Appendix I; Round Two). The 11 options were clustered into the following groups or themes (Pravin Amar Development Planners, Minutes, 14/09/04: 13):
I. "Recreational theme park/entertainment development proposals 2. Eco-cultural/heritage development proposals
3. Recreational/tourist retail development proposals 4. Watersports and recreational development proposals 5. Water development proposals".
Moreland's urban design consultant was appointed to present these conceptually for the following meeting. It was agreed that the way forward would entail an interrogation of these new options using a ranking process. Each team member was required to rank the options, with respect to the objectives of the Developer, the Municipality and the public, to determine their viability. A 'notional' ranking was assigned to filter the options, which allowed for a scientific assessment (Oelofse et ai, 2005). Once the individuals had independently assessed the options, the results were consolidated into a single matrix table by one of the economic/financial consultants from the Professional Team. In this way, the views of each of the team members would be 'scientifically' taken into consideration and would inform the outcome. These results were later taken forward to a meeting with the City Manager on IS November 2004.
J,dProfessional Team Workshop-11 October 2004
Following from the previous meeting, the City Officials, Moreland representatives, the consultant team and the EIA consultant met to review the I1 options which were presented as concept diagrams. The team members discussed various components of the diagrams and questioned certain aspects such as the effect on the beach, access, parking, and the boat clubs.
The three members of the Professional Team each presented their own respective case study reviews which assisted in contextualising a waterfront development project such as the SCH. A draft framework for decision-making was then proposed and the following issues were recorded as key elements for the design process which would guide further alternatives and define the process (Pravin Amar Development Planners, Minutes, 11/10/04:5):
• "The need to align the development to International Best Practice;
• To ensure that the information dissemination was packaged in a readable and understandable format;
• To establish an open process;
• To establish a principle that more beach should be created;
• To promote the continuation of the space for young swimmers and for snorkeling;
• To build on the local distinctiveness ofthe space; and
• To recognise the status of the beach as a key environmental asset".
In addition, following the discussions around the options and the various issues, a set of principles to guide the development was drafted (See Appendix 4). There was significant deliberation around these principles as they were required to satisfy a broad spectrum of objectives. Furthermore, the team jointly compiled a set of criteria against which the alternate options were to be evaluated and assessed (Pravin Amar Development Planners, Minutes,
11110/04:8):
• "Social
• Ecological
• Biophysical
• Financial
• Economic
• Technical (legal and process, infrastructure, management)
• Planning and Urban Design
• City-wide Imperatives
• The Developer's Mandate".
It was agreed that the public should be informed of the process to date including a presentation of the options so far as well as a summary of the literature review. This public workshop was held on 27 November 2004.
4thProfessional Team Workshop - 15 November 2004
The consultants met with the City Officials and the facilitator to jointly assess the II options with particular reference to the matrix evaluation. The team jointly grouped the options in relation to the principles and the matrix criteria (such as IDP objectives, financial viability, and social access). Table 4.2 provides a summary of these 11 options and provides a brief analysis in terms ofthe various components which would deem them suitable or not.
Table 4.2: Summary of the evaluation of the 11 options (adapted from Consultant I, Email, 09/02/05)
Option Description Analysis
Option I Original Proposal- Vetch's Pier. Vetch's Pier destroyed, no safe bathing beach - not acceptable.
Option 2 Integrated Option. Vetch's Pier retained but no safe bathing beach- not acceptable.
Option 3A Reconfigured Small Craft Harbour1 Vetch's Pier and significant safe bathing Waterfront. retained - acceptable but not financially viable
as only 17 421 m2of development to carry capital cost ofSCH of about RI73 million (as calculated in viability analysis circulated 24/11/04).
Option 3b Reconfigured Small Craft Harbour1 Vetch's Pier and significant safe bathing
Waterfront retained -acceptable but insufficient
development for financial viability, "but adaptation possible" - refer conclusions of 9th November.
Option 4 Recreational Theme Park1Entertainment Vetch's retained but no safe bathing - not acceptable, not financially viable because most space on reclaimed land of very limited commercial value.
Option 5 Eco-Culturall Heritage Proposal Vetch's Pier and significant safe bathing retained - acceptable but not financially viable because of limited development and limited commercial value of most of that development.
Option 6 Recreational1Tourist Retail Vetch's Pier retained and significant safe bathing - acceptable. Little development with many of the proposed uses e.g. maritime museum, flea market having limited commercial value - hence not financially viable.
Option 7 Watersports and Recreational Vetch's Pier retained but no safe bathing beach
Development - not acceptable. Limited or no commercial
value uses proposed for much of the development - not financially viable.
Option 8a Water Development - Private Vetch's Pier retained, no safe bathing beach, limited public access - not acceptable.
Sufficient development to ensure financial viability.
Option 8b Water Development - Public Vetch's Pier retained, safe bathing beach lost and very limited safe bathing beach proposed between Vetch's Pier and UShaka Pier - not acceptable. Financial viability questionable because of high proportion of non-commercial uses.
Option 9 Conventional - No Small Craft Harbour Vetch's Pier and safe bathing retained but Point Precinct now primarily a beachfront and not waterfront development - economic viability questionable. Whilst no small craft harbour costs, planning of Point and sale of land for development premised on expectations of a waterfront. Impacts negatively on financial viabil ity of Point Precinct.
Four groups or 'clusters' emerged which were based on the key concept of each option. The team then devised a way to classifY them which was in terms of the level of bulk (property development) that they achieved. The clusters are depicted in Table 4.3 below.
Table 4.3: Categorised cluster options (adapted from Pravin Amar Development Planners, 2005a:24)
Cluster Qntions
Mega Bulk 8a; 8b
Medium Bulk 2a; 2b (Club's proposal); 4; 7
Soft and Medium Bulk 3b (components of 5; 6) - Consultants Option
Soft Bulk 3a (components of 5; 6)
Both the City Officials and the consultants agreed that because 3b was the most balanced option, it was their preferred option. However, because the financial viability was under question, it was decided that it would be reconsidered (Oelofseet ai,2005). Option 3b was thus adapted into two different variations; 3b(i) and 3b(ii) (See Appendix I; Round Three). It was agreed upon by most of the team that the benefit of these two options were that they retained Vetch's pier and the associated safe bathing beach and were deemed to be viable. Option 3b(i) offered more bulk and was thus 'more' financially viable as it offered a higher income from sales within the existing cadastral 'landside' boundary when compared with Option 3b(ii) (Oelofse et ai, 2005). In addition, Option 3b(i) required less reclamation in the sea. Option 3b(ii) had reduced bulk and thus the development land was shifted back (Pravin Amar Development Planners, 2005a). As 3b(i) and 3b(ii) were viable options, they were amongst the remaining 4 options after the 11 options had been shortlisted. These four options are described in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4: Short-listed options (adapted from Pravin Amar Development Planners, 2005a:24-25)
* OptIOn 4 was discarded at a later stage and thus does not appear amongst the options for Round Three in Appendix I.
Option Description Rationale
Option I 3b(i) - including components of 5 and 6 Financially viable (greater bulk)&
retains beach
Option 2 3b(ii) - including components of 5 and 6 Financially viable (lesser bulk)&
retains beach
Option 3 2 (Integrated Option) Original preferred option
Option 4* 8a and 8b Optimal property development
(maximum bulk)
The consultants agreed on Option 3b(i) with components of 5 and 6 (i.e. to include the concepts framing the eco-cultural and recreation options) as their preferred option on the basis that it best satisfied both the financial viability criteria as well as the objectives ofthe City.
These options were later presented to the City Manager and the DPDC and it was agreed that they would be spatially represented at the public meeting scheduled on 27 November 2004 (Pravin Amar Development Planners, 2005b). (See Appendix I; Round Three).
Public Consultative Workshop-27November 2004
The purpose of this workshop was to "present and discuss the alternatives being investigated;
provide an opportunity for I&APs to seek clarity on the alternatives; and to facilitate comment from I&APs with regard to the study and the proposed alternatives" (Pravin Amar Development Planners, 2005b:2). The public meeting therefore extended the network at this stage in the process by gaining further input via the views of the public. In addition, the literature review as conducted by the Professional Team was presented for the following purposes (Pravin Amar Development Planners, 2005a:25):
• "To provide an overview of the development of waterfronts and marinas around the world
• To learn from other global experiences
• To assess the economic, social, environmental and governance implications of waterfront developments
• To develop the best possible set of alternatives for Durban which is theoretically well informed".
Consultant's Meeting - 12December 2004
Some of the consultants arranged a meeting amongst themselves in the search for a way forward and to break the 'deadlock' between the Developer's preferred option (Option 2 from Round Two and Three) and the Consultant's preferred option (Option 3b(ii) from Round Three) that had emerged (See Appendix I). The process was held independently of the Council and the DPDC as it was intended to be a "technical brainstorming and working session" to move the process forward (Oelofse et ai, 2005:31). This highlights the degree of flexibility that the actors in this network were allowed, as they independently took initiative to find a solution. Emerging ideas around the four options and public input from the workshop formed the conceptual basis
used to develop a new option (Oelofse et ai, 2005). This new Phased Option was based on an incremental approach to development and consisted of three phases (See Appendix I; Final Option). Stage I entailed the development of a small craft waterfront, Stage 2a consisted of the expansion of this waterfront including the construction of a new groyne to protect the area as well as a new lock and launch facility, and finally Stage 2b was based on constructing another submerged groyne further north which would create a new protected beach (Pravin Amar Development Planners, 2005a). One of the consultants who was responsible for this option detailed the approach that was adopted (Oelofse et ai,2005):
"The approach, as a reminder, is based on of facilitating an incremental development process which does not foreclose future options by pinning the project on a single solution premised on reaching a compromise of either a reduced waterfront or reduced beach. Rather the approach seeks to enhance the opportunity of both an improved beach and a viable waterfront through enabling an incremental approach much like the rest of the development within the precinct, in particular the incremental growth of the canals".
The Phased Option was given merit for its ability to deliver an equal beach and waterfront experience, and it was argued that it achieves the premise of 3b(ii), whilst "it adds a whole lot more" (Oelofse et ai, 2005:31). It was also acknowledged that the ecological and technical impacts relating to sand movement still require investigation, whilst, the well-renowned coastal engineer from Cape Town who was involved in the project confirmed that the option was technically feasible. It was believed that "this option provides an opportunity to create something new that adds value to the waterfront development that goes beyond just the SCH and its associated property development" (Oelofseet ai, 2005:31). This option was therefore the result of collaboration amongst a sub-group of the team who met specifically to find a solution which would benefit all parties.
Consultant's Meeting with City Officials - 24 January 2005
This meeting which was held between the City Officials and the Professional Team to discuss the shortlist of alternatives so far and to confirm which option the City chose as their preferred option and why. The Phased Option was discredited as a preferred option because it had been generated without the City's involvement and had not been through the same collective process of evaluation as the other principles (Oelofse et ai, 2005). However, it was generated using the outcomes of the deliberation which incorporated all the issues and concerns which the team had jointly negotiated. The consultants highlighted the fact that the Phased Option was an attempt to compromise and add value and thus it was agreed that it should be considered as one of the final
options. Option 3b(ii) which supported the City's objectives as well as being proved to be financially viable was thus chosen as the preferred option of the City Officials and the Professional Team.
Consultant's Meeting - 27January 2005
This meeting was the final official meeting held amongst the Professional Team. The aim was to discuss what would be documented in a specialist report with reference to the principles, process and options for the SCH as the outcome of the work they as consultants had produced (See Oelofseet ai,2005). The four alternatives (as in Table 4.4 above) that had been shortlisted as well as the Phased Option were discussed.
After deliberation around the options, Option I (3b(i)) was discarded in favour of Option 2 (3b(ii)) which was the City's preferred option and had the lesser bulk of the two. Option 4 was perceived to have fatal flaws in that it did not accommodate the public or maximise the natural assets of the site, namely the retention of the beach (Oelofse et ai, 2005). As a result, Option 2 (3b(ii); as the City's preferred option), Option 3 (Integrated Option), Option 5 (Phased Option) and a No Go Option were the four possible options that the City identified as potential alternatives for a proposed SCH. (Oelofseet ai, 2005:34) (See Table 4.5).
Table 4.5: The City's recommended options for the Addendum to the Scoping Report (Oelofse et ai, 2005:34)
Option Description Rationale
Option 2 3b(ii) - including components of 5 and 6 Financially viable (lesser bulk)&
retains beach
Option 3 2 (Integrated Option) Original preferred option
Option 5 NIA - Phased Option Attempt to compromise
Option 6 NIA - No Go Option Protection of beach and ecology, as well as no development costs Consultant's Meeting with Watersports Representatives - 11 February 2005
This informal meeting was held between one of the City's consultants, one of the Moreland's consultants and three representatives from the watersports clubs and was not part of the official process. Although the official representatives of the Watersports Association had been negotiating with the DPDC as the developer, outside the official public process, the consultants