appendix 5.8 visual

APPENDIX 5.8 VISUAL

Proposed Beaufort West Wind Farm 33kV / 132kV

Substation, 132kV Powerline and Associated

Infrastructure Projects

VISUAL IMPACT REPORT

21 OCTOBER 2021

ii Beaufort West Wind Farm 33kV / 132kV Substation, 132kV Powerline and FINAL: Visual Impact Report Associated Infrastructure Projects 21 October 2021

VISUAL IMPACT REPORT

Proposed Beaufort West Wind Farm

33kV / 132kV Substation, 132kV Powerline and Associated Infrastructure Projects

Submitted to:

SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd

68 on Main, Old Main Road

Kloof, Durban, 3640

+27 11 467 0945

Prepared by:

G Y L A

Graham A Young Landscape Architect

PO Box 331

Groenkloof

0027

+27 (0)82 462 1491

Report Revision No: FINAL

Date Issued: 21 October 2021

Prepared By: Graham Young: Graham A Young Landscape Architect

Reviewed By:

Signed:

Graham Young PrLArch, FILASA

Reference: 079_2021: Beaufort West and Trakas Proposed 33kV / 132kV Substation,132kV Powerline and Associated Infrastructure, Western Cape

Expertise of Specialist

iii Beaufort West Wind Farm 33kV / 132kV Substation, 132kV Powerline and FINAL: Visual Impact Report Associated Infrastructure Projects 21 October 2021

EXPERTISE OF THE SPECIALIST

Name: Graham A Young

Qualification: BL (Toronto) ML (Pretoria)

Professional Registration: South African Council for the Landscape Architectural Profession

(SACLAP) Reg. No. 87001

Fellow Institute of Landscape Architects of South Africa (FILASA)

Experience in Years: Over 40 years

Experience Graham Young is a registered landscape architect with an interest and

experience in landscape architecture, urban design, and environmental

planning. He holds a degree in landscape architecture from the

Universities of Toronto (BL) and Pretoria (ML). He has carried out visual

impact assessments in Canada and throughout Africa, where he has

spent most of his working life. He has served as President of the Institute

of Landscape Architects of South Africa (ILASA) and as Vice President of

the Board of Control for Landscape Architects. He is a Fellow of the

ILASA and a professionally registered landscape architect in South Africa

(SACLAP). He is Secretary-General for the International Federation of

Landscape Architect, Africa Region (IFLA Africa).

He runs his practice, Graham A Young Landscape Architect (GYLA). A

specialty is Visual Impact Assessments for which he has been cited with

an Institute of Landscape Architects of South Africa (ILASA), Merit Award

(1999). Aspects of this work also include landscape characterization

studies, end-use studies for quarries, and computer modelling and

visualization. He has completed over 300 specialist reports for Projects

and conducted several VIA reviews. He has served as a specialist

witness in legal cases involving visual impact issues. Mr Young helped

develop the Guideline for Involving Visual and Aesthetic Specialists in

EIA Processes (Oberholzer 2005) and produced a research document for

Eskom, The Visual Impacts of Power Lines (2009). In 2011 he produced

‘Guidelines for involving visual and aesthetic specialists’ for the

Aapravasi Ghat Trust Fund Technical Committee, which manages a

World Heritage Site in Mauritius, along with the Visual Impact

Assessment Training Module Guideline Document for the same client.

Protection of Personal Information Act

iv Beaufort West Wind Farm 33kV / 132kV Substation, 132kV Powerline and FINAL: Visual Impact Report Associated Infrastructure Projects 21 October 2021

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

DETAILS OF THE SPECIALIST, DECLARATION OF INTEREST AND UNDERTAKING UNDER OATH

(For official use only)

File Reference Number:

NEAS Reference Number: DEA/EIA/

Date Received:

Application for authorisation in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, Act No. 107 of 1998, as amended and the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations, 2014, as amended (the Regulations)

PROJECT TITLE

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE BEAUFORT WEST WIND FARM 33kV / 132kV SUBSTATION, 132kV POWERLINE AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS, NEAR BEAUFORT WEST IN THE PRINCE ALBERT LOCAL MUNICIPALITY, WITHIN THE CENTRAL KAROO DISTRICT IN THE WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE

Kindly note the following:

1. This form must always be used for applications that must be subjected to Basic Assessment or Scoping & Environmental Impact Reporting where this Department is the Competent Authority.

2. This form is current as of 01 September 2018. It is the responsibility of the Applicant / Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) to ascertain whether subsequent versions of the form have been published or produced by the Competent Authority. The latest available Departmental templates are available at https://www.environment.gov.za/documents/forms.

3. A copy of this form containing original signatures must be appended to all Draft and Final Reports submitted to the department for consideration.

4. All documentation delivered to the physical address contained in this form must be delivered during the official Departmental Officer Hours which is visible on the Departmental gate.

5. All EIA related documents (includes application forms, reports or any EIA related submissions) that are faxed; emailed; delivered to Security or placed in the Departmental Tender Box will not be accepted, only hardcopy submissions are accepted.

https://www.environment.gov.za/documents/forms


v Beaufort West Wind Farm 33kV / 132kV Substation, 132kV Powerline and FINAL: Visual Impact Report Associated Infrastructure Projects 21 October 2021

Departmental Details

Postal address:

Department of Environmental Affairs

Attention: Chief Director: Integrated Environmental Authorisations

Private Bag X447

Pretoria

0001

Physical address:

Department of Environmental Affairs

Attention: Chief Director: Integrated Environmental Authorisations

Environment House

473 Steve Biko Road

Arcadia

Queries must be directed to the Directorate: Coordination, Strategic Planning and Support at:

Email: [email protected]

SPECIALIST INFORMATION

Specialist Company

Name:


B-BBEE Contribution level

(indicate 1 to 8 or non-

compliant)

4 Percentage

Procurement

recognition

100%

Specialist name: Graham Albert Young

Specialist

Qualifications:

BL (Toronto), ML (Pretoria)

Professional

affiliation/registration:

PrLArch Reg. No. 87001 FILASA

Physical address: 608 Leyds Street, Muckleneuk, 0002

Postal address: PO Box 331, Groenkloof

Postal code: 0027 Cell: 082 462 1491

Telephone: 082 462 1491 Fax:

E-mail: [email protected]

DECLARATION BY THE SPECIALIST

I, Graham Young, declare that:

● I act as the independent specialist in this application

● I will perform the work relating to the application objectively, even if this results in views and findings that

are not favourable to the applicant

● I declare that there are no circumstances that may compromise my objectivity in performing such work

● I have expertise in conducting the specialist report relevant to this application, including knowledge of the

Act, Regulations, and any guidelines that have relevance to the proposed activity;

● I will comply with the Act, Regulations, and all other applicable legislation

● I have no, and will not engage in, conflicting interests in the undertaking of the activity

● I undertake to disclose to the applicant and the competent authority all material information in my

possession that reasonably has or may have the potential of influencing - any decision to be taken

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


vi Beaufort West Wind Farm 33kV / 132kV Substation, 132kV Powerline and FINAL: Visual Impact Report Associated Infrastructure Projects 21 October 2021

concerning the application by the competent authority; and the objectivity of any report, plan, or

document to be prepared by myself for submission to the competent authority;

● all the particulars furnished by me in this form are true and correct; and

● I realise that a false declaration is an offense in terms of regulation 48 and is punishable in terms of

section 24F of the Act.

Signature of the Specialist


Name of Company:

21 October 2021

Date:

Specialist Requirements

vii Beaufort West Wind Farm 33kV / 132kV Substation, 132kV Powerline and FINAL: Visual Impact Report Associated Infrastructure Projects 21 October 2021

SPECIALIST REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ACT, 1998 (ACT NO. 107 OF 1998) (NEMA) AND

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) REGULATIONS, 2014 (AS AMENDED) -

REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIALIST REPORTS (APPENDIX 6)

Regulation GNR 326 of 4 December 2014, as amended 7 April 2017,

Appendix 6 Section of Report

1. (1) A specialist report prepared in terms of these Regulations must contain-

a) details of- i. the specialist who prepared the report; and ii. the expertise of that specialist to compile a specialist report

including a curriculum vitae;

Appendix E

b) a declaration that the specialist is independent in a form as may be specified by the competent authority;

Preamble

c) an indication of the scope of, and the purpose for which, the report was prepared;

Executive

Summary and 1.4

(cA) an indication of the quality and age of base data used for the

specialist report;

1.4

(cB) a description of existing impacts on the site, cumulative impacts of

the proposed development and levels of acceptable change;

9

d) the date and season of the site investigation and the relevance of the season to the outcome of the assessment;

1.4

e) a description of the methodology adopted in preparing the report or carrying out the specialised process inclusive of equipment and modelling used;

3

f) details of an assessment of the specific identified sensitivity of the site related to the proposed activity or activities and its associated structures and infrastructure, inclusive of a site plan identifying site alternatives;

3.1.2

4.5

g) an identification of any areas to be avoided, including buffers; N/A

h) a map superimposing the activity including the associated structures and infrastructure on the environmental sensitivities of the site including areas to be avoided, including buffers;

4.4

i) a description of any assumptions made and any uncertainties or gaps in knowledge;

1.5

j) a description of the findings and potential implications of such findings on the impact of the proposed activity, (including identified alternatives on the environment) or activities;

9

11

k) any mitigation measures for inclusion in the EMPr; 10

l) any conditions for inclusion in the environmental authorisation; N/A

m) any monitoring requirements for inclusion in the EMPr or environmental authorisation;

N/A

Specialist Requirements

viii Beaufort West Wind Farm 33kV / 132kV Substation, 132kV Powerline and FINAL: Visual Impact Report Associated Infrastructure Projects 21 October 2021

n) a reasoned opinion- i. (as to) whether the proposed activity, activities or portions

thereof should be authorised;

(iA) regarding the acceptability of the proposed activity or activities;

and

ii. if the opinion is that the proposed activity, activities or portions thereof should be authorised, any avoidance, management and mitigation measures that should be included in the EMPr, and where applicable, the closure plan;

13.1

o) a description of any consultation process that was undertaken during the course of preparing the specialist report;

See SLR report

p) a summary and copies of any comments received during any consultation process and where applicable all responses thereto; and

See SLR report

q) any other information requested by the competent authority. N/A

2) Where a government notice gazetted by the Minister provides for any protocol

or minimum information requirement to be applied to a specialist report, the

requirements as indicated in such notice will apply.

1

Acronyms, Abbreviations and Glossary

ix Beaufort West Wind Farm 33kV / 132kV Substation, 132kV Powerline and FINAL: Visual Impact Report Associated Infrastructure Projects 21 October 2021

ACCRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS AND GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Acronyms & Abbreviations

BAR Basic Assessment Report

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EMPr Environmental Management Programme

GYLA Graham Young Landscape Architect

SACLAP South African Council for the Landscape Architectural Profession

SEF Solar Energy Facility

VAC Visual Absorption Capacity

VIA Visual Impact Assessment

WEF Wind Energy Facility

Glossary

Aesthetic Value

Aesthetic value is the emotional response derived from the experience of

the environment with its natural and cultural attributes. The response can

be either to visual or non-visual elements and can embrace the sound,

smell and any other factor having a strong impact on human thoughts,

feelings, and attitudes (Ramsay, 1993). Thus, aesthetic value

encompasses more than the seen view, visual quality, or scenery, and

includes atmosphere, landscape character and sense of place (Schapper,

1993).

Aesthetically significant

place

A formally designated place visited by recreationists and others for the

express purpose of enjoying its beauty. For example, tens of thousands of

people visit Table Mountain on an annual basis. They come from around

the country and even from around the world. By these measurements,

one can make the case that Table Mountain (a designated National Park)

is an aesthetic resource of national significance. Similarly, a resource that

is visited by large numbers who come from across the region probably

has regional significance. A place visited primarily by people whose place

of origin is local is generally of local significance. Unvisited places either

have no significance or are "no trespass" places. (after New York,

Department of Environment 2000).

Aesthetic impact

Aesthetic impact occurs when there is a detrimental effect on the

perceived beauty of a place or structure. Mere visibility, even startling

visibility of a Project proposal, should not be a threshold for decision

making. Instead, a Project, by its visibility, must interfere with or reduce

(i.e. visual impact) the public's enjoyment and/or appreciation of the

appearance of a valued resource e.g. cooling tower blocks a view from a

National Park overlook (after New York, Department of Environment

2000).

Cumulative Effects

The summation of effects that result from changes caused by

development in conjunction with the other past, present, or reasonably

foreseeable actions.

Glare The sensation produced by luminance within the visual field is sufficiently

greater than the luminance to which the eyes are adapted, which causes

annoyance, discomfort, or loss in visual performance and visibility. See

Glint. (USDI 2013:314)

Glint A momentary flash of light resulting from a spatially localized reflection of

sunlight. See Glare. (USDI 2013:314)

Acronyms, Abbreviations and Glossary

x Beaufort West Wind Farm 33kV / 132kV Substation, 132kV Powerline and FINAL: Visual Impact Report Associated Infrastructure Projects 21 October 2021

Landscape Character

The individual elements that make up the landscape, including prominent

or eye-catching features such as hills, valleys, woods, trees, water

bodies, buildings, and roads. They are generally quantifiable and can be

easily described.

Landscape Impact

Landscape effects derive from changes in the physical landscape, which

may give rise to changes in its character and how this is experienced

(Institute of Environmental Assessment & The Landscape Institute 1996).

Study area

For this report, this Project the study area refers to the proposed Project

footprint / Project site as well as the ‘zone of potential influence’ (the area

defined as the radius about the centre point of the Project beyond which

the visual impact of the most visible features will be insignificant) which is

a 5,0km radius surrounding the proposed Project footprint/site.

Project Footprint / Site For this report, the Project site / footprint refers to the actual layout of the

Project as described.

Sense of Place (genius

loci)

Sense of place is the unique value that is allocated to a specific place or

area through the cognitive experience of the user or viewer. A genius

locus means ‘spirit of the place’.

Sensitive Receptors Sensitivity of visual receptors (viewers) to a proposed development.

Viewshed analysis

The two-dimensional spatial pattern created by an analysis defines areas,

which contain all possible observation sites from which an object would

be visible. The basic assumption for preparing a viewshed analysis is

that the observer eye height is 1,8m above ground level.

Visibility

The area from which Project components would potentially be visible.

Visibility depends upon general topography, aspect, tree cover, or other

visual obstruction, elevation, and distance.

Visual Exposure

Visibility and visual intrusion qualified with a distance rating to indicate the

degree of intrusion and visual acuity, which is also influenced by weather

and light conditions.

Visual Impact

Visual effects relate to the changes that arise in the composition of

available views because of changes to the landscape, to people’s

responses to the changes, and the overall effects concerning visual

amenity.

Visual Intrusion

The nature of intrusion of an object on the visual quality of the

environment results in its compatibility (absorbed into the landscape

elements) or discord (contrasts with the landscape elements) with the

landscape and surrounding land uses.

Visual absorption capacity Visual absorption capacity is defined as the landscape's ability to absorb

physical changes without transformation in its visual character and

quality. The landscape’s ability to absorb change ranges from low-

capacity areas, in which the location of the activity is likely to cause a

visual change in the character of the area, to high-capacity areas, in

which the visual impact of the development will be minimal (Amir &

Gidalizon 1990).

Worst-case Scenario

The principle is applied where the environmental effects may vary, for

example, seasonally or collectively to ensure the most severe potential

effect is assessed.

Zone of Potential Visual

Influence

By determining the zone of potential visual influence, it is possible to

identify the extent of potential visibility and views which could be affected

by the proposed development. Its maximum extent is the radius around

an object beyond which the visual impact of its most visible features will

be insignificant primarily due to distance.

Executive Summary

xi Beaufort West Wind Farm 33kV / 132kV Substation, 132kV Powerline and FINAL: Visual Impact Report Associated Infrastructure Projects 21 October 2021

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

Graham A Young Landscape Architect (GYLA) has been appointed by SLR South Africa Consulting (Pty)

Ltd, on behalf of South Africa Mainstream Renewable Power Developments (PTY) Ltd, hereafter referred to

as “Mainstream”, to undertake a desktop Visual Impact Assessment for the proposed construction of one (1)

33 kilovolt (kV) / 132kV onsite Substation1, one (1) Battery Energy Storage System (BESS), one (1) 132kV

powerline (namely the associated electrical infrastructure), one (1) laydown area and one (1) Operations &

Maintenance (O&M) Building which will be added to the authorised Beaufort West Cluster of wind

developments2, 60km south of the town of Beaufort West in the Western Cape Province.

Two (2) applications for Environmental Authorisation (EA) will be lodged for two (2) separate projects [i.e.,

separate Basic Assessment (BA) processes]. One (1) application will be lodged for the 33/132kV yard of the

onsite substation, BESS, laydown area and O&M building, while another application will be lodged for the

132kV switching station yard of the onsite substation and associated 132kV powerline1. This Visual Impact

Assessment report however covers both proposed applications.

The proposed developments fall within the Prince Albert Local Municipality, within the Central Karoo District

Municipality.

The proposed developments will service both of Mainstream’s authorised wind farm projects (namely the

Beaufort West Wind Farm - 12-12-20-1784-1-AM2 and Trakas Wind Farm - 12-12-20-1784-2-AM2) and

associated electrical infrastructure. It should be noted that the two (2) proposed onsite substation, BESS,

laydown area, O&M building and powerline projects will be located within the site proposed for the

authorised Beaufort West and Trakas Wind Farms.

In terms of the 2014 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations (as amended), various aspects of

the proposed developments may have an impact on the environment and are listed activities. These

activities require authorisation from the National Competent Authority (CA), namely the Department of

Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE), before the commencement thereof. Specialist studies have

been commissioned to verify the sensitivity and assess the impacts of the proposed developments, under

the Gazetted specialist protocols (GN R 320 and GN R 1150 of 2020). As mentioned, This Visual Impact

Assessment report covers both proposed applications.

The scope of this report is for two (2) applications, namely 33kV the Beaufort West Wind Farm Substation

and Associated Infrastructure (BESS, laydown area and O&M building) application, as well as the Eskom

132kV Substation and Associated 132kV Powerline application.

PROJECT STUDY AREA

The proposed projects are located approximately 60km south of the town of Beaufort West in the Prince

Albert Local Municipality, within the Central Karoo District Municipality of the Western Cape Province.

The proposed projects will be located on the following properties / farm portions:

• Portion 1 of the Farm Trakaskuilen No. 15 (C061000000000015000001); and

• Remainder of the Farm Trakaskuilen No. 15 (C061000000000015000010).

1 Onsite substation will consist of 33/132kV yard which will be owned and operated by Mainstream, as well as 132kV switching station yard which will be owned and operated by Eskom. 33/132kV yard of onsite substation and associated infrastructure (BESS, laydown area and O&M building) forms part of separate proposed application for EA, while 132kV switching station yard of onsite substation and 132kV overhead powerline forms part of another separate application for EA.

2 Beaufort West (12-12-20-1784-1-AM2) and Trakas Wind Farms (12-12-20-1784-2-AM2) and their supporting powerline and substation infrastructure (Beaufort West 132KV-400KV Linking Station, 132KV Power Line and onsite 132KV Substation – 14-12-16-3-3-2-925-1 & Trakas 132KV-400KV Linking Station, 132KV Power Line and onsite 132KV Substation – 14-12-16-3-3-2-925-2), collectively referred to as “the Beaufort West Cluster”

Executive Summary

xii Beaufort West Wind Farm 33kV / 132kV Substation, 132kV Powerline and FINAL: Visual Impact Report Associated Infrastructure Projects 21 October 2021

It should be noted that the proposed onsite substation, BESS, laydown area, O&M building and powerline

projects (which form part of separate respective new applications and BA processes) will be located within

the site proposed for the authorised Beaufort West Cluster, which is proposed on Portion 1 and Remainder

of the Farm Trakaskuilen No. 15.

TERMS OF REFERENCE

A desktop specialist study is required to establish the visual baseline and to identify and assess the visual

impacts arising from the developments, based on the general requirements for a comprehensive VIA. The

following terms of reference were established:

• A desktop analysis, using satellite imagery and scrutinizing previous visual impact reports3 of the

projects will allow for a description and characterization of the receiving environment

• A preliminary site inspection (October 2020)

• Describe the visual characteristics of the components of the projects

• Identify issues that must be addressed in the impact assessment phase

• Rate the significance of the impact of the projects

• Proposed mitigation measures to reduce the potential impact of the projects

• Assess the cumulative impact of the projects.

ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS

The following assumptions and/or limitations have been made in the study:

• The description of project components is limited to what has been supplied to the author by SLR

Consulting before the date of completion of this report.

• The visual sensitivity to the projects is assumed to be moderate to low, due to the site for the

projects being located within approved wind farm sites

FINDINGS

The existing visual condition of the landscape that may be affected by the proposed developments has been

described. It was important to assess whether the introduction of a new power line, substation and

associated infrastructure into the study area would be a degrading factor in the context of the natural Karoo

character of the landscape, keeping in mind that the proposed developments will occur within authorised

wind farms. In addition, although the proposed developments will be visible from the N12 national route

which traverses the study area, the section of the route within the study area is not considered to be of

scenic value. In addition, the level of contrast is significantly reduced by the presence of existing power lines

and associated infrastructure as well as the N12 road, which are prominent features in an open and relatively

flat landscape.

Impacts to views are the highest when viewers are identified as being sensitive to change in the landscape,

and their views are focused on and dominated by the change. The study area only five (5) potentially

sensitive receptors, however, these receptors have vested interest in the projects and therefore not

considered in the assessment. Travellers along the N12, who are tourists, were also considered as

potentially sensitive receptors.

The significance of impact, without mitigation and based on the worst-case scenario, for the sensitive

receptors during the construction, operational and decommissioning phases, is neutral i.e. where the impact

would not have any effect on the visual environment (over and above the authorised 132kV power line and

3 Oberholzer, B and Lawson, Q. Proposed Renewable Energy Facilities in the Western and Northern Cape by Mainstream SA –

Beaufort West Site, in the Great Karoo: Visual Impact Assessment. Unpublished Report. Stanford. 27 September 2010. Gibb, A. SiVEST, Proposed construction of a linking station, two (2) power lines and two (2) on-site substations for the Beaufort West and Trakas Wind Farms, near Beaufort West in the Western Cape Province: Visual Impact Assessment, Rev 1. Unpublished Report. Rivonia. 7 December 2018

Executive Summary

xiii Beaufort West Wind Farm 33kV / 132kV Substation, 132kV Powerline and FINAL: Visual Impact Report Associated Infrastructure Projects 21 October 2021

associated infrastructure developments), nor will it have a direct influence on the decision to develop the

area.

Mitigation measures are, however, proposed that relate mostly to good housekeeping during the construction

phase. This is applicable to both proposed applications / projects.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Five (5) renewable energy developments were identified within a 30km radius of the proposed power line,

substation and associated infrastructure developments. It was determined that these, namely the Beaufort

West WEF, Trakas WEF and the three (3) Kwagga WEFs, would have a significant impact on the landscape

and receptors within the visual assessment zone. These facilities are adjacent to each other and in effect

form one (1) large wind farm incorporating the proposed grid connection infrastructure. It is anticipated that

the concentration of WEFs will alter the inherent sense of place of the study area and introduce an

increasingly industrial character into a largely natural landscape, resulting in some form of cumulative

impacts. Although, it is anticipated that these impacts could be mitigated with the implementation of the

recommendations and mitigation measures stipulated for each of these developments by the visual

specialists (Oberholzer, 2010). In addition, impacts would be reduced to some degree with the presence of

the existing 400kV power line infrastructure and the N12 national route in the vicinity of the WEFs, which

have already partly transformed the visual character.

VISUAL IMPACT STATEMENT

It is the opinion of GYLA that the visual effects associated with the proposed developments are of neutral

significance. Given the low level of human habitation and the absence of sensitive receptors, the spatial

extent of the zone of potential influence is reduced and the impact of the respective power line, substation

and associated infrastructure developments would be dwarfed by the cumulative effect of the other

renewable energy developments. The respective projects are thus deemed acceptable from a visual

perspective, and should each be approved, provided that the mitigation/management measures are

effectively implemented, managed, and monitored in the long term.

*** GYLA ***

List of Figures

xiv Beaufort West Wind Farm 33kV / 132kV Substation, 132kV Powerline and FINAL: Visual Impact Report Associated Infrastructure Projects 21 October 2021

TABLE OF CONTENT

EXPERTISE OF THE SPECIALIST iii

DETAILS OF THE SPECIALIST, DECLARATION OF INTEREST AND UNDERTAKING UNDER

OATH iv

SPECIALIST INFORMATION v

DECLARATION BY THE SPECIALIST v

SPECIALIST REPORTING REQUIREMENTS vii

ACCRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS AND GLOSSARY OF TERMS ix

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xi

INTRODUCTION xi

PROJECT STUDY AREA xi

TERMS OF REFERENCE xii

ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS xii

FINDINGS xii

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS xiii

VISUAL IMPACT STATEMENT xiii

1. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Project Overview and Background 1

1.2 Project location and study area 1

1.3 Aim of the Specialist Study 2

1.4 Terms and Reference 2

1.5 Assumption, Uncertainties, and Limitations 2

2. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES 4

2.1 National Legislation and Guidelines 4

3. APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY 5

3.1 Approach 5

3.1.1 The Visual Resource 5

3.1.2 Sensitivity of Visual Resource 5

3.1.3 Sense of Place 5

3.1.4 Sensitive Receptors 5

4. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT 7

4.1 Project Location 7

4.2 History of Authorised Beaufort West Cluster 7

4.3 Project Components 10

4.4 Site Layout 14

4.5 Alternatives 14

5. POTENTIAL VISUAL ISSUES 15

6. VISUAL CHARACTER AND SENSITIVITY OF THE STUDY AREA 18

6.1 Landscape and Land Use Characteristics 18

6.2 Visual Character and Sense of Place 19

List of Figures

xv Beaufort West Wind Farm 33kV / 132kV Substation, 132kV Powerline and FINAL: Visual Impact Report Associated Infrastructure Projects 21 October 2021

7. VISUAL RESOURCE 20

7.1 Visual Resource Value, Scenic Quality, and Landscape Sensitivity 20

7.2 Visual Sensitivity 21

8. LANDSCAPE IMPACT 22

9. VISUAL IMPACT 23

9.1 Visual Receptors 23

9.2 Sensitive Viewers 23

9.3 Visibility 23

9.4 Visual Intrusion 23

9.5 The intensity of Visual Impact 23

10. MANAGEMENT MEASURES 26

10.1 Preparatory Works and Construction Concerns 26

10.2 Earthworks 26

10.3 Ecological approach 26

10.4 Mounting Structures and associated infrastructure 27

10.5 Good housekeeping 27

10.6 Lighting 27

10.7 Branding and Marketing 27

11. SIGNIFICANCE OF VISUAL IMPACT 28

11.1 Alternatives 28

12. CUMULATIVE EFFECT 30

12.1 The cumulative effect of WEFs and Associated Infrastructure 30

13. CONCLUSION 32

13.1 Visual Impact Statement 32

14. REFERENCES 33

APPENDIX A: DETERMINING THE VISUAL RESOURCE VALUE OF A LANDSCAPE 34

APPENDIX B: METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE INTENSITY OF LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL

IMPACT 38

APPENDIX C: CRITERIA FOR SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT ASSESSMENT (SLR Consulting)

45

APPENDIX D: CURRICULUM VITAE 48

List of Figures

xvi Beaufort West Wind Farm 33kV / 132kV Substation, 132kV Powerline and FINAL: Visual Impact Report Associated Infrastructure Projects 21 October 2021

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Regional Context

Figure 2 Propose Layout – Both Options

Figure 3 Authorised Layout

Figure 4 View Sites and Visual Receptors

Figure 5 Landscape Character

Figure 6 Authorised vs Proposed Zones of Influence

Figure 7 Renewable Energy Developments Within a 30km Radius

List of Tables

xvii Beaufort West Wind Farm 33kV / 132kV Substation, 132kV Powerline and FINAL: Visual Impact Report Associated Infrastructure Projects 21 October 2021

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Summary of the Key Project Components

Table 2 Value of the Visual Resource

Table 3 Intensity of Visual Impact for Both Options

Table 4 Significance of Impact for Both Options

Introduction

Beaufort West Wind Farm 33kV / 132kV Substation, 132kV Powerline and FINAL: Visual Impact Report Associated Infrastructure Projects 21 October 2021

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Overview and Background

Graham A Young Landscape Architect (GYLA) has been appointed by SLR South Africa Consulting (Pty)

Ltd, on behalf of South Africa Mainstream Renewable Power Developments (PTY) Ltd, hereafter referred to

as “Mainstream”, to undertake a desktop Visual Impact Assessment for the proposed construction of one (1)

33 kilovolt (kV) / 132kV onsite Substation4, one (1) Battery Energy Storage System (BESS), one (1) 132kV

powerline (namely the associated electrical infrastructure), one (1) laydown area and one (1) Operations &

Maintenance (O&M) Building which will be added to the authorised Beaufort West Cluster of wind

developments5, 60km south of the town of Beaufort West in the Western Cape Province.

Two (2) applications for Environmental Authorisation (EA) will be lodged for two (2) separate projects [i.e.,

separate Basic Assessment (BA) processes]. One (1) application will be lodged for the 33/132kV yard of the

onsite substation, BESS, laydown area and O&M building, while another application will be lodged for the

132kV switching station yard of the onsite substation and associated 132kV powerline4. This Visual Impact

Assessment report however covers both proposed applications.

The proposed developments fall within the Prince Albert Local Municipality, within the Central Karoo District

Municipality. Refer to Figure 01 below.

The proposed developments will service both of Mainstream’s authorised wind farm projects (namely the

Beaufort West Wind Farm - 12-12-20-1784-1-AM2 and Trakas Wind Farm - 12-12-20-1784-2-AM2) and

associated electrical infrastructure. It should be noted that the respective proposed onsite substation, BESS,

laydown area, O&M building and powerline projects will be located within the site proposed for the

authorised Beaufort West and Trakas Wind Farms.

In terms of the 2014 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations (as amended), various aspects of

the proposed developments may have an impact on the environment and are listed activities. These

activities require authorisation from the National Competent Authority (CA), namely the Department of

Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE), before the commencement thereof. Specialist studies have

been commissioned to verify the sensitivity and assess the impacts of the proposed developments, under

the Gazetted specialist protocols (GN R 320 and GN R 1150 of 2020). As mentioned, This Visual Impact

Assessment report covers both proposed applications.

The scope of this report is for two (2) applications, namely the 33/132kV Beaufort West Wind Farm

Substation and Associated Infrastructure (BESS, laydown area and O&M building) application, as well as the

Eskom 132kV Switching Substation and Associated 132kV Powerline application.

1.2 Project location and study area


Albert Local Municipality, within the Central Karoo District Municipality of the Western Cape Province (as

shown in Figure 01).

The proposed projects will be located on the following properties/farm portions:



4 Onsite substation will consist of 33/132kV yard which will be owned and operated by Mainstream, as well as 132kV switching station

yard which will be owned and operated by Eskom. 33/132kV yard of onsite substation and associated infrastructure (BESS, laydown area and O&M building) forms part of separate proposed application for EA, while 132kV switching station yard of onsite substation and 132kV overhead powerline forms part of another separate application for EA.

5 Beaufort West (12-12-20-1784-1-AM2) and Trakas Wind Farms (12-12-20-1784-2-AM2) and their supporting powerline and substation

infrastructure (Beaufort West 132KV-400KV Linking Station, 132KV Power Line and onsite 132KV Substation – 14-12-16-3-3-2-925-1 & Trakas 132KV-400KV Linking Station, 132KV Power Line and onsite 132KV Substation – 14-12-16-3-3-2-925-2), collectively referred to as “the Beaufort West Cluster”

Introduction

2 Beaufort West Wind Farm 33kV / 132kV Substation, 132kV Powerline and FINAL: Visual Impact Report Associated Infrastructure Projects 21 October 2021



the site proposed for the authorised Beaufort West Cluster (Beaufort West Wind Farm - 12-12-20-1784-1-

AM2 and Trakas Wind Farm - 12-12-20-1784-2-AM2), which is authorised on Portion 1 and Remainder of the

Farm Trakaskuilen No. 15.

The study area extends 5,0km project structures6, as indicated in Figure 01.

1.3 Aim of the Specialist Study

The main aim of the study is to ensure that the visual/aesthetic consequences of the proposed developments

are understood.

1.4 Terms and Reference

A desktop specialist study is required to establish the visual baseline and to identify and assess the visual

impacts arising from the developments, based on the general requirements for a comprehensive VIA. The

following terms of reference were established:

• A desk top analysis, using satellite imagery and scrutinizing previous visual impact reports7 of the

projects will allow for a description and characterization of the receiving environment

• A preliminary site inspection (October 2020)

• Describe the visual characteristics of the components of the projects

• Identify issues that must be addressed in the impact assessment phase

• Rate the significance of the impact of the projects

• Proposed mitigation measures to reduce the potential impact of the projects

• Assess the cumulative impact of the projects.

1.5 Assumption, Uncertainties, and Limitations

The following assumptions and/or limitations have been made in the study:

• The description of project components is limited to what has been supplied to the author by SLR

Consulting before the date of completion of this report.

• The visual sensitivity to the projects is assumed to be moderate to low, due to the site being located

within approved wind farm sites.

6 Distance Zones set of pre-determined distances from a viewpoint and help in delineating the extent of a study area (5.0km beyond

project structures). Beyond 5km the effect of the substation, associated infrastructure and 132kV power line (along with its poles), will dimmish dramatically to the point as being insignificant from a visual impact point of view.

7 Oberholzer, B and Lawson, Q. Proposed Renewable Energy Facilities in the Western and Northern Cape by Mainstream SA –

Beaufort West Site, in the Great Karoo: Visual Impact Assessment. Unpublished Report. Stanford. 27 September 2010. Gibb, A. SiVEST, Proposed construction of a linking station, two (2) power lines and two (2) on-site substations for the Beaufort West and Trakas Wind Farms, near Beaufort West in the Western Cape Province: Visual Impact Assessment, Rev 1. Unpublished Report. Rivonia. 7 December 2018

Introduction

Beaufort West Wind Farm 33kV / 132kV Substation, 132kV Powerline and FINAL: Visual Impact Report Associated Infrastructure Projects 21 October 2021

Legal Requirements & Guidelines


2. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES

This report adheres to the following legal requirements and guideline documents.

2.1 National Legislation and Guidelines

National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998) (NEMA), EIA Regulations

The specialist report is as per the specification on conducting specialist studies, as per Government Gazette

(GN) R 982 of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) (Act 107 of 1998). The mitigation

measures as stipulated in the specialist report can be used as part of the Environmental Management

Programme (EMPr) and will be in support of the Basic Assessment (BA) and Appendix 6 of the EIA

Regulations (04 December 2014, as amended on 7 April 2017).

Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning: Guideline for Involving Visual

and Aesthetic Specialists in EIA Processes Edition 1 (CSIR, 2005)

Although the guidelines were specifically compiled for the Province of the Western Cape8, they provide

guidance that is appropriate for any BA process. The Guideline document also seeks to clarify instances

when a visual specialist should get involved in the BA process.

8 The Western Cape Guidelines are the only official guidelines for visual impact assessment reports in South Africa and can be

regarded as best practice throughout the country. Graham Young was a contributor to this document, authored by B. Oberholzer.

Approach and Methodology


3. APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

3.1 Approach

The assessment of likely effects on a landscape resource and visual amenity is complex, since it is

determined through a combination of quantitative and qualitative evaluations. When assessing visual impact,

the worst-case scenario is considered. Landscape and visual assessments are separate, although linked,

procedures. The landscape, its analysis, and the assessment of impacts on the landscape all contribute to

the baseline for visual impact assessment studies. The assessment of the potential impact on the landscape

is carried out as an impact on an environmental resource, i.e. the physical landscape. Visual impacts, on the

other hand, are assessed as one (1) of the interrelated effects on people (i.e. the viewers and the impact of

an introduced object into a view or scene).

3.1.1 The Visual Resource

Landscape character, landscape quality, and “sense of place” (Lynch, 1992) are used to evaluate the visual

resource i.e. the receiving environment. A qualitative evaluation of the landscape is essentially a subjective

matter. In this study, the aesthetic evaluation of the study area is determined by the professional opinion of

the author, based on on-site observations and the results of contemporary research in perceptual

psychology along with descriptions in previous visual impact assessments of project components.

3.1.2 Sensitivity of Visual Resource

The sensitivity of a landscape or visual resource is the degree to which a landscape type or area can

accommodate change arising from development, without detrimental effects on its character. Its

determination is based upon an evaluation of each key element or characteristic of the landscape likely to be

affected. The evaluation will reflect such factors as its “quality, value, contribution to landscape character,

and the degree to which the particular element or characteristic can be replaced or substituted” (LiEMA,

2013).

3.1.3 Sense of Place

The study area’s sense of place is derived from the emotional, aesthetic, and visual response to the

environment, and, therefore, it cannot be experienced in isolation. The landscape context must be

considered. The combination of the natural landscape together with the man-made structures and features

contribute to the sense of place for the study area. It is this combination that defines the study area and

establishes its visual and aesthetic identity.

3.1.4 Sensitive Receptors

The sensitivity of visual receptors and viewing areas is dependent on the location and context of the

viewpoint, the expectations and occupation or activity of the receptor, or the importance of the view, which

may be determined concerning its popularity or numbers of people affected, its appearance in guidebooks,

on tourist maps, and in the facilities provided for its enjoyment and references to it in literature or art.

Typically, sensitive receptors may include:

• Users of all outdoor recreational facilities, including public rights of way, whose intention or

interest may be focused on the landscape i.e. nature reserves.

• Communities where development results in negative changes in the landscape setting or valued

views enjoyed by the community.

• Occupiers of residential/tourist properties with views negatively affected by the development i.e.

game lodges.

• People travelling through recognized nature reserves or areas of declared scenic beauty (i.e.

tourist routes)

Viewing areas, typically from residences and tourist facilities/routes, are typically the most sensitive since

Approach and Methodology


views from within these areas are potentially frequent and of long duration.

Other, less sensitive, receptors include:

• People engaged in outdoor sport or recreation (other than appreciation of the landscape, as in

landscapes of acknowledged importance or value).

• People travelling through or past the affected landscape in cars or other transport modes, other

than recognized areas of scenic beauty.

• People at their place of work.

Landscape sensitivity, on the other hand, relates to the nature and character of the study area’s landscape

potential to accept change caused by the proposed development [Visual Absorption Capacity (VAC)]. Due

to the location of the site within land already developed or earmarked for urban development, the area’s

landscape has a low sensitivity to the potential visual impacts and has a high VAC.

For a detailed description of the methodology to determine the value of a visual resource, refer to Appendix

A. Image 1 below, graphically illustrates the visual impact process used in this project.

Image 1: Visual Impact Process

Description of the Project


4. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

4.1 Project Location


Albert Local Municipality, within the Central Karoo District Municipality of the Western Cape Province.

The proposed projects will be located on the following properties/farm portions:





the site proposed for the authorised Beaufort West Cluster (Beaufort West Wind Farm - 12-12-20-1784-1-

AM2; Trakas Wind Farm - 12-12-20-1784-2-AM2; Beaufort West 132KV-400KV Linking Station, 132KV

Power Line and onsite 132KV Substation – 14-12-16-3-3-2-925-1 and Trakas 132KV-400KV Linking Station,

132KV Power Line and onsite 132KV Substation – 14-12-16-3-3-2-925-2), which is authorised on Portion 1

and Remainder of the Farm Trakaskuilen No. 15. Refer to Figure 02 below.

4.2 History of Authorised Beaufort West Cluster

The proposed substation, BESS, laydown area, O&M building and associated powerline projects, which form

part of separate respective applications and BA processes, will service both of Mainstream’s authorised wind

farm projects (namely the Beaufort West and Trakas Wind Farms) and associated electrical infrastructure

which form part of the Beaufort West Cluster5.

The authorised Beaufort West Cluster consists of two (2) wind farm projects with associated electrical

infrastructure, which include a 132kV/400kV Linking Substation, two (2) 33kV/132kV onsite substations [one

(1) per wind farm] and 132kV powerlines. The two (2) wind farms which form part of the Beaufort West

Cluster were first authorised as one (1) larger wind farm (namely the Beaufort West Wind Farm) in March

2012 (12-12-20-1784). Thereafter, in February 2017, the authorised Beaufort West Wind Farm was split into

the Beaufort West (12-12-20-1784-1) and Trakas (12-12-20-1784-2) Wind Farms respectively.

Both above-mentioned Wind Farms were amended in 2020 to increase the turbine hub heights and increase

the rotor diameters (Beaufort West Wind Farm – March 2020: 12-12-20-1784-1-AM5 and Trakas Wind Farm

– February 2020: 12-12-20-1784-1-AM1). Further administrative amendments were granted to both

respective Wind Farms in 2020 (Beaufort West Wind Farm – March 2020: 12-12-20-1784-1-AM2 and Trakas

Wind Farm – February 2020: 12-12-20-1784-2-AM2) that included changing the holder of the Environmental

Authorisations, adding Battery Energy Storage Facilities and amending project descriptions.

The supporting powerlines, linking station and onsite substation infrastructure were authorised for both

respective wind farms in January 2017 (14-12-16-3-3-2-925). This authorisation was subsequently amended

to split and assign each substation and powerline to each respective wind farm in August 2021 (Beaufort

West 132KV-400KV Linking Station, 132KV Power Line and onsite 132KV Substation – 14-12-16-3-3-2-925-

1 and Trakas 132KV-400KV Linking Station, 132KV Power Line and onsite 132KV Substation – 14-12-16-3-

3-2-925-2). Refer to Figure 03 below.


8 Beaufort West Wind Farm Substation and DRAFT: Visual Impact Report

Associated Infrastructure Project 21 October 2021


10 Beaufort West Wind Farm 33kV / 132kV Substation, 132kV Poweline and FINAL: Visual Impact Report Associated Infrastructure Projects 21 October 2021

4.3 Project Components

As mentioned above, the proposed projects will service Mainstream’s authorised Beaufort West and Trakas

Wind Farms (including associated electrical infrastructure). The proposed projects require several key

components to facilitate the transmission and distribution of electricity at a large scale. This includes:

33/132kV yard of Onsite Substation, BESS, Laydown Area and O&M Building Application:

• One (1) 33 / 132kV substation9;

• One (1) solid-state (Lithium-ion) Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) within the

proposed substation footprint;

• One (1) temporary Assembly & Storage Area within site area for the assembly and

storage of precast turbine structures; and

• One (1) permanent Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Building.

132kV switching station yard of Onsite Substation and 132kV Powerline Application:

• One (1) 132kV switching substation9;

• One (1) 132kV overhead powerline; and

• A road in the servitude under the proposed powerline from the proposed onsite switching

substation to an authorised linking station (14-12-16-3-3-2-925-1).

The proposed substation will have a capacity of 33kV/132kV and will occupy a footprint of up to

approximately 3 hectares (ha). It should be noted that the onsite substation forms part of both applications as

it will consist of a 33/132kV yard which will be owned and operated by Mainstream, as well as a 132kV

switching station yard which will be owned and operated by Eskom. The 33/132kV yard of onsite substation

forms part of separate proposed application for EA with the associated infrastructure (namely the BESS,

laydown area and O&M building) and is subject to a separate BA process. In addition, the 132kV switching

station yard of the onsite substation forms part of another separate application for EA with the 132kV

overhead powerline and is also subject to a separate BA process.

The proposed 3.45km powerline (which forms part of a separate application and BA process, along with the

132kV yard of the onsite substation) will have a capacity of up to 132kV, while an area of approximately

34.5ha (i.e., 3.45km line with 100m powerline corridor buffer) will be assessed. This is to allow flexibility

when routing the powerline within the authorised corridor. The powerline forms part of the application and BA

process for the 132kV switching station yard of the onsite substation.

A solid-state (Lithium-ion) BESS will be required and will occupy an area of up to 4ha within the proposed

substation footprint. The BESS forms part of the application and BA process for the 33/132kV yard of the

onsite substation, laydown area and O&M building.

A road will also be required in the servitude under the proposed powerline (approx. 4-8m wide) and will run

from the proposed onsite substation (part of both respective applications) to the authorised linking station

(14-12-16-3-3-2-925-1). The road forms part of the application and BA process for the 132kV switching

station yard of the onsite substation and associated 132kV powerline.

In addition to the above, a temporary area (of up to 7ha) within the site area will be required for the assembly

and storage of the precast turbine structures. A permanent O&M building will also be required and will

occupy a footprint of up to approximately 1,2ha. The Temporary Assembly & Storage Area and Permanent

O&M Building form part of the application and BA process for the 33/132kV yard of the onsite substation and

BESS.




Table 1 below represents these various components of the respective projects and their specifications, as

well as a detailed breakdown of the impact footprint. Temporary areas necessary for construction are also

included. The location of these components with the project sites is shown in Figure 02 below.


12 Beaufort West Wind Farm 33kV / 132kV Substation, 132kV Poweline and FINAL: Visual Impact Report

Associated Infrastructure Projects 21 October 2021

Table 1 Summary of the key project components

Project Components Location and size / extent (i.e., Farm Names and Areas)

Location • Portion 1 of the Farm Trakaskuilen No. 15 - C061000000000015000001

• Remainder of the Farm Trakaskuilen No. 15 - C061000000000015000010

Onsite Substation • One (1) new substation with capacity of 33kV/132kV

• Total footprint of up to approx. 3ha

• Will contain transformers for voltage step up from low voltage (33kV) to medium voltage (132kV)

• Direct Current (DC) power from the authorised Beaufort West Wind Farm (12-12-20-1784-1-AM2)

and Trakas Wind Farm (12-12-20-1784-1-AM2) will be converted into Alternating Current (AC) power

in the inverters and the voltage will be stepped up to medium voltage in the inverter transformers

• Two (2) onsite substation alternatives, each with their own associated powerline, are being

considered and assessed

• Onsite substation forms part of both applications as it will consist of a 33/132kV yard which will be

owned and operated by Mainstream, as well as a 132kV switching station yard which will be owned

and operated by Eskom.

Grid Connection (Powerline) • Capacity of up to 132kV

• Length of up to approx. 3,45km

• Powerline corridors with widths of 100m (i.e., 50m on either side of centre line) being proposed and

assessed (i.e., 3.45km line with 100m buffers being assessed)

• This will allow for flexibility when routing powerline within the authorised corridor

• Powerline forms part of application and BA process for 132kV switching station yard of onsite

substation

Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) • One (1) BESS with total footprint of up to approx. 4ha

• Type of technology will be solid state, Lithium-ion

• Batteries will be used to store ‘energy’

• Batteries to be used are already assembled prior to delivery and come as ‘plug and play’ modular

units

• BESS forms part of application and BA process for 33/132kV yard of onsite substation, laydown area

and O&M building

Roads

• One (1) new road will be required in servitude under proposed powerline

• Width of up to approx. 4-8m wide

• Will run from proposed onsite substation (part of this application) to authorised linking station (14-12-

16-3-3-2-925-1)



• Road forms part of application and BA process for 132kV switching station yard of onsite substation

and associated 132kV powerline

Temporary Assembly & Storage Area • A temporary area will be required for assembly and storage of precast turbine structures

• Will require an area of up to 7ha

• Temporary Assembly & Storage Area forms part of application and BA process for 33/132kV yard of

onsite substation, BESS and O&M building

Permanent Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Building • One (1) permanent O&M building will be required

• Will occupy a footprint of up to approx. 1,2ha

• Permanent O&M Building forms part of application and BA process for 33/132kV yard of onsite

substation, BESS and laydown area



4.4 Site Layout

The site layout for the proposed projects makes provision for two (2) site area alternatives (each up to

approximately 20ha) for the onsite substation and associated infrastructure (including BESS, O&M building

and laydown area). In addition, powerline corridors with widths of 100m (i.e., 100m powerline corridor buffer,

50m on either side of centre line) have also been assessed for the 132kV switching station yard of the

substation and 132kV powerline application / project (as detailed in Table 1 above).

The site layout being proposed for the respective projects is shown in Figure 02 above.

4.5 Alternatives

A comprehensive design process has been undertaken to inform the layout alternatives for the proposed

projects.

As part of the proposed projects / BA processes, two (2) site area alternatives of up to approximately 200

000m2 (i.e., 500m x 400m or 20ha) each have been assessed for the onsite substation, BESS, laydown area

and O&M building. In addition, as part of the site area alternatives, powerline corridors with widths of 100m

(i.e., 100m powerline corridor buffer, 50m on either side of centre line) have also been assessed for the

132kV switching station yard of the substation and 132kV powerline application / project. This is to allow

flexibility when routing the powerline within the authorised corridor.

It is important to note that the proposed site area alternatives (including powerline corridor alternatives) will

be located within the site for the authorised Beaufort West (12-12-20-1784-1-AM2) and Trakas (12-12-20-

1784-2-AM2) Wind Farms respectively. As such, the location of the proposed onsite substation, BESS,

laydown area, O&M building and powerline has previously been assessed as part of the development

footprint for the authorised Beaufort West Cluster.

In addition, the alternatives associated with the proposed projects (including powerline corridors) have been

assessed against the ‘no-go’ alternative. The ‘no-go’ alternative is the option of not constructing the

projects, where the status quo of the current activities on the project sites would prevail.

Potential Visual Issues


5. POTENTIAL VISUAL ISSUES

Wind farm infrastructure projects typically include medium to large-scale infrastructure that can cause

change to the fabric and character of an area and possible visual intrusion in sensitive landscapes. In the

case of these projects, the receiving environment is mostly open, and the site occurs in an area already

approved for wind farm activity. Refer to Figure 04 below, which indicates the location of the photo

panoramas and potential sensitive viewer locations.

Typical issues associated with industrial development are:

• Who will be able to see the new developments?

• What will they look like, and will they contrast with the receiving environment or blend with it?

• Are there sensitive views in the area that may be affected by the developments, and if so, how?

• What will be the impact of the developments during the day and at night?

• What will the cumulative impact be, if any?

These potential impacts will be considered and rated in the assessment section of the report (Section 11). At

the time of writing the results of the public participation process was not known, and whether visual issues

were raised by the public to indicate a sensitivity to visual and aesthetic concerns. However, because the

projects activities will take place within authorised wind farm projects, Beaufort West (12-12-20-1784-1-AM2)

and Trakas (12-12-20-1784-2-AM2) Wind Farms respectively, it is assumed that visual sensitivities will be

low.

Potential Visual Issues

16 Beaufort West Wind Farm 33kV / 132kV Substation, 132kV Poweline and FINAL: Visual Impact Report

Associated Infrastructure Projects 21 October 2021

The Environmental Setting


6. VISUAL CHARACTER AND SENSITIVITY OF THE STUDY AREA

Defining the visual character of an area is an important part of assessing visual impacts, as it establishes the

visual baseline or existing visual environment in which the development would be constructed. The visual

impact of a development is measured by establishing the degree to which the development would contrast

with or conform to the visual character of the surrounding area. The inherent sensitivity of the area to visual

impacts or visual sensitivity is thereafter determined, based on the visual character, the economic

importance of the scenic quality of the area, the inherent cultural value of the area and the presence of visual

receptors. Physical and land use related characteristics, as outlined below, are important factors contributing

to the visual character of an area. (SiVEST, 2021:27)

6.1 Landscape and Land Use Characteristics10

The study area is largely characterised by open plains interspersed with dry river courses and low ridges.

Slopes are predominantly less than 2%, although there are some steeper slopes associated with low ridges.

The consequence of this open, flat landscape is that generally wide-ranging vistas are experienced

throughout the study area (refer to Figure 05 above). The most prominent feature in the landscape is the

Groot Swartberg range located approximately 45km south of the project site, as indicated in View 2 Figure

05 above.

Adding to the openness of the landscape, and hence wide-ranging vistas, is the low and sparse Gamka

Karoo vegetation type (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006) that covers the entire study area. Much of the

vegetation has been retained across the study area, with only a few instances of low-growing tree species.

A significant portion of the study area is ‘bare (none vegetated)’, and while some of these ‘bare’ areas are

representative of transformation due to human activity, in many cases these patches of land are undisturbed

areas with very sparse vegetation cover. Agricultural activity in the area is severely restricted by the arid

nature of the local climate and shallow soils. As such, the natural vegetation has been retained across much

of the study area. Sheep farming is the dominant activity, although the climatic and soil conditions have

resulted in low densities of livestock and relatively large farm properties across the area. Thus, the area has

a very low density of rural settlement, with relatively few scattered farmsteads in evidence. Figure 04 above

indicates the location of farmsteads within the study area. Built form in much of the study area is limited to

isolated farmsteads, including farm worker’s dwellings and ancillary farm buildings, gravel access roads,

telephone lines, fences and windmills.

The N12 national route is a dominant man-made feature in the landscape, bisecting the study area in a

north-south direction, linking Beaufort West with De Rust and Oudtshoorn in the south. Other roads in the

study area are mostly localized gravel access roads.

Existing powerlines in this area are also significant man-made features in an otherwise undeveloped

landscape. High voltage (400kV) powerlines bisect the study in a north-south alignment, while lower voltage

lines (22kV) are aligned directly adjacent to the N12 National Route In addition, the Trakaskuilen substation

is situated close to the N12, in the Beaufort West Wind Farm (12-12-20-1784-1-AM2) application site.

Although it is unclear whether this substation is operational, it is a substantial structure that has resulted in a

degree of transformation in the landscape.

As stated above, the sparse human habitation and the predominance of natural vegetation cover across

much of the study area would give the viewer the general impression of a largely natural setting with rural

elements. In addition, there are no towns or settlements in the visual assessment zone and thus, in general,

there are very low levels of human transformation and visual degradation within the study area. There are

however significant elements of human transformation, which are considered to have degraded the visual

character to some degree. These elements include existing 400kV and 22kV powerlines, the Trakaskuilen

10 Derived from SiVEST (2018)

The Environmental Setting


substation and the N12 National route. The influence of the level of human transformation on the visual

character of the area is described in more detail below.

6.2 Visual Character and Sense of Place11

According to Lynch (1992), a sense of place is the extent to which a person can recognize or recall a place

as being distinct from other places - as having a vivid, or unique, or at least particular, character of its own.

The sense of place for the study area derives from a combination of the local landscape types described

above, and their impact on the senses. The activities and land-uses in the study area are common within the

sub-region and typical of an expanding (residential/industrial) urban area i.e. a mixture of uses and activities.

The greater area surrounding the development site is an important component when assessing visual

character. The area can be considered to have the typical Karoo or “platteland” landscape sense of place,

which would characteristically be encountered across the high-lying dry western and central interior of South

Africa. Over the last couple of decades, an increasing number of tourism routes have been established in the

Karoo and within a context of increasing urbanisation in South Africa’s major centres, the Karoo is being

marketed as an undisturbed getaway. The typical Karoo landscape can be considered a valuable ‘cultural

landscape’ in the South African context. Although the cultural landscape concept is relatively new, it is

becoming an increasingly important concept in terms of the preservation and management of rural and urban

settings across the world (Breedlove, 2002).

The typical Karoo landscape consisting of wide-open plains, and isolated relief, interspersed with isolated

farmsteads, windmills and stock holding pens, is an important part of the cultural matrix of the South African

environment. The Karoo farmstead is also a representation of how the harsh arid nature of the environment

in this part of the country has shaped the predominant land use and economic activity practiced in the area,

as well as the patterns of human habitation and interaction. The presence of small towns, such as Beaufort

West, engulfed by an otherwise rural environment, form an integral part of the wider Karoo landscape. As

such, the Karoo landscape as it exists today has value as a cultural landscape in the South African context.

Considering this, it is important to assess whether the introduction of new power lines, substations and

associated infrastructure into the study area would be a degrading factor in the context of the natural Karoo

character of the landscape, keeping in mind that the proposed developments will occur within authorised

wind farms. In addition, although the proposed development will be visible from the N12 national route which

traverses the study area, the section of the route within the study area is not considered to be of scenic

value.

11 Derived from SiVEST (2018)

Visual Resource


7. VISUAL RESOURCE

7.1 Visual Resource Value, Scenic Quality, and Landscape Sensitivity

The value of the visual resource and its associated scenic quality (using the scenic quality rating criteria

described in Appendix A) is primarily derived from the combination of land-uses described above. The study

areais relatively flat with subtle ridges and is characterised by low scrub and bush. Long views across a

seemingly arid and uninhabited landscape give rise to a sense of remoteness typical of the Great Karoo. It

was however determined that the landscape exhibits few qualities of use over time and as such it does not

fulfil the criteria of a significant cultural landscape and visual resource. Prominent elements found in the

landscape include the 400kV and 22kV powerlines, as well as the Trakaskuilen substation. As such, the

developments will also conform with the typical elements and character of the area, thereby reducing the

impact on the landscape as a visual resource.

When the criteria listed in Appendix A are considered and understood within the context of the sub-region, a

visual resource value of low to moderate is assigned to the study area i.e. for the most part the study area

generally exhibits a mixture of character, which is common within the sub-region. There are some positive

characteristics, but there is evidence of alteration and degradation of these features (caused by existing

power infrastructure) resulting in more negative areas. A summary of these values is provided in Table 2

below.

It was therefore concluded that, from a cultural perspective, the visual impact resulting from the proposed

developments is rated as moderate to low.

Table 2: Value of the Visual Resource (After LiEMA, 2013)

High

None in the study area

Moderate

Majority of the study

Low

Power infrastructure areas and

roads

This landscape type is considered

to have a high value because it is

a:

Distinct landscape that exhibits an

extremely positive character with

valued features that combine to

give the experience of unity,

richness and harmony. It is a

landscape that may be of

particular importance to conserve,

and which has a strong sense of

place.


to have a moderate value because

it is a:

Common landscape that exhibits

some positive character, but which

has evidence of alteration /

degradation/ erosion of features

resulting in areas of more mixed

character.


to have a low value because it is

a:

Minimal landscape generally

negative in character with few, if

any, valued features.

Sensitivity:

It is sensitive to change in general

and will be detrimentally affected if

change is inappropriately dealt

with.

Sensitivity:

It is potentially sensitive to change

in general and change may be

detrimental if inappropriately dealt

with.

Sensitivity:

It is not sensitive to change in

general and change.

Visual Resource


7.2 Visual Sensitivity

Visual sensitivity can be defined as the inherent sensitivity of an area to potential visual impacts associated

with a proposed development. It is based on the physical characteristics of the area (i.e. topography,

landform and land cover), the spatial distribution of potential receptors, and the likely value judgments of

these receptors towards a new development (Oberholzer, 2005). A viewer’s perception is usually based on

the perceived aesthetic appeal of an area and on the presence of economic activities (such as recreational

tourism) which may be associated with this aesthetic appeal.

According to Swartz (2018:43), the study area is rated as having a low to moderate visual sensitivity. It

should be stressed however that the concept of visual sensitivity has been utilised indicatively to provide a

broad-scale indication of whether the landscape is likely to be sensitive to visual impacts and is based on the

physical characteristics of the study area, economic activities and land use that predominates. No formal

protected areas, leisure-based tourism activities, or sensitive receptor locations were identified in the study

area and relatively few potentially sensitive receptors were found to be present.

In this instance, the proposed revised grid connection infrastructure is intended to serve the

authorised Beaufort West (12-12-20-1784-1-AM2) and Trakas (12-12-20-1784-2-AM2) Wind Farms and

as such, the powerline, substation and associated infrastructure will be perceived as part of the

greater wind farm developments and the visual impact will be relatively minor when compared to the

visual impact associated with wind farms.

Landscape Impact


8. LANDSCAPE IMPACT

The landscape impact (i.e. the change to the fabric and character of the landscape caused by the physical

presence of the intervention) of the proposed Projects when compared against the authorized powerline and

infrastructure components, is considered neutral. The proposed developments will cause no more impact

than that of the authorised powerlines and sub-stations (14-12-16-3-3-2-925-1 & 14-12-16-3-3-2-925-2), due

to the reduction in the area required by the proposed Projects.

As stated in the approach section, the physical change to the landscape at the Projects’ site must be

understood in terms of the Projects’ visibility (impact on sensitive viewers and viewing areas) and their effect

on the visual aesthetics of the area (as experienced through viewing the landscape – visual intrusion). The

following sections discuss the effect the Projects would have on the visual and aesthetic environment.

Visual Impact

23 Beaufort West Wind Farm 33kV / 132kV Substation, 132kV Powerline and DRAFT: Visual Impact Report Associated Infrastructure Projects 21 October 2021

9. VISUAL IMPACT

9.1 Visual Receptors

A sensitive receptor location is defined as a location from where receptors would potentially be adversely

impacted by a proposed development. Adverse impacts often arise where new development is seen as an

intrusion that alters the visual character of the area and affects the ‘sense of place’. The degree of visual

impact experienced will however vary from one (1) receptor to another, as it is largely based on the viewer’s

perception. A distinction must be made between a receptor location and a sensitive receptor location. A

receptor location is a site from where the proposed development may be visible, but the receptor may not

necessarily be adversely affected by any visual intrusion associated with the development. Less sensitive

receptors would include locations of commercial activities and certain movement corridors, such as roads

that are not tourism routes. More sensitive receptor locations typically include sites that are likely to be

adversely affected by the visual intrusion of the proposed development. They include tourism facilities,

scenic sites and certain residential dwellings in natural settings. (Swartz, 2018:46).

9.2 Sensitive Viewers

Although five (5) potentially sensitive receptor locations (Figure 04) occur within the study area, it is

concluded that none of these are sensitive to the projects. Accordingly, these receptors were excluded from

the assessment as it is assumed that the occupants would have a vested interest in the wind farm

development and the associated grid connection infrastructure (Swartz, 2018:47).

Furthermore, although the section of the N12 traversing the study area is not considered a scenic route, it is

likely that the road is utilised, to some extent, for its tourism potential and as a result, it is classed as a

potentially sensitive receptor road – i.e. a road being used by motorists who may object to the potential visual

intrusion of the proposed powerline, substation and associated infrastructure (Swartz, 2018:47).

9.3 Visibility

The proposed 132kV powerline, substation and associated infrastructure will be visible from the N12,

although these elements are between 1 and 5kms from the road and thus the visual impacts will be reduced.

i.e. visual exposure is limited to middle and background views.

Other roads in the study area are mostly gravel access roads used by residents. These roads are not valued

or utilised for their scenic or tourism potential and as such are not considered to be visually sensitive. The

potentially sensitive visual receptor locations relative to the zone of potential visual impact are indicated in

Figure 05 above.

9.4 Visual Intrusion

Visual intrusion deals with the notion of contextualism i.e. how well does a project component fit with or

disrupt/enhance the ecological and cultural aesthetic of the landscape as a whole? As the proposed 132kV

powerline, substation and associated infrastructure will only be built when the authorised wind farms are

built, they will appear as part of the overall power infrastructure and will not appear out of context. i.e. the

VAC is high.

9.5 The intensity of Visual Impact

The magnitude of visual impact is determined using visibility, visual intrusion, visual exposure, and viewer

sensitivity criteria. Referring to the discussions in the previous sections and using the criteria listed in

Appendix B, the magnitude of the worst-case scenario visual impact of the Project is rated in Table 3 below

for all phases of the projects. To assess the magnitude of visual impact, four (4) main factors are considered

as follows:

• Visual Intrusion: The nature of intrusion or contrast (physical characteristics) of a project component

on the visual quality of the surrounding environment and its compatibility/discord with the landscape

Visual Impact

24 Beaufort West Wind Farm 33kV / 132kV Substation, 132kV Powerline and DRAFT: Visual Impact Report Associated Infrastructure Projects 21 October 2021

and surrounding land use, within the context of the landscape’s VAC.

• Visibility: The area/points from which project components will be visible.

• Visual exposure: Visibility and visual intrusion qualified with a distance rating to indicate the degree

of intrusion.

• Sensitivity: Sensitivity of visual receptors to the proposed developments

In synthesizing the criteria a numerical or weighting system is avoided. Attempting to attach a precise

numerical value to qualitative resources is rarely successful, and should not be used as a substitute for

reasoned professional judgment (LI-IEMA, 2013).

According to the results tabulated below in Table 3 below, the intensity of visual impact on receptor locations

(based on the worst-case scenario) of the proposed Projects will be negligible (during all phases of the

projects) for both options.

The reason for this is that either of the options would be visually experienced in the same visual envelope,

which would include the field of wind turbines, and from approximately the same distance (i.e. visual

exposure and intrusion would be similar. Therefore, from a visual perspective, either option is acceptable.

It should also be noted that the magnitude of the impact of the proposed developments must be compared

against the already authorised infrastructural layout impact. i.e. would the proposed development layouts

have a greater or lesser impact than the authorised development? Figure 06 below illustrates that the spatial

extent of the zone of potential influence for the proposed developments reduces when compared with the

authorised development.

Table 3: Intensity of Impact for Both Options of the Projects

High

None

Moderate

None

Low

Negligible to None

Major loss of or alteration to

key

elements/features/characteri

stics of the baseline in the

immediate vicinity of the

site.

i.e. Pre-development

landscape or view and / or

introduction of elements

considered to be

uncharacteristic when set

within the attributes of the

receiving landscape.

Result:

A high scenic quality

impacts would result.

Partial loss of or alteration to

key elements / features /

characteristics of the

baseline.



introduction of elements that

may be prominent but may

not necessarily be

substantially problematic

when set within the

attributes of the receiving

landscape.

Result:

A moderate scenic quality

impacts would result

Minor loss of or alteration

to key elements / features

/ characteristics of the

baseline.




that may not be

problematic when set

within the attributes of the

receiving landscape.

Result:

A low scenic quality


Very minor loss or

alteration to key

elements/features/charact

eristics of the baseline.




that is not problematic

with the surrounding

landscape –

approximating the ‘no

change’ situation.

Result:

A negligible to no scenic

quality impacts would

result.

Visual Impact

25 Beaufort West Wind Farm 33kV / 132kVSubstation, 132kV Powerline and FINAL: Visual Impact Report Associated Infrastructure Project 21 October 2021

Management Measures


10. MANAGEMENT MEASURES

In considering mitigating measures, three (3) rules are considered - the measures should be feasible

(economically), effective (how long will it take to implement and what provision is made for

management/maintenance), and acceptable (within the framework of the existing landscape and land use

policies for the area). To address these, the following principles have been established:

• Mitigation measures should be designed to suit the existing landscape character and needs of the

locality. They should respect and build upon landscape distinctiveness.

• It should be recognized that many mitigation measures, especially the establishment of planted

screens and rehabilitation, are not immediately effective.

The following general actions are recommended, and applicable to both proposed applications / projects

during construction, operation and decommissioning:

10.1 Preparatory Works and Construction Concerns

• With the preparation of the portions of land onto which activities will take place, the minimum amount

of existing vegetation and topsoil should be removed.

• Ensure, wherever possible, natural indigenous vegetation is retained and incorporated into the site

rehabilitation.

• All topsoil that occurs within the proposed footprint of an activity must be removed and stockpiled for

later use. The construction contract must include the stripping and stockpiling of topsoil. Topsoil

would be used later, during the rehabilitation phase of disturbed areas. The presence of degraded

areas and disused construction roads, which are not rehabilitated, will increase the overall visual

impact.

• Specifications with regards to the placement of construction camps, as well as a site plan of the

construction camp, indicating waste areas, storage areas, and placement of ablution facilities should

be included in the EMPr. These areas should either be screened or positioned in areas where they

would be less visible from human settlements and main roads.

• Adopt responsible construction practices aimed at strictly containing the construction/establishment

activities to specifically demarcated areas.

• Building or waste material discarded should be undertaken at an authorised location, which should

not be within any sensitive areas.

10.2 Earthworks

• Earthworks should be executed in such a way that only the footprint and a small ‘construction buffer

zone’ around the proposed activities are exposed. In all other areas, the naturally occurring

vegetation should be retained, especially along the periphery of the sites.

• All cut and fill slopes (if any) and areas affected by construction work should be progressively top

soiled and re-vegetated as soon as possible.

• Any soil must be exposed for the minimum time possible once cleared of vegetation, to avoid

prolonged exposure to wind and water erosion and to minimise dust generation.

10.3 Ecological approach

• Where new vegetation is proposed to be introduced to the site, an ecological approach to

rehabilitation, as opposed to a horticultural approach, should be adopted. For example, communities

of indigenous plants will enhance biodiversity, a desirable outcome for the area. This approach can

Management Measures


significantly reduce long-term costs, as less maintenance would be required over conventional

landscaping methods as well as the introduced landscape being more sustainable.

• Progressive rehabilitation of all construction areas should be carried out immediately after they have

been established.

10.4 Mounting Structures and associated infrastructure

Paint the structures with colours that reflect and compliment the colours of the surrounding landscape (where

possible). See the image below which is an indicative (generic) example of this approach. It illustrates the

effectiveness of using colour to blend structures with hews found in the landscape.

(Photo Credit: BLM, 2013:198)

10.5 Good housekeeping

“Housekeeping” procedures should be developed for the Projects to ensure that the Projects’ site and lands

adjacent to the Projects’ site are kept clean of debris, garbage, fugitive trash, or waste generated onsite

Housekeeping procedures should extend to control of “track out” of dirt on vehicles leaving the active

construction sites.

10.6 Lighting

Light pollution is largely the result of bad lighting design, which allows artificial light to shine outward and

upward into the sky, where it is not wanted, instead of focusing the light downward, where it is needed. Ill-

designed lighting washes out the darkness of the night sky and radically alters the light levels in rural areas,

where light sources shine as ‘beacons’ against the dark sky and are generally not wanted.

Of all the pollutions faced, light pollution is perhaps the most easily remedied. Simple changes in lighting

design and installation yield immediate changes in the amount of light spilled into the atmosphere. The

following are measures that must be considered in the lighting design of the Project, particularly at the

management and service platforms:

• Install light fixtures that provide precisely directed illumination, to reduce light “spillage” beyond the

immediate surrounds of the sites that may require security lighting i.e. lights (spotlights) are to be

aimed away from the N12 and the nearby farmsteads.

• Avoid high pole top security lighting and use only lights that are activated on illegal entry to the site.

• Minimise the number of light fixtures to the bare minimum, including security lighting.

10.7 Branding and Marketing

The applicant may wish to give consideration, where appropriate, to the development and installation of

viewing areas, interpretation panels, visitor, or educational facilities as part of the development proposals.

This may appeal to tourists visiting the area and travelling along the N12, who may be curious about

renewable energy Projects.

Significance of Visual Impact


11. SIGNIFICANCE OF VISUAL IMPACT

The identification and assessment of environmental impacts is a multi-faceted process, using a combination

of quantitative and qualitative descriptions and evaluations. It involves applying scientific measurements and

professional judgment to determine the significance of environmental impacts associated with the proposed

Project. The process involves consideration of, inter alia: the purpose and need for the Projects; views and

concerns of interested and affected parties (I&APs); social and political norms and the public’s interest (SLR,

2021).

The table below (Table 4) summarises the consequence and significance of the visual impact of the Projects.

These results are based on the worst-case scenario, when the impacts of all aspects of the Projects are

taken together using the impact criteria in Appendix D. Consequence of impact is a function of intensity,

duration, and spatial extent (SLR, 2021). The intensity of impact is taken from the situation as described in

Table 3: Intensity of Visual Impact above. These facilities are rated together, from a visual impact

perspective, as the one (1) would not exist without the other and they must be understood as the

collective/cumulative. Also, the visual impacts for the Construction, Operational and Decommissioning

Phases are potentially similar and are therefore rated together in Table 4 below.

It should be noted that the visual impacts during the Construction, Operational and Decommissioning

Phases for both respective applications / projects are identical. The table below (Table 4) is therefore

applicable to both proposed applications / projects.

Table 4: Significance of Visual Impact for Both Options of the Projects

Issue: Neutral visual impact

Description of Impact

The visual impact will be neutral to slightly less than the authorised development.

Type of Impact Direct

Nature of Impact Neutral

Phases Construction, Operational and Decommissioning

Criteria Without Mitigation With Mitigation

Intensity Very Low Very Low

Duration Very short-term Very short-term

Extent Local Local

Consequence Very low Very low

Probability Unlikely/improbable Unlikely/improbable

Significance Insignificant Insignificant

Degree to which impact can be

reversed

The impact is inconsequential, therefore not requiring any

consideration.

Degree to which impact may

cause irreplaceable loss of

resources

The project will not cause irreplaceable loss of visual resources

Degree to which impact can be

mitigated

The impact is negligible, however normal good housekeeping and

management are recommended.

11.1 Alternatives

As mentioned in Section 4.5, two (2) site area alternatives of up to approximately 200 000m2 (i.e., 500m x

400m or 20ha) each have been assessed for the onsite substation, BESS, laydown area and O&M building.

Powerline corridors with widths of 100m (i.e., 100m powerline corridor buffer, 50m on either side of centre

Significance of Visual Impact


line) have also been assessed as part of the site area alternatives for the 132kV switching station yard of the

substation and 132kV powerline application / project, to allow flexibility when routing the powerline within the

authorised corridor.

In addition, the alternatives (including powerline corridors) have been assessed against the ‘no-go’

alternative. The ‘no-go’ alternative is the option of not constructing the projects, where the status quo of the

current farming activities on the sites would prevail.

As mentioned previously, from a visual perspective, either of the two (2) site area alternatives and powerline

corridor alternatives can be considered, as the potential impact of any one (1) alternative is neutral, when

compared to the authorised development option. Both options for each respective application / project would

be viewed within the matrix of turbines, which would command visual attention.

Cumulative Effect


12. CUMULATIVE EFFECT

Concerning an activity, cumulative impact means “the past, current and reasonably foreseeable future

impact of an activity, considered together with the impact of activities associated with that activity, that in

itself may not be significant, but may be significant when added to the existing and reasonably foreseeable

impacts eventuating from similar or diverse activities” (NEMA EIA Reg GN R982 of 2014).

The South African Renewable Energy EIA Application Database (REEA) available at the time (namely

“REEA_OR_2021_Q2”) shows that there are no operational renewable energy developments situated within

a 30km radius of the proposed projects’ site. In addition, only a few renewable energy projects (wind) are

authorised within proximity to the town of Beaufort West. This includes the Beaufort West Cluster which

consists of two (2) authorised wind farm projects (namely the Beaufort West Wind Farm – 12-12-20-1784-1-

AM2 and Trakas Wind Farm - 12-12-20-1784-2-AM2) and associated electrical infrastructure (14-12-16-3-3-

2-925-1 & 14-12-16-3-3-2-925-2).

In addition to the above, ABO Wind Renewable Energies (Pty) Ltd is proposing the construction of three (3)

WEF’s and their associated infrastructure on properties immediately east of the authorised Beaufort West

Wind Farm site (CSIR, May 2021).

The application for EA for the Leeu Gamka Solar Power Plant (12/12/20/2296), which was identified within a

30km radius of the proposed project site, has been withdrawn and/or lapsed and therefore is not included in

the cumulative assessment.

The cumulative impact assessed is therefore the collective impact of the respective onsite substation, BESS,

laydown area, O&M building and powerline applications along with the authorised Beaufort West Wind Farm

and Trakas Wind Farm, including the associated electrical infrastructure, as well as the three (3) proposed

Kwagga WEFs immediately north and east of the development site, which are located within a 30km radius

of the projects’ site.

12.1 The cumulative effect of WEFs and Associated Infrastructure

Intervisibility for the projects described above and within a 30km radius of the development site will be

evident. The combined effect over time of these developments would result in the study area being impacted

upon in a manner beyond the anticipated neutral negative impacts of the proposed Projects alone.

WEFs (including their associated electrical infrastructure) have the potential to cause large-scale visual

impacts and the location of several such developments near each other could significantly alter the sense of

place and visual character in the broader region. Although powerlines and substations are relatively small

developments when compared to renewable energy facilities, they may still introduce a more industrial

character into the landscape, thus altering the sense of place.

The authorised Beaufort West (12-12-20-1784-1-AM2) and Trakas (12-12-20-1784-2-AM2) wind farms are

both integrally linked to the proposed grid connection projects (14-12-16-3-3-2-925-1 & 14-12-16-3-3-2-925-

2) and are located within the 5km visual assessment zone of potential impact for these projects. In addition,

the proposed wind farms and the grid connection infrastructure are all within the 5km viewing distance of the

potentially sensitive receptor locations identified in the study area. The proposed powerline, substation and

associated infrastructure projects are however located entirely on the two (2) authorised wind farm

application sites and as such will be perceived as part of the greater Beaufort West Cluster of wind

developments5. It could therefore be argued that the proposed powerline, substation and associated

infrastructure developments will not increase the cumulative impacts of the authorised wind farms and

associated electrical infrastructure to any significant degree.

The visual assessment undertaken for the combined Beaufort West and Trakas Wind Farm identified visual

impacts in their report (Oberholzer, 2010:20) and determined an overall impact rating of High (before

Cumulative Effect


mitigation) and Medium-High (after mitigation). The impacts for the three (3) Kwagga Wind Farms have not

been published at the date of writing this report, however, it is reasonable to expect that these would be high,

given the vast spatial extent of the project and their relationship to the N12.

It should be noted that the above cumulative impact ratings would remain unchanged regardless of whether

the respective proposed powerline, substation and associated infrastructure projects are developed, as the

impact of the 132kV powerline, substation and associated infrastructure would be dwarfed by the cumulative

impact of the other renewable energy developments in the area.

Conclusion


13. CONCLUSION

The existing visual condition of the landscape that may be affected by the proposed developments has been

described. It was important to assess whether the introduction of a new powerline, substation and associated

infrastructure into the study area would be a degrading factor in the context of the natural Karoo character of

the landscape, keeping in mind that the proposed developments will occur within authorised wind farms. In

addition, although the proposed developments will be visible from the N12 national route which traverses the

study area, the section of the route within the study area is not considered to be of scenic value. In addition,

the level of contrast is significantly reduced by the presence of existing powerlines and associated

infrastructure as well as the N12 road, which are prominent features in an open and relatively flat landscape.

Impacts to views are the highest when viewers are identified as being sensitive to change in the landscape,

and their views are focused on and dominated by the change. Only five (5) potentially sensitive receptors

were identified within the study area, however, these receptors have vested interest in the projects and

therefore not considered in the assessment. Travellers along the N12, who are tourists, were also

considered as potentially sensitive receptors.

The significance of impact, without mitigation and based on the worst-case scenario, for the sensitive

receptors during the construction, operational and decommissioning phases, is neutral i.e. where the impact

would not have any effect on the visual environment (over and above the authorised 132kV powerline and

associated infrastructure development), nor will it have a direct influence on the decision to develop the area.

Mitigation measures are, however, proposed that relate mostly to good housekeeping during the construction

phase. This is applicable to both proposed applications / projects.

Five (5) renewable energy developments were identified within a 30km radius of the proposed powerline,

substation and associated infrastructure projects. It was determined that these, namely the Beaufort West

WEF, Trakas WEF and the three (3) Kwagga WEFs, would have a significant impact on the landscape and

receptors within the visual assessment zone. These facilities are adjacent to each other and in effect form

one (1) large wind farm incorporating the proposed grid connection infrastructure. It is anticipated that the

concentration of WEFs will alter the inherent sense of place of the study area and introduce an increasingly

industrial character into a largely natural landscape, resulting in some form of cumulative impacts. Although,

it is anticipated that these impacts could be mitigated with the implementation of the recommendations and

mitigation measures stipulated for each of these developments by the visual specialists (Oberholzer, 2010).

In addition, impacts would be reduced to some degree with the presence of the existing 400kV powerline

infrastructure and the N12 national route in the vicinity of the WEFs, which have already partly transformed

the visual character.

13.1 Visual Impact Statement

It is the opinion of GYLA that the visual effects associated with the proposed developments are of neutral

significance. Given the low level of human habitation and the absence of sensitive receptors, the spatial

extent of the zone of potential influence is reduced and the impact of the powerline, substation and

associated infrastructure would be dwarfed by the cumulative effect of the other renewable energy

developments. The respective projects are thus deemed acceptable from a visual perspective, and should

each be approved, provided that the mitigation/management measures are effectively implemented,

managed, and monitored in the long term.

**GYLA**

References - Bibliography


14. REFERENCES

Amir, S. & Gidalizon, E. 1990. Expert-based method for the evaluation of visual absorption capacity of the

landscape. Journal of Environmental Management. Vol. 30, Issue 3: 251 – 263.

Breedlove, G., 2002. A systematic for the South African Cultural Landscapes with a view to implementation.

Thesis – University of Pretoria.

Crawford, D., 1994. Using remotely sensed data in landscape visual quality assessment. Landscape and

Urban Planning. 30: 71-81.

Hull, R.B. & Bishop, I.E., 1988. Scenic Impacts of Electricity Transmission Towers: The Influence of

Landscape Type and Observer Distance. Journal of Environmental Management. 27: 99-108.

Ittelson, W.H., Proshansky, H.M., Rivlin, L.G. and Winkel, G.H., 1974. An Introduction to Environmental

Psychology. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.

Kellerman, L. et al. 2021. Scoping and Environmental Impact Assessment for the Proposed Development of

the 279 MW Kwagga Wind Energy Facility near Beaufort West in the Western Cape. May 2021. CSIR

Unpublished Report, Stellenbosch.

Landscape Institute – Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (LI-IEMA), 2013. Guidelines

for Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment. 3rd Edition, Routledge, London.

Lange, E., 1994. Integration of computerized visual simulation and visual assessment in environmental

planning. Landscape and Environmental Planning. 30: 99-112.

Lynch, K., 1992. Good City Form, The MIT Press, London. (131)

Oberholzer, B., 2005. Guideline for involving visual & aesthetic specialists in EIA processes: Edition 1. CSIR

Report No ENV-S-C 2005 053 F. Republic of South Africa, Provincial Government of the Western Cape,

Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning, Cape Town.

Sama, J. (2000), Program Policy, Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impact, Department of Environmental

Conservation. New York.

Sheppard, S.R.J. 2005. Validity, reliability, and ethics in visualisation. In Bishop, I. & Lange, E. (Eds.)

Visualisation in Landscape and Environmental Planning: Technology and Applications. Taylor and Francis,

London.

Schapper, J. (October 1993), The importance of aesthetic value in the assessment of landscape heritage.

More than meets the eye: identifying and assessing aesthetic value. Report of the Aesthetic Value Workshop

held at the University of Melbourne.

Swartz, K. 2018. Proposed Construction of a Linking Station, two (2) Power Lines and two (2) On-site

Substations for the Beaufort West and Trakas Wind Farms, near Beaufort West in the Western Cape

Province, Visual Impact Assessment Report. 07 December 2018. SiVest Unpublished Report Rev 1,

Johannesburg.

United States Department of the Interior. 2013. Best Management Practices for Reducing Visual Impacts of

Renewable Energy Facilities on BLM-Administered Lands. Bureau of Land Management. Cheyenne,

Wyoming. 342 pp, April. First Edition.

Appendix A


APPENDIX A: DETERMINING THE VISUAL RESOURCE VALUE OF A LANDSCAPE

To reach an understanding of the effect of development on a landscape resource, it is necessary to consider

the different aspects of the landscape as follows:

Landscape Elements and Character

The individual elements that make up the landscape, including prominent or eye-catching features such as

hills, valleys, savannah, trees, water bodies, buildings and roads, are generally quantifiable and can be

easily described.

Landscape character is therefore the description of pattern, resulting from particular combinations of natural

(physical and biological) and cultural (land use) factors and how people perceive these. The visual

dimension of the landscape reflects the way in which these factors create repetitive groupings and interact to

create areas that have a specific visual identity. The process of landscape character assessment can

increase appreciation of what makes the landscape distinctive and what is important about an area. The

description of landscape character thus focuses on the nature of the land, rather than the response of a

viewer.

Landscape Value – all encompassing (Aesthetic Value)

Aesthetic value is the emotional response derived from the experience of the environment with its natural

and cultural attributes. The response can be either to visual or non-visual elements and can embrace sound,

smell and any other factor having a strong impact on human thoughts, feelings and attitudes (Ramsay,

1993). Thus, aesthetic value encompasses more than the seen view, visual quality or scenery, and includes

atmosphere, landscape character and sense of place (Schapper, 1993).

Aesthetic appeal (value) is considered high when the following are present (Ramsay, 1993):

• Abstract qualities: such as the presence of vivid, distinguished, uncommon or rare features or abstract

attributes.

• Evocative responses: the ability of the landscape to evoke particularly strong responses in community

members or visitors.

• Meanings: the existence of a long-standing special meaning to a particular group of people or the ability

of the landscape to convey special meanings to viewers in general.

• Landmark quality: a particular feature that stands out and is recognised by the broader community.

Sense of Place

Central to the concept of a sense of place is that the place requires uniqueness and distinctiveness. The

primary informant of these qualities is the spatial form and character of the natural landscape, together with

the cultural transformations and traditions associated with historic use and habitation. According to Lynch

(1992), sense of place "is the extent to which a person can recognize or recall a place as being distinct from

other places - as having a vivid, or unique, or at least particular, character of its own". Sense of place is the

unique value that is allocated to a specific place or area through the cognitive experience of the user or

viewer. In some cases, these values allocated to the place are similar for a wide spectrum of users or

viewers, giving the place a universally recognized and therefore, strong sense of place.

Scenic Quality

Assigning values to visual resources is a subjective process. The phrase, “beauty is in the eye of the

beholder,” is often quoted to emphasize the subjectivity in determining scenic values. Yet, researchers have

found consistent levels of agreement among individuals asked to evaluate visual quality.

Studies for perceptual psychology have shown human preference for landscapes with a higher visual

complexity, particularly in scenes with water, over homogeneous areas. Based on contemporary research

Appendix A


landscape quality increases when:

• Topographic ruggedness and relative relief increase;

• Where water forms are present;

• Where diverse patterns of grasslands and trees occur;

• Where natural landscape increases and man-made landscape decreases and

• Where land use compatibility increases and land use edge diversity decreases (Crawford, 1994).

Scenic Quality - Explanation of Rating Criteria:

(After The Visual Resource Management System, Department of the Interior of the USA Government,

Bureau of Land Management)

Landform: Topography becomes more interesting as it gets steeper or more massive, or more severely or

universally sculptured. Outstanding landforms may be monumental, as the Fish River or Blyde River Canyon,

the Drakensberg or other mountain ranges, or they may be exceedingly artistic and subtle as certain

pinnacles, arches, and other extraordinary formations.

Vegetation: (Plant communities) Give primary consideration to the variety of patterns, forms, and textures

created by plant life. Consider short-lived displays when they are known to be recurring or spectacular

(wildflower displays in the Karoo regions). Consider also smaller scale vegetational features, which add

striking and intriguing detail elements to the landscape (e.g., gnarled or wind beaten trees, and baobab

trees).

Water: That ingredient which adds movement or serenity to a scene. The degree to which water dominates

the scene is the primary consideration in selecting the rating score.

Colour: Consider the overall colour(s) of the basic components of the landscape (e.g., soil, rock, vegetation,

etc.) as they appear during seasons or periods of high use. Key factors to use when rating "colour" are

variety, contrast, and harmony.

Adjacent Scenery: Degree to which scenery outside the scenery unit being rated enhances the overall

impression of the scenery within the rating unit. The distance which adjacent scenery will influence scenery

within the rating unit will normally range from 0-8 kilometres, depending upon the characteristics of the

topography, the vegetative cover, and other such factors. This factor is generally applied to units which

would normally rate very low in score, but the influence of the adjacent unit would enhance the visual quality

and raise the score.

Scarcity: This factor provides an opportunity to give added importance to one or all of the scenic features

that appear to be relatively unique or rare within one physiographic region. There may also be cases where a

separate evaluation of each of the key factors does not give a true picture of the overall scenic quality of an

area. Often it is a number of not so spectacular elements in the proper combination that produces the most

pleasing and memorable scenery - the scarcity factor can be used to recognize this type of area and give it

the added emphasis it needs.

Cultural Modifications: Cultural modifications in the landform / water, vegetation, and addition of structures

should be considered and may detract from the scenery in the form of a negative intrusion or complement or

improve the scenic quality of a unit.

Scenic Quality Inventory and Evaluation Chart

(After The Visual Resource Management System, Department of the Interior of the USA Government,

Bureau of Land Management)

Appendix A


Key factors Rating Criteria and Score

Landform High vertical relief as

expressed in prominent

cliffs, spires, or massive

rock outcrops, or severe

surface variation or

highly eroded formations

including major badlands

or dune systems; or

detail features dominant

and exceptionally

striking and intriguing

such as glaciers.

5

Steep canyons, mesas,

buttes, cinder cones,

and drumlins; or

interesting erosional

patterns or variety in

size and shape of

landforms; or detail

features which are

interesting though not

dominant or exceptional.

3

Low rolling hills, foothills,

or flat valley bottoms; or

few or no interesting

landscape features.

1

Vegetation and

landcover

A variety of vegetative

types as expressed in

interesting forms,

textures, and patterns.

5

Some variety of

vegetation, but only one

or two major types.

3

Little or no variety or

contrast in vegetation.

1

Water Clear and clean

appearing, still, or

cascading white water,

any of which are a

dominant factor in the

landscape.

5

Flowing, or still, but not

dominant in the

landscape.

3

Absent, or present, but

not noticeable.

0

Colour Rich colour

combinations, variety, or

vivid colour; or pleasing

contrasts in the soil,

rock, vegetation, water

or snow fields.

5

Some intensity or variety

in colours and contrast

of the soil, rock, and

vegetation, but not a

dominant scenic

element.

3

Subtle colour variations,

contrast, or interest;

generally mute tones.

1

Influence of adjacent

scenery

Adjacent scenery greatly

enhances visual quality.

5

Adjacent scenery

moderately enhances

overall visual quality.

3

Adjacent scenery has

little or no influence on

overall visual quality.

0

Scarcity One of a kind; or

unusually memorable, or

exceedingly rare within

region. Consistent

chance for exceptional

wildlife or wildflower

viewing, etc. National

and provincial parks and

conservation areas

* 5+

Distinctive, though

somewhat like others

within the region.

3

Interesting within its

setting, but common

within the region.

1

Cultural modifications Modifications add

favourably to visual

Modifications add little or

no visual variety to the

Modifications add variety

but are very discordant

Appendix A


variety while promoting

visual harmony.

2

area and introduce no

discordant elements.

0

and promote strong

disharmony.

4

Scenic Quality (i.e. value of the visual resource)

In determining the quality of the visual resource both the objective and the subjective or aesthetic factors

associated with the landscape are considered. Many landscapes can be said to have a strong sense of

place, regardless of whether they are considered to be scenically beautiful but where landscape quality,

aesthetic value and a strong sense of place coincide - the visual resource or perceived value of the

landscape is considered to be very high.

When considering both objective and subjective factors associated with the landscape there is a balance

between landscape character and individual landscape features and elements, which would result in the

values as follows:

Value of Visual Resource – expressed as Scenic Quality (After The Landscape Institute with the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, 2002)

High

Moderate

Low

Areas that exhibit an incredibly

positive character with valued

features that combine to give the

experience of unity, richness, and

harmony. These are landscapes

that may be of particular

importance to conserve and which

may be sensitive change in general

and which may be detrimental if

change is inappropriately dealt

with.

Areas that exhibit positive

character, but which may have

evidence of alteration to

/degradation/erosion of features

resulting in areas of more mixed

character. Potentially sensitive to

change in general; again, change

may be detrimental if

inappropriately dealt with, but it

may not require special or

particular attention to detail.

Areas generally negative in

character with few, if any, valued

features. Scope for positive

enhancement frequently occurs.

Appendix C


APPENDIX B: METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE INTENSITY OF LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT

A visual impact study analysis addresses the importance of the inherent aesthetics of the landscape, the

public value of viewing the natural landscape, and the contrast or change in the landscape from the project.

For some topics, such as water or air quality, it is possible to use measurable, technical international or

national guidelines or legislative standards, against which potential effects can be assessed. The

assessment of likely effects on a landscape resource and on visual amenity is more complex, since it is

determined through a combination of quantitative and qualitative evaluations (The Landscape Institute with

the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, 2002).

Landscape impact assessment includes a combination of objective and subjective judgements, and it is

therefore important that a structured and consistent approach is used. It is necessary to differentiate

between judgements that involve a degree of subjective opinion (as in the assessment of landscape value)

from those that are normally more objective and quantifiable (as in the determination of magnitude of

change). Judgement should always be based on training and experience and be supported by clear

evidence and reasoned argument. Accordingly, suitably qualified and experienced landscape professionals

carry out landscape and visual impact assessments (The Landscape Institute with the Institute of

Environmental Management and Assessment, 2002).

Landscape and visual assessments are separate, although linked, procedures. The landscape baseline, its

analysis and the assessment of landscape effects all contribute to the baseline for visual assessment

studies. The assessment of the potential effect on the landscape is carried our as an effect on an

environmental resource, i.e. the landscape. Visual effects are assessed as one of the interrelated effects on

population.

Landscape Impact

Landscape impacts derive from changes in the physical landscape, which may give rise to changes in its

character and from effects to the scenic values of the landscape. This may in turn affect the perceived value

ascribed to the landscape. The description and analysis of effects on a landscape resource relies on the

adoption of certain basic principles about the positive (or beneficial) and negative (or adverse) effects of

change in the landscape. Due to the inherently dynamic nature of the landscape, change arising from a

development may not necessarily be significant [Institute of Environmental Assessment & The Landscape

Institute (2002)].

Visual Impact

Visual impacts relate to the changes that arise in the composition of available views as a result of changes to

the landscape, to people’s responses to the changes, and to the overall effects with respect to visual

amenity. Visual impact is therefore measured as the change to the existing visual environment (caused by

the physical presence of a new development) and the extent to which that change compromises (negative

impact) or enhances (positive impact) or maintains the visual quality of the area.

To assess the magnitude of visual impact, four (4) main factors are considered.

Visual Intrusion: The nature of intrusion or contrast (physical characteristics) of a project

component on the visual quality of the surrounding environment and its

compatibility/discord with the landscape and surrounding land use.

Visibility: The area/points from which project components will be visible.

Visual exposure: Visibility and visual intrusion qualified with a distance rating to indicate the

degree of intrusion.

Sensitivity: Sensitivity of visual receptors to the proposed development

Appendix C


Visual Intrusion / contrast

Visual intrusion deals with the notion of contextualism i.e. how well does a project component fit into the

ecological and cultural aesthetic of the landscape as a whole? Or conversely what is its contrast with the

receiving environment. Combining landform / vegetation contrast with structure contrast derives overall visual

intrusion/contrast levels of high, moderate, and low.

Landform / vegetation contrast is the change in vegetation cover and patterns that would result from

construction activities. Landform contrast is the change in landforms, exposure of soils, potential for erosion

scars, slumping, and other physical disturbances that would be noticed as uncharacteristic in the natural

landscape. Structure contrast examines the compatibility of the proposed development with other structures

in the landscape and the existing natural landscape. Structure contrast is typically strongest where there are

no other structures (e.g., buildings, existing utilities) in the landscape setting.

Photographic panoramas from key viewpoints before and after development are presented to illustrate the

nature and change (contrast) to the landscape created by the proposed development. A computer simulation

technique is employed to superimpose a graphic of the development onto the panorama. The extent to

which the component fits or contrasts with the landscape setting can then be assessed using the following

criteria.

• Does the physical development concept have a negative, positive, or neutral effect on the

quality of the landscape?

• Does the development enhance or contrast with the patterns or elements that define the

structure of the landscape?

• Does the design of the project enhance and promote cultural continuity, or does it disrupt it?

The consequence of the intrusion / contrast can then be measured in terms of the sensitivity of the affected

landscape and visual resource given the criteria listed below. For instance, within an industrial area, a new

sewage treatment works may have an insignificant landscape and visual impact; whereas in a valued

landscape it might be considered to be an intrusive element (Institute of Environmental Assessment & The

landscape Institute, 1996).

Visual Intrusion

High Moderate Low Positive

If the project:

- Has a substantial

negative effect on the

visual quality of the

landscape.

- Contrasts dramatically

with the patterns or

elements that define the

structure of the landscape.

- Contrasts dramatically

with land use, settlement,

or enclosure patterns.

- Is unable to be

‘absorbed’ into the

landscape.

If the project:

- Has a moderate negative

effect on the visual quality

of the landscape.

- Contrasts moderately

with the patterns or



- Is partially compatible



- Is partially ‘absorbed’

into the landscape.

If the project:

- Has a minimal effect on

the visual quality of the

landscape.

- Contrasts minimally with

the patterns or elements

that define the structure of

the landscape.

- Is mostly compatible



- Is ‘absorbed’ into the

landscape.

If the project:

- Has a beneficial effect

on the visual quality of the

landscape.

- Enhances the patterns or



- Is compatible with land

use, settlement, or

enclosure patterns.

Appendix C


Result

Notable change in

landscape characteristics

over an extensive area

and/or intensive change

over a localized area

resulting in major changes

in key views.

Result

Moderate change in

landscape characteristics

over localized area

resulting in a moderate

change to key views.

Result

Imperceptible change

resulting in a minor

change to key views.

Result

Positive change in key

views.

Visual intrusion also diminishes with scenes of higher complexity, as distance increases, the object becomes

less of a focal point (more visual distraction), and the observer’s attention is diverted by the complexity of the

scene (Hull and Bishop, 1988).

Visibility

A viewshed analysis was carried out to define areas, which contain all possible observation sites from which

the developments would be visible. The basic assumption for preparing a viewshed analysis is that the

observer eye height is 1.8m above ground level. Topographic data was captured for the site and its environs

at 10 m contour intervals to create the Digital Terrain Model (DTM). The DTM includes features such as

vegetation, rivers, roads and nearby urban areas. These features were ‘draped’ over the topographic data to

complete the model used to generate the viewshed analysis. It should be noted that viewshed analyses are

not absolute indicators of the level of significance (magnitude) of the impact in the view, but merely a

statement of the fact of potential visibility. The visibility of a development and its contribution to visual impact

is predicted using the criteria listed below:

Visibility

High Moderate Low

Visual Receptors

If the development is visible from

over half the zone of potential

influence, and/or views are

mostly unobstructed and/or the

majority of viewers are affected.

Visual Receptors

If the development is visible

from less than half the zone of

potential influence, and/or

views are partially obstructed

and or many viewers are

affected

Visual Receptors

If the development is visible

from less than a quarter of the

zone of potential influence,

and/or views are mostly

obstructed and/or few viewers

are affected.

Visual Exposure

Visual exposure relates directly to the distance of the view. It is a criterion used to account for the limiting

effect of increased distance on visual impact. The impact of an object in the foreground (0 – 800m) is greater

than the impact of that same object in the middle ground (800m – 5.0km), which, in turn, is greater than the

impact of the object in the background (greater than 5.0km) of a particular scene.

Distance from a viewer to a viewed object or area of the landscape influences how visual changes are

perceived in the landscape. Generally, changes in form, line, colour, and texture in the landscape become

less perceptible with increasing distance.

Areas seen from 0 to 800m are considered foreground; foliage and fine textural details of vegetation are

normally perceptible within this zone.

Areas seen from 800m to 5.0km are considered middle ground; vegetation appears as outlines or patterns.

Depending on topography and vegetation, middle ground is sometimes considered to be up to 8.0km.

Areas seen from 5.0km to 8.0km and sometimes up to 16km and beyond are considered background.

Landforms become the most dominant element at these distances.

Appendix C


Seldom seen areas are those portions of the landscape that, due to topographic relief or vegetation, are

screened from the viewpoint or are beyond 16km from the viewpoint. Landforms become the most dominant

element at these distances.

The impact of an object diminishes at an exponential rate as the distance between the observer and the

object increases. Thus, the visual impact at 1000m would be 25% of the impact as viewed from 500m. At

2000m it would be 10% of the impact at 500m. The inverse relationship of distance and visual impact is well

recognised in visual analysis literature (e.g.: Hull and Bishop, 1988) and is used as an important criteria for

the study. This principle is illustrated in the Figures below.

Effect of Distance on Visual Exposure

Appendix C


Sensitivity of Visual Receptors

When visual intrusion, visibility and visual exposure are incorporated and qualified by sensitivity criteria

(visual receptors), the magnitude of the impact of the development can be determined.

The sensitivity of visual receptors and views will be depended on:

• The location and context of the viewpoint.

• The expectations and occupation or activity of the receptor.

• The importance of the view (which may be determined with respect to is popularity or

numbers of people affected, its appearance in guidebooks, on tourist maps, and in the

facilities provided for its enjoyment and references to it in literature or art).

The most sensitive receptors may include:

• Users of all outdoor recreational facilities including public rights of way, whose intention or

interest may be focused on the landscape.

• Communities where the development results in changes in the landscape setting or valued


• Occupiers of residential properties with views affected by the development.

• These would all be high

Other receptors include:

• People engaged in outdoor sport or recreation (other than appreciation of the landscape, as

in landscapes of acknowledged importance or value).

• People travelling through or past the affected landscape in cars, on trains or other transport

routes.

• People at their place of work.

The least sensitive receptors are likely to be people at their place of work, or engaged in similar activities,

whose attention may be focused on their work or activity and who therefore may be potentially less

susceptible to changes in the view.

In this process more weight is usually given to changes in the view or visual amenity which are greater in

scale, and visible over a wide area. In assessing the effect on views, consideration should be given to the

effectiveness of mitigation measures, particularly where planting is proposed for screening purposes

(Institute of Environmental Assessment & The Landscape Institute, 1996).

Sensitivity of Visual Receptors

High Moderate Low

Users of all outdoor recreational

facilities including public rights of

way, whose intention or interest

may be focused on the landscape.

Communities where the

development results in changes in

the landscape setting or valued


Occupiers of residential properties

with views affected by the

development.

People engaged in outdoor sport

or recreation (other than

appreciation of the landscape, as

in landscapes of acknowledged

importance or value).

People travelling through or past

the affected landscape in cars, on

trains or other transport routes.

The least sensitive receptors are

likely to be people at their place of

work, or engaged in similar

activities, whose attention may be

focused on their work or activity

and who therefore may be

potentially less susceptible to

changes in the view (i.e. office and

industrial areas).

Roads going through urban and

industrial areas

Appendix C


Magnitude of the Visual Impact

Potential visual impacts are determined by analysing how the physical change in the landscape, resulting

from the introduction of a project, are viewed and perceived from sensitive viewpoints. Impacts to views are

the highest when viewers are identified as being sensitive to change in the landscape, and their views are

focused on and dominated by the change. Visual impacts occur when changes in the landscape are

noticeable to viewers looking at the landscape from their homes or from parks, and conservation areas,

highways and travel routes, and important cultural features and historic sites, especially in foreground views.

The magnitude of impact is assessed through a synthesis of visual intrusion, visibility, visual exposure and

viewer sensitivity criteria. Once the magnitude of impact has been established this value is further qualified

with spatial, duration and probability criteria to determine the significance of the visual impact.

For instance, the fact that visual intrusion and exposure diminishes significantly with distance does not

necessarily imply that the relatively small impact that exists at greater distances is unimportant. The level of

impact that people consider acceptable may be dependent upon the purpose they have in viewing the

landscape. A particular development may be unacceptable to a hiker seeking a natural experience, or a

household whose view is impaired, but may be barely noticed by a golfer concentrating on his game or a

commuter trying to get to work on time (Ittleson et al., 1974).

In synthesising these criteria a numerical or weighting system is avoided. Attempting to attach a precise

numerical value to qualitative resources is rarely successful, and should not be used as a substitute for

reasoned professional judgement (Institute of Environmental Assessment and The landscape Institute,

1996).

Intensity (Magnitude) of Visual Impact

High Moderate Low Negligible

Total loss of or major

alteration to key

elements/features/chara

cteristics of the baseline.

I.e. Pre-development

landscape or view

and/or introduction of

elements considered to

be totally

uncharacteristic when

set within the attributes

of the receiving

landscape.

High scenic quality


Partial loss of or

alteration to key




landscape or view


elements that may be

prominent but may not

necessarily be

substantially



of the receiving

landscape.

Moderate scenic quality

impacts would result

Minor loss of or

alteration to key




landscape or view an/or


that may not be



of the receiving

landscape.

Low scenic quality


Very minor loss or

alteration to key




landscape or view


elements that are not

uncharacteristic with the

surrounding landscape –

approximating the ‘no

change’ situation.

Negligible scenic quality


Cumulative effects

Cumulative landscape and visual effects (impacts) result from additional changes to the landscape or visual

amenity caused by the proposed development in conjunction with other developments (associated with or

separate to it), or actions that occurred in the past, present or are likely to occur in the foreseeable future.

They may also affect the way in which the landscape is experienced. Cumulative effects may be positive or

negative. Where they comprise a range of benefits, they may be considered to form part of the mitigation

measures.

Appendix C


Cumulative effects can also arise from the intervisibility (visibility) of a range of developments and/or the

combined effects of individual components of the proposed development occurring in different locations or

over a period of time. The separate effects of such individual components or developments may not be

significant, but together they may create an unacceptable degree of adverse effect on visual receptors within

their combined visual envelopes. Intervisibility depends upon general topography, aspect, tree cover or other

visual obstruction, elevation and distance, as this affects visual acuity, which is also influenced by weather

and light conditions (Institute of Environmental Assessment and The landscape Institute. 1996).

Appendix C


APPENDIX C: CRITERIA FOR SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT ASSESSMENT (SLR Consulting)

PART A: DEFINITIONS AND CRITERIA

Determination of CONSEQUENCE

Consequence is a function of intensity, spatial extent and duration

Determination of SIGNIFICANCE

Significance is a function of consequence and probability

Criteria for ranking of the INTENSITY of environmental impacts

Very High Severe change, disturbance or degradation caused to receptors. Associated with severe consequences. May result in severe illness, injury or death. Targets, limits and thresholds of concern continually exceeded. Substantial intervention will be required.

High Prominent change, or large degree of modification, disturbance or degradation caused to receptors or which may affect a large proportion of receptors, possibly entire species or community.

Medium Moderate change, disturbance or discomfort caused to receptors and/or which may affect a moderate proportion of receptors.

Low Minor (slight) change, disturbance or nuisance caused to receptors which is easily tolerated without intervention, or which may affect a small proportion of receptors.

Very Low Negligible change, disturbance or nuisance caused to receptors which is barely noticeable or may have minimal effect on receptors or affect a limited proportion of the receptors.

Criteria for ranking the DURATION of impacts

Very Short-term The duration of the impact will be < 1 year or may be intermittent.

Short-term The duration of the impact will be between 1 - 5 years.

Medium-term The duration of the impact will be Medium-term between, 5 to 10 years.

Long-term The duration of the impact will be Long-term, between 10 and 20 years. (Likely to cease at the end of the operational life of the activity).

Permanent The duration of the impact will be permanent

Criteria for ranking the EXTENT of impacts

Site Impact is limited to the immediate footprint of the activity and immediate surrounds within a confined area.

Local Impact is confined to within the project site / area and its nearby surroundings.

Regional Impact is confined to the region, e.g., coast, basin, catchment, municipal region, district, etc.

National Impact may extend beyond district or regional boundaries with national implications.

International Impact extends beyond the national scale or may be transboundary.

PART B: DETERMINING CONSEQUENCE

EXTENT

Site Local Regional National International

Intensity- Very Low

DURATION

Permanent Low Low Medium Medium High

Long-term Low Low Low Medium Medium

Medium-term Very Low Low Low Low Medium

Short-term Very low Very Low Low Low Low

Very Short-term Very low Very Low Very Low Low Low

Intensity -Low

DURATION

Permanent Medium Medium Medium High High

Long-term Low Medium Medium Medium High

Medium-term Low Low Medium Medium Medium

Short-term Low Low Low Medium Medium

Appendix C


Very Short-term Very low Low Low Low Medium

Intensity- Medium

DURATION

Permanent Medium High High High Very High

Long-term Medium Medium Medium High High

Medium-term Medium Medium Medium High High

Short-term Low Medium Medium Medium High

Very Short-term Low Low Low Medium Medium

Intensity -High

DURATION

Permanent High High High Very High Very High

Long-term Medium High High High Very High

Medium-term Medium Medium High High High

Short-term Medium Medium Medium High High

Very Short-term Low Medium Medium Medium High

Intensity - Very High

DURATION

Permanent High High Very High Very High Very High

Long-term High High High Very High Very High

Medium-term Medium High High High Very High

Short-term Medium Medium High High High

Very Short-term Low Medium Medium High High

Site Local Regional National International

EXTENT

PART C: DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE

PROBABILITY (of exposure to impacts)

Definite/ Continuous

Very Low Low Medium High Very High

Probable Very Low Low Medium High Very High

Possible/ frequent

Very Low Very Low Low Medium High

Conceivable Insignificant Very Low Low Medium High

Unlikely/ improbable

Insignificant Insignificant Very Low Low Medium

Very Low Low Medium High Very High

CONSEQUENCE

PART D: INTERPRETATION OF SIGNIFICANCE

Very High - Very High + Represents a key factor in decision-making. In the case of adverse effects, the impact would be considered a fatal flaw unless mitigated to lower significance.

High - High + These beneficial or adverse effects are considered to be very important considerations and are likely to be material for the decision-making process. In the case of negative impacts, substantial mitigation will be required.

Medium - Medium +

These beneficial or adverse effects may be important but are not likely to be key decision-making factors. The cumulative effects of such issues may become a decision-making issue if leading to an increase in the overall adverse effect on a particular resource or receptor. In the case of negative impacts, mitigation will be required.

Appendix C


Low - Low + These beneficial or adverse effects may be raised as localised issues. They are unlikely to be critical in the decision-making process but could be important in the subsequent design of the project. In the case of negative impacts, some mitigation is likely to be required.

Very Low - Very Low + These beneficial or adverse effects will not have an influence on the decision, neither will they need to be taken into account in the design of the project. In the case of negative impacts, mitigation is not necessarily required.

Insignificant Any effects are beneath the levels of perception and inconsequential, therefore not requiring any consideration.

Appendix D


APPENDIX D: CURRICULUM VITAE

Graham Young PrLArch FILASA

PO Box 331, Groenkloof, 0027 Tel: +27 0(82) 462 1491

[email protected]

Graham is a registered landscape architect with interest and experience in landscape architecture, urban

design, and environmental planning. He holds a degree in landscape architecture from the University of

Toronto and has practiced in Canada and Africa, where he has spent most of his working life. He has served

as President of the Institute of Landscape Architects of South Africa (ILASA) and as Vice President of the

Board of Control for Landscape Architects.

During his 30 years plus career he has received numerous ILASA and other industry awards. He has

published widely on landscape architectural issues and has had projects published both locally and

internationally in, scientific and design journals and books. He was a being a founding member of Newtown

Landscape Architects and is also a senior lecturer, teaching landscape architecture and urban design at post

and undergraduate levels, at the University of Pretoria. He has been a visiting studio critic at the University of

Witwatersrand and University of Cape Town and in 2011 was invited to the University of Rhode Island, USA

as their Distinguished International Scholar for that year. Recently, Graham resigned from NLA and now

practices as a Sole Proprietor.

A niche specialty of his is Visual Impact Assessment, for which he was cited with an ILASA Merit Award in

1999. He has completed over 250 specialist reports for projects in South Africa, Canada and other African

countries. He was on the panel that developed the Guideline for Involving Visual and Aesthetic Specialists in

EIA Processes (2005) and produced a research document for Eskom, The Visual Impacts of Power Lines

(2009). In 2011, he produced ‘Guidelines for involving visual and aesthetic specialists’ for the Aapravasi

Ghat Trust Fund Technical Committee (they manage a World Heritage Site), along with the Visual Impact

Assessment Training Module Guideline Document.

*** GYLA ***

VISUAL IMPACT SITE SCREENING VERIFICATION REPORT BEAUFORT WEST WIND FARM SUBSTATION, POWERLINE AND ASSOCIATED

INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

VISUAL IMPACT SITE SCREENING VERIFICATION REPORT

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE BEAUFORT WEST WIND FARM

SUBSTATION, POWERLINE AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE PROECTS, NEAR

BEAUFORT WEST IN THE PRINCE ALBERT LOCAL MUNICIPALITY, WITHIN THE CENTRAL

KAROO DISTRICT IN THE WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE

Submitted to:

SLR Consulting (Durban Office)

68 on Main, Old Main Road

Kloof

Durban, 2640

Prepared by:

G Y L A


PO Box 331

Groenkloof

0027

+27 (0)82 462 1491

Report Revision No: FINAL

Date Issued: 21 October 2021

Prepared By: Graham Young PrLArch, FILASA

Reviewed By:

Signed:

Graham Young PrLArch, FILASA

Reference: 079_2021: Beaufort West WEF Substation and Associated 132kV Infrastructure

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 4

SITE SENSITIVITY VERIFICATION METHODOLOGY ......................................................... 8

OUTCOME OF SITE SENSITIVITY VERIFICATION ............................................................. 8

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 10

INTRODUCTION

South Africa Mainstream Renewable Power Developments (PTY) Ltd (‘Mainstream’) is proposing to

add one (1) 33 kilovolt (kV) / 132kV onsite Substation1, one (1) Battery Energy Storage System (BESS),

one (1) 132kV powerline (namely the associated electrical infrastructure), one (1) laydown area and

one (1) Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Building to their authorised Beaufort West Cluster of wind

developments2, 60km south of the town of Beaufort West in the Western Cape Province (the ‘proposed

development’). The proposed development area falls within the Prince Albert Local Municipality, within

the Central Karoo District Municipality. Refer to Figure 01 below.

Two (2) applications for Environmental Authorisation (EA) will be lodged for two (2) separate projects

[i.e., separate Basic Assessment (BA) processes]. One (1) application will be lodged for the 33/132kV

yard of the onsite substation, BESS, laydown area and O&M building, while another application will be

lodged for the 132kV switching station yard of the onsite substation and associated 132kV powerline1.

This Visual Impact Assessment report however covers both proposed applications.

The authorised Beaufort West Cluster consists of two (2) wind farm projects with associated electrical

infrastructure, which include a 132kV/400kV Linking Substation, two (2) 33kV/132kV onsite substations

[one (1) per wind farm] and 132kV powerlines. The two (2) wind farms which form part of the Beaufort

West Cluster were first authorised as one (1) larger wind farm (namely the Beaufort West Wind Farm)

in March 2012 (12-12-20-1784). Thereafter, in February 2017, the authorised Beaufort West Wind Farm

was split into the Beaufort West (12-12-20-1784-1) and Trakas (12-12-20-1784-2) Wind Farms

respectively.

Both above-mentioned Wind Farms were amended in 2020 to increase the turbine hub heights and

increase the rotor diameters (Beaufort West Wind Farm – March 2020: 12-12-20-1784-1-AM5 and

Trakas Wind Farm – February 2020: 12-12-20-1784-1-AM1). Further administrative amendments were

granted to both respective Wind Farms in 2021 (Beaufort West Wind Farm – March 2020: 12-12-20-

1784-1-AM2 and Trakas Wind Farm – February 2020: 12-12-20-1784-2-AM2) that included changing

the holder of the EAs, adding Battery Energy Storage Facilities and amending project descriptions.

The supporting powerlines, linking station and onsite substation infrastructure were authorised for both

respective wind farms in January 2017 (14-12-16-3-3-2-925). This authorisation was subsequently

amended to split and assign each substation and powerline to each respective wind farm in August

2021 (Beaufort West 132KV-400KV Linking Station, 132KV Power Line and onsite 132KV Substation

– 14-12-16-3-3-2-925-1 and Trakas 132KV-400KV Linking Station, 132KV Power Line and onsite

132KV Substation – 14-12-16-3-3-2-925-2).

The proposed substation, BESS, laydown area, O&M building and associated powerline, which form

part of separate respective new applications and BA processes, will service both of Mainstream’s

authorised wind farm projects (namely the Beaufort West and Trakas Wind Farms) and associated

electrical infrastructure.


2 Beaufort West (12-12-20-1784-1-AM2) and Trakas Wind Farms (12-12-20-1784-2-AM2) and their supporting powerline and substation infrastructure (Beaufort West 132KV-400KV Linking Station, 132KV Power Line and onsite 132KV Substation – 14-12-16-3-3-2-925-1 & Trakas 132KV-400KV Linking Station, 132KV Power Line and onsite 132KV Substation – 14-12-16-3-3-2-925-2), collectively referred to as “the Beaufort West Cluster”

It should be noted that the proposed onsite substation, BESS, laydown area, O&M building and

powerline (which form part of separate respective new applications and BA processes) will be located

within the site proposed for the authorised Beaufort West Cluster (Beaufort West Wind farm - 12-12-

20-1784-1-AM2 and Trakas Wind farm - 12-12-20-1784-2-AM2), which is authorised on Portion 1 of the

Farm Trakaskuilen No. 15 and Remainder of the Farm Trakaskuilen No. 15.

Figure 1 below shows the locality of the authorised layout of the Beaufort West Wind Farm Substation and Associated Infrastructure. Figure 02 illustrates the proposed substation and associated powerline infrastructure projects.

Two (2) site area alternatives, each up to approximately 200 000m2 (i.e., 500m x 400m or 20ha), will be

assessed for the onsite substation, BESS, O&M building and laydown area.

In addition, as part of the site area alternatives, powerline corridors with widths of 100m (i.e., 100m

powerline corridor buffer, 50m on either side of centre line) are being proposed and assessed for the

132kV switching station yard of the substation and 132kV powerline application / project. This is to allow

flexibility when routing the powerline within the authorised corridor.

These site area alternatives for the respective applications / projects are indicated in Figure 02 and

includes substation sites and 132kV grid connection corridors for the 132kV switching station yard of

the substation and 132kV powerline application / project.

The proposed substation will have a capacity of 33kV/132kV and will occupy a footprint of up to

approximately 3ha. It should be noted that the onsite substation forms part of both applications as it will

consist of a 33/132kV yard which will be owned and operated by Mainstream, as well as a 132kV

switching station yard which will be owned and operated by Eskom. The 33/132kV yard of onsite

substation forms part of separate proposed application for EA with the associated infrastructure (namely

the BESS, laydown area and O&M building) and is subject to a separate BA process. In addition, the

132kV switching station yard of the onsite substation forms part of another separate application for EA

with the 132kV overhead powerline and is also subject to a separate BA process.

The proposed 3.45km powerline (which forms part of a separate application and BA process, along with

the 132kV yard of the onsite substation) will have a capacity of up to 132kV, while an area of

approximately 34.5ha (i.e., 3.45km line with 100m powerline corridor buffer) will be assessed. This is

to allow flexibility when routing the powerline within the authorised corridor. The powerline forms part

of the application and BA process for the 132kV switching station yard of the onsite substation.

A road will also be required in the servitude under the proposed powerline (approx. 4-8m wide) and will

run from the proposed onsite substation (part of both respective applications) to the authorised linking

station (14-12-16-3-3-2-925-1). The road forms part of the application and BA process for the 132kV

switching station yard of the onsite substation and associated 132kV powerline.

A solid-state (Lithium-ion) BESS will be required and will occupy an area of up to 4ha within the

proposed substation footprint. The BESS forms part of the application and BA process for the 33/132kV

yard of the onsite substation, laydown area and O&M building.

In addition to the above, a temporary area (of up to 7ha) within the site area will be required for the

assembly and storage of the precast turbine structures. A permanent O&M building will also be required

and will occupy a footprint of up to approximately 1,2ha. The Temporary Assembly & Storage Area and

Permanent O&M Building form part of the application and BA process for the 33/132kV yard of the

onsite substation and BESS.

All available technical details for the proposed development are provided in the table below:

Project Location and size / extent (i.e., Farm Names and Areas)

Beaufort West Wind Farm Substation and Associated Infrastructure

• Portion 1 of the Farm Trakaskuilen No. 15 - C061000000000015000001

• Remainder of the Farm Trakaskuilen No. 15 - C061000000000015000010

Technical details

Onsite Substation • One (1) new substation with capacity of 33kV/132kV

• Total footprint of up to approx. 3ha

• Will contain transformers for voltage step up from low voltage (33kV) to medium voltage (132kV)

• Direct Current (DC) power from the authorised Beaufort West Wind Farm (12-12-20-1784-1-AM2) and Trakas Wind Farm (12-12-20-1784-2-AM2) will be converted into Alternating Current (AC) power in the inverters and the voltage will be stepped up to medium voltage in the inverter transformers

• Two (2) onsite substation alternatives, each with their own associated powerline, are being considered and assessed

• Onsite substation forms part of both applications as it will consist of a 33/132kV yard which will be owned and operated by Mainstream, as well as a 132kV switching station yard which will be owned and operated by Eskom

Grid Connection (Power Line) • Capacity of up to 132kV

• Length of up to approx. 3,45km

• Powerline corridors with widths of 100m (i.e., 50m on either side of centre line) being proposed and assessed (i.e., 3.45km line with 100m buffers being assessed)

• This will allow for flexibility when routing powerline within the authorised corridor

• Powerline forms part of application and BA process for 132kV switching station yard of onsite substation

Battery Energy Storage System (BESS)

• One (1) BESS with total footprint of up to approx. 4ha

• Type of technology will be solid state, Lithium-ion

• Batteries will be used to store ‘energy’

• Batteries to be used are already assembled prior to delivery and come as ‘plug and play’ modular units

• BESS forms part of application and BA process for 33/132kV yard of onsite substation, laydown area and O&M building

Roads

• One (1) new road will be required in servitude under proposed powerline

• Width of up to approx. 4-8m wide

• Will run from proposed onsite substation to authorised linking station (14-12-16-3-3-2-925-1).

• Road forms part of application and BA process for 132kV switching station yard of onsite substation and associated 132kV powerline

Temporary Assembly & Storage Area

• A temporary area will be required for assembly and storage of precast turbine structures

• Will require an area of up to 7ha

• Temporary Assembly & Storage Area forms part of application and BA process for 33/132kV yard of onsite substation, BESS and O&M building

Permanent Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Building

• One (1) permanent O&M building will be required

• Will occupy a footprint of up to approx. 1,2ha

• Permanent O&M Building forms part of application and BA process for 33/132kV yard of onsite substation, BESS and laydown area

In terms of the National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998, as amended) (NEMA)

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations [4 December 2014, Government Notice (GN)

R982, R983, R984 and R985, as amended], various aspects of the proposed developments may have

an impact on the environment and are listed activities. These activities require authorisation from the

National Competent Authority (CA), namely the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

(DFFE), prior to the commencement thereof. As mentioned, two (2) separate applications for EA for the

proposed developments will be submitted to the DFFE, in the form of separate respective BA processes,

in terms of the NEMA EIA Regulations of 2014 (as amended). One (1) application will be lodged for the

33/132kV yard of the onsite substation, BESS, laydown area and O&M building, while another

application will be lodged for the 132kV switching station yard of the onsite substation and associated

132kV powerline.

In accordance with GN 320 and GN 1150 (20 March 2020)3 of the NEMA EIA Regulations of 2014 (as

amended), prior to commencing with a specialist assessment, a site sensitivity verification must be

undertaken to confirm the current land use and environmental sensitivity of the proposed project area

as identified by the National Web-Based Environmental Screening Tool (i.e. Screening Tool).

As the visual specialist, Graham Young Landscape Architect has been commissioned to verify the

sensitivity of the Beaufort West Wind Farm Substation, Powerline and Associated Infrastructure project

sites under these specialist protocols.

The scope of this report is for two (2) applications, namely 33kV the Beaufort West Wind Farm

Substation and Associated Infrastructure (BESS, laydown area and O&M building) application, as well

as the Eskom 132kV Substation and Associated 132kV Powerline application.

SITE SENSITIVITY VERIFICATION METHODOLOGY

The sensitivity of the proposed development areas for the ‘landscape/visual theme’ was established

through the following methodology:

• A desk top analysis, using satellite imagery;

• Scrutinizing previous visual specialist reports4 on the project;

• A preliminary site inspection (October 2021); and

• any other available and relevant information.

OUTCOME OF SITE SENSITIVITY VERIFICATION

The Screening Tool did not specifically identify landscape and visual sensitivities for the respective

projects. The site sensitivity verification in this report therefore refers only to its findings and a

comparative analysis cannot be done.

3 GN 320 (20 March 2020): Procedures for The Assessment and Minimum Criteria for Reporting on Identified Environmental Themes in terms of Sections 24(5)(A) and (H) and 44 of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998, when applying for Environmental Authorisation 4 Oberholzer, B and Lawson, Q. Proposed Renewable Energy Facilities in the Western and Northern Cape by Mainstream SA – Beaufort West Site, in the Great Karoo: Visual Impact Assessment. Unpublished Report. Stanford. 27 September 2010.

Gibb, A. SiVest, Proposed construction of a linking station, two (2) power lines and two (2) on-site substations for the Beaufort West and Trakas Wind Farms, near Beaufort West in the Western Cape Province: Visual Impact Assessment, Rev 1. Unpublished Report. Rivonia. 7 December 2018

The visual sensitivities of the respective proposed projects versus the authorized project will reduce

due to the spatial extent of the Zone of Potential Influence5 being substantially reduced. Refer to Figure

03 below.

The location of sensitive receptors remains as was identified in the original reports (Oberholzer, 2010

and Gibb, 2018), with no additional locations identified through field work and satellite imagery. Refer

to Figure 04 below, which indicates the location of sensitive receptor locations.

5 Distance Zones set of pre-determined distances from a viewpoint and help in delineating the extent of a study area (5.0km beyond project structures). Beyond 5km the effect of the substation and 132kV power line along with its poles, will dimmish dramatically.

CONCLUSION

The spatial extent of the zone of potential impact will reduce for the respective proposed projects, with

no additional receptor locations being identified. The site sensitivity of the proposed projects therefore

remains low and will not increase due to the proposed new layout of the substation, 132kV powerline

and associated infrastructure.

*** GYLA ***

appendix 5.8 visual

Documents