Bastion of Chapman’s Peak Drive responds to Premier’s ‘disingenuous’ and ‘incorrect’ statements

In reply to the premier’s response to the memorandum handed over to Robin Carlisle, MEC for Transport and Public Works, by the Civil Rights Action Group (CRAG), on Sunday 22nd January 2012, regarding the Chapman’s Peak Drive office block.

The following reflects the content of a communication from Hout Bay resident Keith Fawcett to The Premier, Helen Zille about Chapman’s Peak Drive.


“The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process did not include public participation on the plans to build within TMNP.”

Premier Zille:
1. “The EIA considered all three possible locations for the control centre, which were all within what is now TMNP. Concept plans and elevations for each site were included in the EIA documents and the site development plans were approved in accordance with the environmental authorisation granted these plans were subjected to two rounds of public participation between 2003 and 2008.”

Keith Fawcett:

  1. The current proposed Chapman’s Peak Drive Toll Plaza was NEVER part of the EIA and public participation process which took place from 2003 to 2008.
  2. The FIRST FULLY PUBLIC sight of these Plans/Concept Drawings current 4-lane-TWO-WAY Toll Plaza has been in the correspondence e-mail of Sun 1/22/12 1:57 PM (22-Jan-2012) sent-out by the “Democratic Alliance Hout Bay Mailer” to those Protest Marchers who ‘signed-up’ to receive information AFTER the Protest March.
  3. It also MOST UNFORTUNATE that the Ministry of Transport & Public Works chose to use the 2003 Site Plan and Cross Section of a 5-LANE Toll Plaza which was NOT part of either Records of Decision for this project once again misleading the public of S. Africa, the Tax-payers, and probably more importantly to the DA, they have again misled the Voters.
    The (non-dated) ‘Determination of Preferred Toll Plaza Position (S)’ submitted to DEAT clearly states “….This option entails the construction of two four-lane toll plazas…..” and further states, “,,,as the document outlining our motivation for selecting Option 4B (viz. two toll plazas of no more than $ lanes each way, one located at site H, near Noordhoek end of the road, and the other located at site C, close to Koeelbaai)…”
  4. I have attached a series of Site Plans/Concept Drawings that DID form part of the EIA process / Record of Decision, and were available for public view, at Public Meetings or at various Libraries, etc. during the EIA Process. These drawings ONLY should be compared to the drawings provided on 22-Jan-2012, as detailed above. You will NOTE that these (attached) Drawings are for a 4-Lane Toll Plaza – Hout Bay (3-Entry Lanes, 1-Exit Lane) situated at the Hout Bay end of CPD. PLUS, there was an associated 4-Lane Toll Plaza (3-Entry Lanes, 1-Exit Lane) situated at the Noordhoek end of CPD.
  5. The current concept of a SINGLE 4-Lane Toll Plaza (being 2-Entry Lanes + 1-Reversible Lane + 1-Exit) was NEVER CONSIDERED during the EIA process and was NOT part of the Record of Decision(s), thus there was NO REFERENCE to such a Toll Plaza in any Appeal Documentation. The Proponents (Concessionaire + PGWC) WOULD NOT/DID NOT consider such an Option during the EIA process
  6. I would therefore beg to suggest that the Premiere has ‘not applied her mind’ to the full consideration of her responses, and has misled the public.


“ALL objections to the original EIA were ignored by authorities concerned.”

Premier Zille:
1. “This is factually incorrect. The EIA was conducted between 2003 and 2005. A Record of Decision (ROD) was issued in favour of construction of the control centre at Kooëlbaai (the current location) in 2005. Not only were objections not ignored, but a second round of public participation was ordered.”

Keith Fawcett:

  1. On 03-Jul-2005, the (first) Record of Decision (RoD) was issued by DEAT., with a Closing Date of 02-Aug-2005 for Appeals against that RoD.
  2. On 18-Jul-2005, KF requested electronic copies of Toll Traffic Volume information. The requested information was reluctantly supplied by the Proponents, (PGWC & Entilini) and eventually finally received on 03-Aug-2005.
  3. KF, as the Mandated Appellant, submitted a comprehensive Appeal document to DEAT, Pretoria, on 01-Aug-2005, without references to Toll Traffic Volume data, but reserving the right to submit ‘further grounds of Appeal based upon the Toll Traffic Volumes,’ since there had been insufficient time available to process that data.
  4. KF continued to process the received Toll Traffic Data, and was threatened by PGWC, that legal action would be taken against KF if any information that was obtained from this Toll Traffic data was released to any party.
  5. KF was not permitted to reveal any Toll Traffic information, not even to the Minister of DEAT, and in fact comprehensive steps were taken by PGWC and by management at DEAT to prevent such information being passed to the Minister (- KF has electronic record of all relevant correspondence).
  6. It is further noted that the Proponents continued to provide erroneous traffic volume information, to the public, and to the Minister of DEAT, which KF was unable to repudiate due to the threat of legal action.
  7. Part of this erroneous information emanating from the Proponents was used to ‘dismiss’ parts of the Grounds for Appeal of the Mandated Appellant.


Premier Zille:
2. “The second round lasted three years, and a second ROD was issued in favour of the control centre in 2008 by the national Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Marthinus van Schalkwyk.
Every document which served before the then Minister of Environmental Affairs was placed in the public domain.

Keith Fawcett:

  1. The above disingenuous statement ‘infers’ that the Proponents (PGWC & Entilini) willingly placed information in the public domain.
  2. It took the intervention of the Office of the Public Protector (commencing March-2006, and on-going), and continued public pressure, before Minister Van Schalkwyk, of DEAT, on 23-Jul-2007 issued a fax to MEC Fransman, (Dept. Transport & Public Works, PGWC), herewith quoted in part,“In particular I am concerned that some of the appellants allege that certain ‘additional information’ and also certain traffic information that was collected since the temporary toll plaza had opened was not made available for comment. ….. I am advised that before I can consider making a decision in this matter all additional information must be made available to interested and affected parties and that they should be allowed to comment thereon.
  3. Thus it took a MINISTERIAL decision in July-2007 to force the Proponents (PGWC & Entilini) to place ‘the information in the public domain.”
  4. On 19-Jul-2008 Minister van Schalkwyk, DEAT, issued his 2nd RoD, (dated 12-Jun-2008)


Premier Zille:
“The Minister set careful conditions for the construction of the toll plaza, clearly taking into account public input provided.

3. Public participation lasted for five years. Costs to the Province of the delays resulting from objections to the EIA and the two Records of Decision are estimated to amount to R100M.”

Keith Fawcett:

  1. The above statement is inferring that the ‘delays and Costs of R 100M’ were as a result of public participation and interference.
  2. The ‘delays’ were caused by the direct result of the Proponents (PGWC & Entilini) failing to follow correct and legal processes. The Public merely required a correct and transparent process, and exercised their democratic right to ensure that the best interests of the tax-payer were served.
  3. KF obtained a photocopy of the Contract C656.2 “Signature Version 21-May-2003” on 24-Jan-2009, despite the (minuted) statement issued at the 2nd Public Meeting, Hout Bay, 31-Jul-2003 by Mr. Wynand Dryer, (Entabeni Concession), [Quote} “WD noted that the concession contract will become a public document and will be available throughout the Province.”
  4. It is further placed on record that the Democratic Alliance took over the governorship of PGWC as of April-2009, and prior to that date, the DA did not have managerial control over PGWC.
  5. It is also noted, and placed on record, that the DA has inherited the full complement of PGWC that was employed prior to April-2009, together with the assets and liabilities of the previous governorship.

Premier Zille:
4. “As a result of the EIA process, the location for the Hout Bay plaza was altered to the current Koeëlbaai site with a lower visual impact and the number of lanes was reduced from 5 (with room for a sixth lane in future) to a plaza with only 4 lanes.”



“Why have Entilini refused to release recent traffic data for CPD?”

Premier Zille:
1. “Entilini have confirmed that they have not refused to release recent traffic data for Chapman’s Peak Drive, and it is unclear which request this refers to. Requests for data can also be submitted via the Ministry of Transport and Public Works, per the below contact details.”

Keith Fawcett:

  1. The above statement is completely incorrect.
  2. Please find below partial copies of the ‘refusal correspondence’ between K Fawcett, and the various parties;
  3. There is absolutely NO DOUBT that the correspondence as below CONCLUSIVELY PROVES, that Entilini has refused to release recent traffic data as requested by K Fawcett.
  4. It is further noted that the original request was ALSO forwarded to PGWC (see Anton Nel, T D Pillay, Deblesse Smit).
  5. K Fawcett will therefore re-submit his request for Traffic Information via PGWC Minister of Transport & Public Works


Partial copies of the ‘refusal correspondence’

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 4:38 PM
To: Jacobs, Mark; Nel, Anton
Cc: ''; Smit, Deblesse; Enzer, Colin

Good day, Mark,

1. May I request a copy (on CD) of the following Monthly Raw Traffic Data (RTD) from the Chapman’s Peak Drive Toll plaza;

– from 01-Sep-2007 to 31-Aug-2010
– Format – as previously supplied in Excel-format, containing;

Best regards

Keith Fawcett


—–Original Message—–
From: mjacobs []
Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 10:18 AM

Dear Keith,

Can you please submit your request to the Concessionaire.

Thank you,

Mark Jacobs
General Manager
Entilini Operations

—–Original Message—–
Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 2:38 PM
To: ‘’
Cc: Jacobs, Mark; Nel, Anton; Smit, Deblesse; Enzer, Colin; ‘’

Good day, Mr. Pamario,

1. By instruction from Mr. Mark Jacobs, (General Manager, Entilini Operations), I herewith forward my request (of 02-Sep-2010) for (Chapman’s Peak Drive) Raw Traffic Data, direct to yourself as Director, Entilini Concessionaire.

Keith Fawcett

—–Original Message—–
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 2:09 PM
To: Jacobs, Mark

Good day, Mark,

1. Please could you advise me of the correct e-mail address for Mr. Rob Pamario, Director, (Marib Holdings) as Entilini Concessionaire

2. The e-mail address ( ) would appear to be incorrect or ‘not in use’

– this e-mail address was as advised to K Fawcett at the Site Meeting of 16-Nov-2009, at your offices – see page 7 of KF’s contemporaneous notes of that meeting circulated to all attendees;

” – I(t) was agreed that KF would make a Listing of all of the required Documents/Reports for electronic submission to the various parties as listed above, and including Mr. Rob Pamario, Director, Entilini, ”

3. I would be grateful for your most urgent attention for the provision of the correct e-mail contact detail for Entilini Concessionaire, to enable me to forward my request for the CPD Raw Traffic Data.

Keith Fawcett

—–Original Message—–
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 2:35 PM
To: ‘’

Good day, Mr. Pomario,

1. Please find below copy of e-mails between myself and Mr. Mark Jacobs, General Manager, Entilini Operations.

2. Please accept my apologies for the incorrect spelling of your Name below.

3. Mark Jacobs has kindly provided the correct contact information (and spelling) to contact direct to yourself.

4. I look forward to your earliest advice.

Keith Fawcett

—–Original Message—–
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 11:56 AM
To: ‘’
Cc: Jacobs, Mark

Good Day, Mr. Pomario,

1. As at 23-Sep-2010, I have not received any advice, as per my request, (to your direct e-mail) of Wed 9/8/10 2:35 PM.

2. Please could you respond by return e-mail regarding your authorisation for release of the requested Raw Traffic Data, by Entilini Operations.

Keith Fawcett

—–Original Message—–
From: []
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 12:01 PM

Good Day Mr Fawcett ,
As far as I am aware the information that was requested and agreed to be supplied , at a meeting held on the 16th November 2009 has been provided .
It is unreasonable to expect the Operator to continually be asked to provide detailed information , much of which has been archived .
I am therefore not prepared to agree to supply you with the detailed information you are requesting .

Best Regards ,

Rob Pomario


1 comment to Bastion of Chapman’s Peak Drive responds to Premier’s ‘disingenuous’ and ‘incorrect’ statements

  • Pieter van den Berg

    I’m smelling a rat – a dead one. Why were the CT community not informed about the proposed toll road in ad vance? Surely they would have protested then when it was proposed! Please explain to me why a monstrous building needs to be erected while the current system is working efficiently? Are the DA and ANC working together here so that, after damage has been caused, we have to ask Ms Madonsela to check out who’s taking taxpayers money?

Leave a Reply