From: Fred de Groot [mailto:
fredde@iburst.co.za]
Sent: 16 October 2015 09:57 AM
To: (
HVanSchalkwyk@environment.gov.za)
Subject: Reference matter;- Malelane hotel development.
Dear Madam/Sirs,
With regard to Sanparks recently embarking on a strategy of commercialization,
In order to satisfy political and socio demand in the said area, naturally regarded
A highly sensitive ecological site where human activity would be the threatening factor.
Most unfortunately, as per usual , it would seem that Environmental Management Plans
And Environmental Impact Assessments form a sort of ideology far to concentrated and
Localized too argument per se. It would seem that by approaching a said set of argument
Concentrated too point and in depth to a very localised scenario, that all effort will have
Been taken in consideration regarding this venture, that meaning all human impact on this
Area will have been considered. Sanparks , endeavour more than only this venture alone.
Skukuza hotel development been a previous endeavour and I dare speak from that situation
Outward, forward, looking at the bigger picture so to speak!!!
That venture included a traffic impact assessment. I did have reservations and concerns and
The facilitator, on behalf contracted to Sanparks, suggested that they forward a list of other
activities currently happening in the area. This with reference too human activity other than
Only tourists. That formal suggestion never came about! Probably not regarded as “too the Point”.!!!
My concern at this point prompted me to include other hotel developments by argument, such
As the Malelane venture. It was noted and the traffic assessment officer was instructed further
impact study. Note of concern here would be the road leading from Kruger gate to Skukuza gate,
being heavily utilized by traffic. It was accepted by the Environmental Impact Practitioner, mitigating,
by transporting workers, staff and service personnel utilising a transport system,
namely by bussing the numbers in order to alleviate and minimize vehicle numbers as mitigating!
I stand to be corrected yet if memory serves me well, normal traffic on any road regarded to be
2.4 vehicles P/kilometre, that particular road currently carrying capacity 4.3!!! The development
Envisioned up to 5.3 vehicles per kilometre, all included traffic activity.
With all this said and done, mitigated and approved, I here wish to divert our scope and
Practice back to the Malelane endeavour. If permitted by yourselves, to do so.
The Malelane hotel endeavour had traffic numbers excluded from their impact assessment.
However was noted along the lines by some specialist. Concern here was taken up by the
Landlord, Sanparks as a facility they would account for. The hotel developer was freed
Here from responsibility!!! They are not accountable for traffic numbers, since Sanparks
Would accommodate gate ventures, ie,- fees and toll responsibility,....
I further my concern by example of malpractice regarding gate quota’s,....a recent
Long weekend proved the flaw in commercialisation of National parks and the fact that
The parastateal cannot handle wishful ideology.
Recent closure of Malelane gate entry, for maintenance purpose redirected all day visitors to
Crocodile River entry point resulting in a traffic congestion of 150 cars before gate opening
Time,..one gate serving the southern section only.
My concern here and if at all relevant by yourselves would be in denying the bigger picture here,
Of over exploitation of National Parks for the sake of political correctness,..
With much tongue in cheek I post this message of concern, knowingly the care and understanding
By authority here,..the word “mitigating”, a very loose set of principles left for understanding!!!
I beg for you peaceful mindset in establishing correctness
On behalf of other participants, that to establish a better existence for those that really fall short,.
Fred de Groot,
In personnel capacity representing,..
Africa Wild.
