Overjoyed.
This is the overall feeling of affected Strand residents after the application for environmental authorisation of a proposed crematorium was refused and notice of the decision issued.
DistrictMail & Helderberg Gazette previously reported that Blue Crane Funerals (BCF), which proposed the construction of the crematorium in a small industrial area in the Onverwacht residential area, required three statements of environmental approval, which would determine the way forward (“Ball in govt’s court,” 18 May). However, a public notice issued last week stated the provincial Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning refused the environmental authorisation for the proposed establishment.
Brief summary
BFC proposed to construct a crematorium, including two diesel-fired cremators for the cremation of human and animal remains at 28 De Kock Street in a small industrial area (“New crematorium on the cards,” 26 August 2021). Relevant legislation compelled BFC to apply for the required environmental authorisation from the department as well as an atmospheric emission licence.
A scoping and environmental impact reporting process was required to support the applications.
Furthermore, affected residents bemoaned the proposed crematorium and voiced numerous concerns during the stakeholder engagement process undertaken by SRK Consulting (“Residents reject crematorium,” 2 September 2021). Among the concerns highlighted was compliance with regulations on the management of human remains, which specify that a minimum distance of 500 m must be kept between a crematorium and residential dwellings. Based on the risk-based impact assessment, BCF also applied for exemption from regulations to permit the location of the proposed facility closer than 500 m to habitable dwellings.
The final environmental impact assessment report was submitted to the department for decisionmaking on the environmental authorisation on Thursday 10 March.
Arriving at a decision
The notice issued last Thursday (23 June) stated: “The department refused environmental authorisation for the proposed establishment on erf 22973 in terms of the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998, and the amended Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations, 2014. This decision was issued to the applicant, BFC the previous day (Wednesday 22 June).”
The department, in an additional document, listed the key factors affecting its decision as the receiving environment, air quality impacts, and needs and desirability. In conclusion, the department said it applied a risk-averse and cautious approach with respect to the proposed development. “The department therefore took into consideration the potential negative impacts and, although some impacts can be minimised, it cannot altogether be prevented.”Turn to page 2.
