wpb-replying-submission-566ac351a66d4089.pdf

This document is a response filed by UX Inc. on behalf of William Patrick Bower (Pty) Ltd (WPB) to an appeal lodged by Birdlife South Africa against the granting of a mining right. WPB argues that the appeal is out of time, that Birdlife South Africa lacks standing, and that the environmental concerns raised are based on outdated data and ignore the fragmented state of the land due to historical farming.

• WPB contends that the appeal lodged by Birdlife South Africa is out of time. The mining right was granted on 10 December 2012, and under Regulation 74 of the MPRDA Regulations, appeals must be lodged within 30 days of the appellant becoming aware of the decision. Birdlife South Africa admitted to becoming aware of the grant on 4 March 2013, which WPB argues makes the appeal untimely.
• WPB disputes Birdlife South Africa's standing (locus standi) by arguing that the properties—portions 6 and 23 of the farm Groenviei 353 JT and portion 12 of the farm Lakenvalei 355 JT—do not possess unique biodiversity. WPB asserts the habitat is already significantly fragmented due to over a century of farming, the presence of exotic wattles (Acacia spp.) and pine (Pinus spp.), and previous coal mining and sand quarrying.
• A supplementary hydrogeochemical study from September 2013 by Geo Pollution Technologies (GPT) suggests that a revised mining layout will eliminate decanting from opencast operations. To further mitigate pollution, WPB proposes a calcitic lime buffer at least 10 meters wide between mining operations and opencast pits.
• The GPT transport model predicts that while some boreholes and tributaries may be affected by sulphate contamination post-mining, the impacts on boreholes MH1 and BH4 are expected to remain within domestic drinking water standards. However, a tributary to the Elandsfontein Spruit to the east of the mine may exceed drinking water standards within ten years.
• WPB argues that the environmental risks cited by Birdlife South Africa, including those mentioned in a letter by Dr Létter and the Lockwood report, are based on emotive generalisations or outdated information that fails to account for the mitigating measures adopted in the Environmental Management Program Report (EMPR).

APA

Centre for Environmental Rights (n.d.). wpb-replying-submission-566ac351a66d4089.pdf. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/WPB-Replying-Submission.pdf?x21779

Chicago

Centre for Environmental Rights. wpb-replying-submission-566ac351a66d4089.pdf. n.d. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/WPB-Replying-Submission.pdf?x21779.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |author=Centre for Environmental Rights |title=wpb-replying-submission-566ac351a66d4089.pdf |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/WPB-Replying-Submission.pdf?x21779 |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{centreforenvironmentalrightsndwpbreplyingsubmission566ac351a66d4089pdf, author = {{Centre for Environmental Rights}}, title = {{wpb-replying-submission-566ac351a66d4089.pdf}}, publisher = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/WPB-Replying-Submission.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }