KZN court rules on rights of property developers and objectors

Advertising

07-06-2016
Read : 215 times
The Mercury
Source

Property developers face an uphill, expensive battle to get the green light for projects as their plans can get stuck for years in approval processes.

This was the view of Johannesburg attorney Jason le Roux, of law firm Le Roux, Van Zyl Incorporated.

In the light of a recent Supreme Court of Appeal ruling, Le Roux, while he could not comment on the merits of the case, said he was aware of the challenges faced by developers.

In the appeal judgment, the judges said "there comes a time when an end must be put to hearings and consultations" or no administrative decisions would have effect.

The court had been dealing with an appeal brought by the Caine Brothers Ltd, trading as Triple A Beef - owner of a cattle farm and feedlot in KwaZulu-Natal - against a nearby development proposed by the Surrey Road Property Trust in New Hanover, near Greytown.

The proposed development was to include a fuel filling station, a commercial area for shops and offices, and a hospital. The Caine Brothers said the development would jeopardise agricultural activities and the area was not fit for people using such facilities, given that it was close to more than 20 000 head of cattle, the feedlot, and the abattoir.

In June 2012, the development tribunal decided the development could go ahead.

However, it approved only the filling station, a shop attached to it, a garage site, service industry sites, agricultural sites and private open space. It rejected the development of the commercial site and the hospital project.

The company lodged an appeal in 2013 with the appeal tribunal which was refused.

The company lost its case in the high court and then appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal court said the company had been given more than a fair hearing at every stage and dismissed the appeal.

The appeal court said the tribunal's "balanced" decision showed that it had considered the objections, including the Caine Brothers' concerns, and had granted the development on more limited terms.

The appeal judges also overturned a punitive costs order made by the high court against the company because the company had not been a vexatious objector.

Le Roux said, however, that in other cases, while the processes to approve developments were important to address legitimate concerns, they could be thwarted by those with hidden agendas.

He said some developers went as far as opposing each other's projects because they had similar interests.

"Many individuals and companies abuse the administrative processes."

He said more should be done to "eliminate and punish vexatious objectors" who objected to simply frustrate the developer or eliminate competition. An "ideal situation" would be one board or tribunal. This would expedite the process andrestrict vexatious objectors.

The Mercury