Court rules out consideration of 'other benefits'

The Minister upheld the appeal of Arabella South Africa Holding (Pty) Ltd, against the decision of the Director of Integrated Environmental Management, and granted it an authorisation to develop Phase 2, which includes a golf course, 350 residential erven and other amenities. The court set aside this decision on two bases. First, that the Minister had acted beyond the scope of her powers in that she imposed a condition in her Record of Decision which required Arabella to give effect to a BBBEE Agreement to provide social and subsidy housing in an area that was not on the site of the phase 2 development. The court emphasised that when making a decision under the ECA and NEMA the benefits and disadvantages of the socio-economic and environmental impacts of the authorised activities must be considered, not 'extraneous benefits divorced from the impacts of the authorised activities.' Second, there was a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the Minister since an 'action group' in favour of the appeal approached the Premier of the Western Cape, who then advised them on how to go about concluding the BBBEE agreement with Arabella. This information was then conveyed to the Minister. The judgment serves as a reminder to administrators and developers that the exercise of political pressure may compromise the decision making process. Cullinans & Associates site