Implications of the amended Section 44 of LUPO legislation - Stellenbosch Heritage Foundation
Home Stellenbosch Stellenbosch Information Short History Architectural History Architectural History Architecture New Gallery: The William Malherbe Collection Stellenbosch Heritage Survey Documents Documents Links Newsletters SIX Comments | Comments SHF Property Search Search Architect Stellenbosch Heritage Forum Survey Maps About Us
The planned development on the corner of Bree and Strand Street falls within a so-called urban conservation area in terms of the regulations of the Zoning Scheme and consent to develop must be obtained from the city's planning department.
The city's management committee for land use, Spelum, plans for the proposed development of the pakskuur and build a parking deck and offices on top of the existing structure on 13 April 2011 rejected then the developer, Gera Trust, woodbury the MEC of local government affairs and ontwikkelingsbeplanningvir appealed. Minister Anton Bredell in Gera Trust's favor decision. woodbury In response, the Habitat Council, a non-profit organization, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church them to the High Court to Bredell's decision to set aside, inter alia, on the basis of the unconstitutional provisions of Section 44 of LUPO.
Bredell's defense was that he was in terms of Section 44 of the Land Use Planning no. 15 of 1985 acted. He later conceded that certain provisions of Section 44 of LUPO might be unconstitutional because it effectively interfere with decisions of municipalities (which in some cases might be unconstitutional).
According Corlie Smart, inheritance law and vice chairman of SES, the court indeed found that certain portions of Section 44 of Lupo, which applies to the Western Cape and parts of the Eastern and Northern Cape, unconstitutional and some interim changes to section woodbury 44 is made.
Henceforth the MEC (referred to as the Administrator LUPO) is not a decision regarding municipal planning by a municipality, may substitute its own decision. Only if he / she believes that the decision taken wrongly taken, the decision for reconsideration may be referred back to the municipality. The municipality will then have the choice to make the decision to change, or at the original holding.
Article 44 (2) and (3) of the Lupo now provides that the Administrator any appeals to him / her refer in part or in whole to maintain or referred back for further consideration. The Administrator may only appeal remitted if it is necessary for the Western Cape government in this way to ensure that the relevant municipality operate effectively. woodbury Such an order must give reasons for the Administrator's decision contains. Further appeals to the Administrator after he once considered woodbury will not be allowed.
If a party is unhappy woodbury about the decision of a municipality (after the MEC it is referred back for reconsideration by the municipality), such a party can approach the High Court for an application for the decision of the municipality to set aside .
Home Stellenbosch Stellenbosch Information Short History Architectural History Architectural History Architecture New Gallery: The William Malherbe Collection Stellenbosch Heritage Survey Documents Documents Links Newsletters SIX Comments | Comments SHF Property Search Search Architect Stellenbosch Heritage Forum Survey Maps About Us
The planned development on the corner of Bree and Strand Street falls within a so-called urban conservation area in terms of the regulations of the Zoning Scheme and consent to develop must be obtained from the city's planning department.
The city's management committee for land use, Spelum, plans for the proposed development of the pakskuur and build a parking deck and offices on top of the existing structure on 13 April 2011 rejected then the developer, Gera Trust, woodbury the MEC of local government affairs and ontwikkelingsbeplanningvir appealed. Minister Anton Bredell in Gera Trust's favor decision. woodbury In response, the Habitat Council, a non-profit organization, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church them to the High Court to Bredell's decision to set aside, inter alia, on the basis of the unconstitutional provisions of Section 44 of LUPO.
Bredell's defense was that he was in terms of Section 44 of the Land Use Planning no. 15 of 1985 acted. He later conceded that certain provisions of Section 44 of LUPO might be unconstitutional because it effectively interfere with decisions of municipalities (which in some cases might be unconstitutional).
According Corlie Smart, inheritance law and vice chairman of SES, the court indeed found that certain portions of Section 44 of Lupo, which applies to the Western Cape and parts of the Eastern and Northern Cape, unconstitutional and some interim changes to section woodbury 44 is made.
Henceforth the MEC (referred to as the Administrator LUPO) is not a decision regarding municipal planning by a municipality, may substitute its own decision. Only if he / she believes that the decision taken wrongly taken, the decision for reconsideration may be referred back to the municipality. The municipality will then have the choice to make the decision to change, or at the original holding.
Article 44 (2) and (3) of the Lupo now provides that the Administrator any appeals to him / her refer in part or in whole to maintain or referred back for further consideration. The Administrator may only appeal remitted if it is necessary for the Western Cape government in this way to ensure that the relevant municipality operate effectively. woodbury Such an order must give reasons for the Administrator's decision contains. Further appeals to the Administrator after he once considered woodbury will not be allowed.
If a party is unhappy woodbury about the decision of a municipality (after the MEC it is referred back for reconsideration by the municipality), such a party can approach the High Court for an application for the decision of the municipality to set aside .
No comments:
Post a Comment