- The High Court dismissed all challenges to the environmental approvals for the Botmaskop estate development.
- The court found that the applicant had waited too long to challenge decisions that dated back over 20 years.
- The applicant was ordered to pay high legal costs, including extra costs for an unsuccessful attempt to amend their application.
The environmental approvals for the Botmaskop estate development remain valid after the High Court in the Western Cape dismissed a bid to have them set aside or reviewed. The court ruled that the challenge was brought far too late.
The Stellenbosch Interest Group, a voluntary association representing concerned residents, brought the application against the Provincial Minister of Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, the department's Director of Development Management and Stellenbosch Municipality.
Botmaskop Fynbos Estate, the owner of the development, opposed the application alongside the previous developer, Reset Properties, and numerous purchasers who had acquired properties in the estate.
The Stellenbosch Interest Group argued that the original environmental authorisation granted in 2003 had lapsed. They also claimed that a 2021 amendment allowing for a residential estate was invalid.
Judge N Mangcu-Lockwood rejected all major arguments. The judge found that the original approval was still in force, the amended authorisation was lawfully granted, and that the long delay in bringing the application undermined legal certainty.
Delay counted against the applicant
A key issue in the case was the long delay before legal proceedings were launched. The court noted that the original environmental authorisation was issued in November 2003, and the applicant had been questioning its validity since at least 2011. Despite this, formal proceedings only began in late 2024.
Judge Mangcu-Lockwood found that the unexplained delay was unfair to developers, landowners, and buyers who had relied on the approvals for years. The judge also said it undermined the public interest in having final decisions from authorities.
Original environmental approval remained valid
The applicant argued that the 2003 environmental authorisation had expired because development did not start within the required two-year period. The court disagreed.
The court found that clearing invasive vegetation, preparing the site, and doing related construction work before November 2005 meant the development had started as required.
Judge Mangcu-Lockwood also said, “There is no evidence that officials ever withdrew the environmental authorisation… The original environmental approval is still legally valid.”
Court rejects challenge to 2021 approval
The applicant also argued that the amended environmental authorisation granted in February 2021 had lapsed because, in their view, development had not started within two years.
The court disagreed, saying development had already started under the original environmental authorisation. The amended approval did not require the project to start again within a new two-year period.
Evidence showed that roads, infrastructure, retaining walls, entrance facilities, and other development work were already completed before the amended authorisation was granted.
Internal appeals dismissed
The Stellenbosch Interest Group also tried to have decisions overturned that refused to accept its late internal appeals against the 2021 environmental approval.
The court accepted that the group only became aware of the amended approval years later, but found there was nothing wrong with the MEC’s decision not to consider the late appeals.
Bid to expand the case fails
During the proceedings, the applicant tried to add a new challenge to rezoning approvals that had been granted in November 2022.
The court dismissed that attempt, saying it would be unfair to purchasers who had already bought property, invested money, and made plans based on the approved development.
Applicant ordered to pay costs
The High Court dismissed the application and ordered the Stellenbosch Interest Group to pay the Botmaskop Fynbos Estate's costs for both Parts A and B of the case, including the costs of two counsel.
The court also ordered the applicant to pay attorney-client costs for its failed amendment application. This means it must cover the legal costs incurred by Botmaskop, Reset, and the affected purchasers.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
