Residents who have been reading the Zoutpansberger regularly over the last few years will probably know that the proposed development of the piece of land known as Extension 9, on the left of the N1 as one leaves town towards Musina, has been highly controversial, with residents and the local municipality at loggerheads over the development.

When the initial plans for the development of the property were submitted, they included a filling station, hotel and conference centre, some shops and a showroom for vehicles. Residential stands would also form part of the development. The piece of land, comprising some 35 000 hectares, forms part of what is known as the “Green Belt,” which not only acts as a buffer zone between the N1 and the older part of town, but also comprises a significant part of the appeal that the town has for visitors in terms of ecotourism. Various other factors, such as fauna and flora appearing on the Red Data list for endangered species, also come into play.

Once it became known that the municipality was considering the selling of this piece of land, various concerned parties raised objections to the proposed development. Despite these objections, the Makhado Municipality proceeded with putting up the land for sale via tender. In 2004, the tender was awarded to a company that indicated it wanted to develop the land according to the specifications above. One of the conditions laid down by the municipality was that residents be given the opportunity to raise objections and concerns regarding the development. During such a consultative meeting, enough objections were raised that the development of the filling station at the site was scrapped.

Since 2004, when the tender was first awarded to Daybreak Properties 7 (Pty) Ltd, ownership of the land has “changed hands” several times. This process has been fairly convoluted, with some questions hanging over the current ownership of the land. However, as far as can be determined, no money has been paid to the Makhado Municipality in this regard, with various buyers allegedly either not providing the required guarantees or not adhering to the conditions of the contract. This means, technically, that the land still belongs to the Makhado Municipality.

Exactly how the various pieces of the puzzle fit into each other is a story for another day, but as far as the residents who oppose the development are concerned, such a development should never have been considered in the first place. They feel that this piece of land is off limits because of its ecological significance and sensitivity. In this regard, the Chairman’s Association (CA) has issued a media release in which it raises several significant matters.

Firstly, it points out that the municipality makes no mention of environmental legislation anywhere, which suggests that it is of no concern to them. In contrast, the CA points out that the environment is of immense concern to the general public, as well as interested and affected parties. This includes “the damage that will follow to its birdlife, wildlife and riverine systems, especially where catchment takes place. All indigenous tree species are protected, and would thus be an offense to destroy. No mention of traffic impact studies, waste control and water pollution is given.”

The positive contribution of conservation areas and nature reserves is also highlighted. The release goes on to point out that “developments should be socially, environmentally and economically sustainable as well as responsible as required by the laws governing the protection of the environment.” To support its arguments, the CA refers to two crucial cases in South African case law, where the Constitutional Court made pronouncements in this regard. In the first instance, Justice Ngcobo “held that the obligation of the environmental authorities to consider socio-economic factors includes the obligation to consider the impact of the proliferation on existing business. This obligation is wider than the requirement to assess need and desirability. It comprehends the obligation to assess the cumulative impact on the environment of the proposed development … He held that the authorities misconstrued the nature of their obligations and as a consequence failed to comply with a compulsory and material condition prescribed by the law.”

He is supported in this contention by Justice Sachs, who “associated himself with this judgment and criticized the failure by the environmental decision makers, holding that the purpose of environmental legislation is to protect the environment and not the profits of the businesses.”

There are a number of other factors that enter into this equation, aside from the environmental impact of this development. These will be explored at a later stage. However, what is clear is that this fight is far from over.