Townships Board's decision on Checkers DC - Midrand Estates

3) The potential floor area should be approximately broken up into separate buildings, which doarchitecturally complement each other.4) The larger buildings should be placed in such a way that its visual impact be minimised.5) The building facade and roof structures should be visually articulated in terms of colour, shape anduse of material to the satisfaction of the Chief Town Planner.6) Intensive landscaping should be provided to the satisfaction of the Chief Town Planner by anappointed professional consultant in all open areas, the sidewalks, edge of buildings as well as onthe parking areas, which shall at least consist of trees planted at a ratio of 1 tree for every threeopen parking bays.7) All aspects listed in the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) should be implemented to thesatisfaction of the local authority and the Gauteng Department of Agriculture, Conservation andEnvironment. In this regard an Environmental Control Officer should be appointed before anyearth works may be done. The Environmental Control Officer should oversee the constructionphase and before final occupation should certify that all conditions of the EMP were fullyimplemented.(14.2) Uncontested evidence showed that Condition 12(1) has not been complied with. No engineer has giventhe certificate which was required “before building plans are submitted”. The Board regards this as anomission on the part of the first respondent.(14.3) Buildings have not been placed in such a manner that their visual impact is minimised. In this regard,the Goods Return Warehouse is a case in point. The building is however complete and the Board’sview is that rehabilitation will have to be looked at afresh.(14.4) Intensive landscaping was required. There is evidence that consultants were appointed, but there is noevidence that a landscape development plan was ever approved and prepared by “an appointedprofessional consultant”. The following evidence is before the Board:During the second day of the three-day hearing an arrangement was made of which theInvestigating Committee had knowledge that a delegation of the appellant will visit therepresentatives of the first respondent, present at the appeal hearing, in their offices to inspectfiles to ascertain to what extent the requirements of Column 12 have been executed. Theappellant reported to the Board on the third day in the presence of the other parties.A copy of a minute found in the municipal files titled: Requirements for the Drafting ofLandscape Plans for approval, was presented to the Board. 34 That minute, dated 27November 2000, indicated that the landscape development plan was not approved and that “amore detail design” was required.Two landscape development proposals prepared by Gary Bartch International were found, butnot one of them approved. The delegation of the appellant came to the conclusion that alandscape development plan was not approved.34 Exh. 12 : The appellant’s reply to the first respondent’s submissions, p.30, Annexure 8 (copy of the minute).