Townships Board's decision on Checkers DC - Midrand Estates

(17) The second respondent did not deal with this issue in any depth. Dealing with the definitions as the Board didabove, the second respondent reminded the Board that a rose by any name will smell just as sweet. 38 Thesecond respondent draws a conclusion that the wording of Clause 14(7) loses sight of the specific provisions ofClause 26(1)(b) authorising additional height for storage purposes. 39(18) The Board does not make a definitive finding with regard to Clause 14(7) at this stage. The Board will in duecourse make a concise finding substantiating its resolution.(19) The Board agrees with the second respondent that the subject-matter of the appeal should be kept in mind whenevaluating the appeal. Issues have been raised that do not relate directly to the application for permission toincrease the height of the building(s). The second respondent has responded to some of those issues and theBoard will address them whether they were submitted by the appellant or the second respondent.(19.1) The appellant addressed traffic issues to substantiate a contention that in open volume warehouses,such as this, the use of the property effectively increases the FAR if floors are not deemed in the openvolume. The Board has taken note of the fact that a further appeal has been lodged by the appellantwith regard to access to the site. The Board consequently does not respond to traffic issues as they aresure to be addressed in the new appeal. 40(19.2) The second respondent again addressed the issue of authority. Reliance on that matter was soughtby the second respondent when arguing the matter of locus standi on the first set down date. The factthat that issue was not argued when it was supposed to be argued led the Board to a conclusion whichwas recorded in the reasons for rejecting the point in limine. The Board does not re-open that issue. Ifthe second respondent is not satisfied by the further resolution(s) handed up on the last day, the Boardassumes that the matter of authority will be raised at the review hearing.(19.3) In regard to the definitions of warehouse and distribution centre in both the Centurion Town- PlanningScheme and the TTPS, the Board understands the difference which the appellant draws between activestorage and passive storage, but the Board doubts whether that distinction emerges from the definitions.In the Centurion Town-Planning Scheme, the reference to temporary storage in the Centuriondefinition supports the appellant’s distinction. The definition of warehouse in the TTPS can in thisinstance identify “any other storage” only, because the second respondent is not a wholesale tradingestablishment, neither a manufacturer. The Board arrives at a <strong>decision</strong>, in respect of the matter before it,without embarking on the rational and lateral thought process which, according to the appellant, needsto be invoked where airspace is being utilised for purposes of active distribution space, so as to give thelimitations of height a purposive interpretation. 41(19.4) The appellant’s submissions regarding floor area as a function of volume was addressed in Exhibit 1and more comprehensively in Exhibit 12. The appellant submitted that the height increase approvedwas in increase of 400% (an additional six storeys), and came to the conclusion in Exhibit 12 that38 Exh. 10, p.12, paragraph 19.2.39 Exh. 10, p.14, paragraph 19.6.40 Exh. 10, p.16, paragraph 19.10 of the second respondent’s main submissions also refers to a High Court application in regard to roads andaccess.41 Exh. 1, p.16, paragraph 57.