Townships Board's decision on Checkers DC - Midrand Estates

(10) The appellant critizises the fact that the Planning Department of the CoT did not consider the application, statingthat the general principles of a town-planning scheme (that requires co-ordinated and harmonious development)was ignored. The Board shares that view. The Board had a closer look at the extracts (the manuals) referred toin paragraph (7) above, received from the first respondent’s representative. 16(10.1) The report that served before the CoT for the approval of the TTPS contains 7 annexures, the last threeof which are:-5. Permission Procedure.6. Revised delegations in terms of the TTPS.7. The TTPS itself. 17This resolution to approve the TTPS created the manuals according to the representative of the CoT.(10.2) Annexure 5 of the report contained the delegations to City Planning and to Building Control to whichreference was made in paragraph (7.2) above. 18(10.3) Annexure 6 commenced on p.481 of the report that served before the CoT. Annexure 6 contained:-“POWERS DELEGATED TO THE SECTION 79 CITY PLANNING COMMITTEE”The City Planning Committee was mandated to sub-delegate the powers and it appeared that delegation couldtake place to the Mayor with further powers of delegation. 19(10.4) Annexure 6 contains 76 items with regard to the TTPS that delegated the powers of <strong>decision</strong> tothe City Planning Committee. Those 76 items refer to many of the clauses to which reference weremade in this appeal, such as Clause 14 (Item 24), Clause 15(Item 27) and Clause 26(4) [Item 47].(10.5) More importantly is Item 42 that reads:-“To grant or refuse permission in terms of clause 26(1)(b) to increase height in respect of any buildingwhich requires additional height for a manufacturing process or storage purposes in an „Industrial 2‟use zone”. 20This requirement should be read in conjunction with Clause 16(8) of the TTPS which reads:-“(8) The consent shall be null and void if the requirements imposed in considering the application have notbeen complied with”.Those requirements can only be the <strong>decision</strong> of the CoT dealing with the delegations contained inAnnexure 6 of the report that served before the CoT when the TTPS was approved. Paragraph(10.7) below records that the delegations were approved by the CoT in paragraph 9 of the CoTresolution approving of the TTPS.16 Extracts made by the first respondent handed up as Exh.6.17 The page where the annexures appear is not paginated, but it is the page on which the word “Resolved” appears for the taking of theresolution to approve the TTPS.18 Annexure 5 constituted pages 466 to 480 of the report that served before the CoT.19 P.481 of the report to the CoT for approval of the TTPS.20 P.485 of the report to the CoT for approval of the TTPS.