Amendment to the Union Section Joint Venture's ... - SRK Consulting

From:To:Subject:Date:Attachments:Nel, IlkeHinsch, MandaFW: zoning for mines24 July 2012 01:49:00 PMATT00001..txtFrom: Cobus Cronjè [mailto:cobus@mtdevelopment.co.za]Sent: 19 July 2012 12:02 PMTo: Nel, IlkeSubject: zoning for minesHi Ilke,Ons gesprek vroeer die week verwys.Sien uitspraak hieronder waarvan ek gepraat het. Sonering, tot dusver, is slegs nodig vir myne wat indie Wes Kaap gedoen word.Groete,CCI Newsflash23 August 2010APPLICATION OF NEMA AND ZONING REQUIREMENTS ON MINING AREAS:CITY OF CAPE TOWN v MACCSAND (PTY) LTDIn the abovementioned judgment the Court dealt with the National Environmental ManagementAct, 107 of 1998 (NEMA) and its relationship vis-à-vis the MPRDA and held that the intendedmining operations required prior environmental authorisation in terms of the provisions containedin NEMA, particularly the provisions contained in section 24 as read together with the Regulationscontained in GNR 385, 386 and 387 in Government Gazette 28753 of 21 April 2006 (as amended)(the EIA Regulations). The Court specifically dealt with and disposed of the notion that the socalledlisted activities in terms of the EIA Regulations were not applicable to mining areas.The Court also held that land intended for mining required the appropriate zoning in terms of theLand Use Planning Ordinance 15 of 1985 (LUPO) before such mining commenced. The Court heldthat that LUPO’s application to mining was congruent with the constitutional scheme of concurrentpowers and that national legislation (in this instance the Mineral and Petroleum ResourcesDevelopment Act 28 of 2002 (MPRDA)) did not trump provincial legislation (which in this instanceis administered by local government). Notice, however, that application of the LUPO is restrictedto the Western Cape Province.Kindly select this link for the abovementioned Judgment.