Member firms are sure to have been confronted with often strange and contradicting decisions handed down by the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF), the delegate on behalf of the National Minister, with regard to applications for subdivision of farm portions which purportedly fall within the ambit of the aforesaid Act. The latter of course is the subject of ongoing debate and speculation, given that the department is often found to be unsure with regard to the geographical extent of its purported jurisdiction.
In a recent judgement by the High Court (Gauteng Division) (Case No. 3925/2014), Pretoria, a decision of the Department in terms of Act 70 of 70 was reviewed and set aside. The decision that was set aside was a refusal by DAFF to allow the subdivision of a farm portion (generally referred to as Blue Crane Country Estate) in the far south-eastern parts of the City of Tshwane jurisdiction to allow for a form of country estate (a limited number of rural residential portions surrounded by a larger remainder of the farm, used for ongoing game farming and related activities).
The refusal by DAFF to permit the subdivision of the affected farm portion was based primarily on the premise that the approval of the application will lead to a development that will encroach on agricultural land and create a new node of development which may negatively impact on surrounding agricultural farms. The affected farm portion was described by DAFF as an “irreplaceable natural resource”. DAFF also contended that the result of approving the division will create “a change in land use in a farming area”.
The developer/land owner approached the court to have said decision set aside based on, inter alia, a submission that the land in question was not particularly valuable with regard to agricultural potential and that a number of specialist reports, including an agricultural potential report, had been prepared to support such submission. On its part DAFF had not undertaken any specialist investigations with regard to the same property and had failed to convince the court that its reason for refusal held any merit.
The following excerpts from the court judgment are of particular relevance:
“… the Minister took a decision which she was not authorized to do …” and “Furthermore, irrelevant considerations were taken into account and relevant considerations were ignored and the decision was rationally not connected to the information that was available to her”.
Source: Blue Crane Country Estate (Pty) Ltd vs The National Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and Others
9 June 2015