Turnbull-Jackson v Hibiscus Coast Municipality and Others

The applicant, Mr Trevor Turnbull-Jackson, owned property adjacent to land owned by Pearl Star Investments 14 CC. Pearl Star sought and obtained municipal approval for building plans to erect multi‑storey apartment blocks. The applicant repeatedly challenged these approvals, arguing that the plans contravened the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act 103 of 1977 and the applicable town planning scheme, particularly in relation to building height, basements, side‑space encroachments, and adverse effects on neighbouring property values and amenities. Earlier approvals were set aside on appeal, but revised plans approved in 2007 were upheld. The applicant then sought judicial review, alleging bias, procedural irregularities, non‑compliance with section 7(1)(b)(ii) of the Building Standards Act, and that the municipality unlawfully approved plans while related litigation remained unresolved. The High Court dismissed the review, leading to this appeal to the Constitutional Court.

Leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed. The applicant was ordered to pay the second respondent’s costs in the Constitutional Court.

The case clarified the correct interpretation and application of section 7(1)(b)(ii) of the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act, resolving uncertainty created by differing readings of Walele and True Motives. It provided authoritative guidance to municipalities on how to lawfully exercise their power to approve building plans and confirmed that not every alleged defect or neighbour objection renders an approval unlawful.