[MEDIA SUMMARY] Tavakoli & another v Bantry Hills (Pty) Ltd

The respondent, Bantry Hills (Pty) Ltd, proposed to construct a block of flats in Sea Point, Cape Town. The appellants owned residential properties situated approximately 80 metres from the site of the proposed flats. The building plans provided for two vehicle access points to the property from two abutting roads, each road having a reserve less than 9 metres wide. The appellants brought a review application seeking to set aside the approved building plans on the basis that they violated item 40(c) of the Development Management Scheme forming part of the City of Cape Town's Municipal Planning By-Law of 2015. Item 40(c) precludes the construction of flats 'if the only vehicle access to the property is from an adjacent road reserve that is less than 9 m wide'. The Western Cape Division of the High Court dismissed the review application with costs, and the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

• Whether the appellants had locus standi to bring the review application
• Whether item 40(c) of the Development Management Scheme prohibited the construction where there were multiple vehicle access points from roads with reserves less than 9 metres wide, or only where there was a single vehicular access from a road reserve less than 9 metres wide

The appeal was dismissed. The judgment of the Western Cape Division of the High Court dismissing the appellants' review application with costs was upheld.

For an applicant to have locus standi to review a decision approving building plans on the basis of an alleged violation of a municipal planning by-law provision, the applicant must: (1) be a person for whose benefit the provision was enacted, having regard to the specific mischief the provision addresses; and (2) establish that the alleged violation would cause them harm. Where a planning provision has a parochial scope addressing a specific mischief (such as congestion in narrow streets giving access to high-density developments), persons whose properties are not directly affected by that specific mischief lack standing to challenge alleged violations of the provision.

The court noted that there was a substantive dispute regarding the correct interpretation of item 40(c) - specifically whether it applied unless there was at least one vehicular access from a road reserve 9 metres or more wide (appellants' contention), or whether it only applied where there was a single vehicular access from a road reserve less than 9 metres wide (respondent's contention). However, the court expressly declined to decide this interpretative question in view of its finding on locus standi, leaving this issue unresolved for potential determination in a future case where standing is properly established.

This case is significant for establishing principles relating to locus standi in administrative law reviews concerning municipal planning by-laws. It clarifies that applicants seeking to review building plan approvals must demonstrate that they fall within the class of persons for whose benefit the relevant planning provision was enacted and that they will suffer harm from the alleged violation. The case emphasizes that planning provisions have specific purposes and limited scope, and standing to challenge violations is correspondingly limited to those directly affected by the particular mischief the provision addresses.