Below, case documentation referd to in the submissions:
Under the section “The failure to consider alternatives” [page 7 of the submission]
“At least one other such alternative should therefore have been considered by Aurecon in its BAR. The fact that it did not do so means that the assessment is inadequate and non-compliant. This is evident from the Constitutional Court judgment in Fuel Retailers Association of Southern Africa v Director-General: Environmental Management, Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Environment, Mpumalanga Province 2007 (6) SA 4 (CC), as well as the judgment of the Western Cape High Court in Sea Front for All and Another v MEC: Environmental and Development Planning, Western Cape Provincial Government and Others (15974/07) [2010] ZAWCHC 69 (26 March 2010).”
Fuel Retailers Association v DG: Environmental Management [Constitutional Court Judgement]
Sea Front for All v MEC: Environmental and Development Planning [Western Cape High Court Judgement]
Under the section “Flora and Fauna” [page 9 of the submission]
“…TBKWatch therefore cannot comment on whether the extent of the Renosterveld might be bigger than has been indicated – and it is not clear who has stated that it is only confined to the area of Block E – and reserves its rights in this regard. It is merely emphasized at this stage that the Supreme Court of Appeal recognised in Oudekraal Estates (Pty) Ltd v City of Cape Town and others 2010 (1) SA 333 (SCA) that “Coastal Renosterveld … has been identified as the most critically endangered ecosystem in South Africa” (par 6), and notes that “the nature of the flora in the [Table Mountain National Park] and the threatened species of Coastal Renosterveld” is of “importance to the country and humanity at large” (par 71) and is therefore a “vital feature” of any planning decision.”
Oudekraal Estates v City Of Cape Town [Surpreme Court of Appeal Judgement]