Development Law Update | Issue 1 – 2015

Posted on: August 4th, 2015 by STBBSiteOwner

New Beginnings: SPLUMA and LUPA

Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act of 2013

Western Cape Land Use Planning Act of 2014 (link to be provided

The Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act of 2013 (SPLUMA) and Western Cape Land Use Planning Act of 2014 (LUPA) both came into operation on 1 July 2015. From a development law point of view, what do these two pieces of legislation look like and how do they link up? In this first of a three-part series, we provide a short summary of SPLUMA. The next articles will provide details of the practical application processes flowing from the adoption of these laws.



A New Development Law Unit and Law Update

STBB’s Development Law Unit came into existence in April this year and this is the first of the Unit’s new monthly newsletter which will provide a snapshot of important news, cases and legislative happenings reported each month and which impacts on development law, property and conveyancing.

How will the Unit function?



Constitutionally Unfair to Disallow Temporary Transfer of Irrigation Water Use?

Trustees of the Lucas Scheepers Trust v MEC for The Department of Water Affairs, Gauteng and Others (40514/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 211 (17 April 2015)

Does the Water Act allow the MEC to grant a temporary transfer of owner A’s right to irrigation water to owner B, for purposes of irrigation, where A and B reached agreement to this effect? And if not, does this infringe owner B’s constitutional rights? These were the issues tackled in this judgment.



Developer Selling Subdivided Township Land: Rates Clearance for Whole Mother ERF

EM And EM Engineering (Pty) Limited v KwaDukuza Municipality and Others (9349/2014) [2015] ZAKZDHC 55 (26 June 2015)

After registering a general plan for establishing a new residential township, the developer applied for a municipal clearance to effect transfer of two of the subdivided erven that were subsequently sold. The municipality issued figures in respect of the whole mother erf, arguing that mere registration of a plan did not mean that the subdivided erven existed individually, as there was no change in ownership. This judgment illustrates the correct approach.


Comments are closed.

STBB Meerkats

Subscribe to our Newsletters

Visit our subscription page to view the newsletters available. You can select any number of newsletters to subscribe to.


You have Successfully Subscribed!