Mutare City Council v Wildlife Society of Zimbabwe 2001 (2) ZLR 275 (S)

Mr LT Biti for the appellant — town and country planning. The master plan for the city of muter prohibited “development” in the Cecil Kop Nature Reserve, which was situated within the city’s boundaries. The society, which had leased the received for a lengthy period applied for permission to construct dormitories, of a fairly spartan nature, to accommodate groups of children and their teachers making educational visits to the reserve. the society also proposed to offer accommodation to tourists when they were no bookings for school children.

The Mutare City Council declined to approve the proposal, and issued a prohibition order, No public notice of the application was given.The society appealed to the Administrative court, which decided in its favour. The court held that the term “development” included any building operations, but that the proposed dormitories would not alter the character of the use of the reserve, provided they were used only to accommodate students and teacher on educational visits. Accordingly, the administrative court held , the building of the dormitories did not constitute development and was not prohibited, the council appealed and the society cross appealed against the courts conclusions. It was argued for the council that the administrative court was not entitled to simply reverse the Council decision: the matter had to be referred back to the council for perp consideration and public notice of the society’s application had to be given to allow for objections.

held, that the administrative courts reasoning was fundamentally illogical. Was the Act stated was that it is not “development” to change the use of land, of of a building, as long as the old use and the new use fall within the sam prescribed group of land uses. However, to construct a building on a piece of land is not simply a used of land. It is development.

held further that the master plan did not impose an absolute prohibition against any development in the reserve. As long as human beings are allowed into the area — and town planning is for the benefit of human beings — there must be such things as footpaths, railings, toilets and so on. What the plan prohibited was commercial, industrial or residential development out of keeping wight he character of a nature reserve development would be permitted as long as it was ancillary to or incidental to the main purpose of preserving the area as a nature reserve.

held, further, on the question of whether public notice of the society’s application for a building permit had to be given that the master plan did not require special consent or special consideration for such an application. the development was of conforming us, which would not have an adverse effect or important impact on the locality or area. Public notice was thus not required, and the Administrative court was entitled to make the order it did.