- The Western Cape High Court has dismissed an application for leave to appeal the challenge halting the River Club development in Cape Town.
- The application was brought by the City of Cape Town, Western Cape government, Liesbeek Leisure Property Trust and First Nation Collective.
- It follows a judgment in March when Deputy Judge President Patricia Goliath ruled the development in Observatory must be halted.
The Western Cape High Court has dismissed an application for leave to appeal the challenge halting the River Club development in Observatory, Cape Town.
The application was brought by the City of Cape Town, Western Cape government, Liesbeek Leisure Property Trust and First Nation Collective.
It follows a judgment in March by Deputy Judge President Patricia Goliath who ruled the development must be halted.
The development was expected to cost roughly R4 billion, with project plans that included residential, retail and commercial components, a hotel, offices, a conference centre, and schools.
Twenty percent of the development would have been allocated for residential use, with one fifth dedicated to developer-subsidised inclusionary housing.
It would have also included Amazon's new African headquarters.
The developers were ordered to "consult meaningfully" with the affected parties.
Goliath handed down judgment on Thursday and dismissed the application with cost.
"I have considered the facts of the matter and grounds of the appeal, together with the submissions made by the parties."
The Liesbeek Leisure Properties Trust sought leave to appeal on the basis that if the order suspending construction remained in place, some 6 000 direct and 19 000 indirect jobs would be lost.
Western Cape Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development MEC Anton Bredell also filed court papers appealing Goliath's judgment.
Bredell argued the court erred by making a ruling on issues "which were not argued by the applicants as part of their case in the first place", and had failed to weigh "the balance of convenience" for an interdict.
Meanwhile, the City argued the judgment was "vague and unworkable because it is not clear who must be consulted, who must conduct the consultation under which statutory regime [if any] the consultation must occur, and how it will be determined that the consultation has been meaningful".
Never miss a story. Choose from our range of newsletters to get the news you want delivered straight to your inbox.