Court rules out consideration of 'other benefits'

I found this on one of my Google Alerts.  It's a little too involved for a Tweet so I'll have to blog it.  Legalbrief states that it is a commentary by Cullinan & Associates Inc.  I can't find it on their website so if this does get to them - please could someone email it to me.

It involves the Provincial Minister for Environmental Planning and Economic Development in the Western Cape and Arabella (just outside Hermanus). 

The court found that

1. The Minister had acted beyond the scope of her powers in that she imposed a condition in which required Arabella to give effect to a BBBEE Agreement to provide social and subsidy housing in an area that was not on the site of the phase 2 development. The court emphasised that when making a decision under the ECA (Environment Conservation Act) and NEMA (National Environmental Management Act) the benefits and disadvantages of the socio-economic and environmental impacts of the authorised activities must be considered, not 'extraneous benefits divorced from the impacts of the authorised activities.'
2. Second, there was a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the Minister since an 'action group' in favour of the appeal approached the Premier of the Western Cape, who then advised them on how to go about concluding the BBBEE agreement with Arabella. This information was then conveyed to the Minister.
3. The judgment serves as a reminder to administrators and developers that the exercise of political pressure may compromise the decision making process.

There are a few interesting connotations here.  Probably the most significant one would occur in PPPs where ED and SED requirements must work within a local economic development context and not extraneous to it.