RIGHT OF REPLY: Cape Town Deputy Mayor Eddie Andrews’ response to Daily Maverick’s Rubber-Stamped series

1. Across the 1,328 decisions reviewed, we did not identify a single instance in which the MPT's decision explicitly departed from the Development Management department’s recommendation. Is this pattern consistent with the City's own understanding of the MPT's record over this period?

The City employs approximately 60 technically trained, qualified and experienced professional planners to evaluate and assess each development and land use application that is submitted to the City. 

Their assessments are guided by the Municipal Planning By-law, the Development Management Scheme which determines what each land parcel in the City’s metropolitan boundaries may be used for, and other relevant City policies such as the Municipal Spatial Development Framework, the eight District Spatial Development Frameworks, and local spatial development frameworks, and so forth.

Thus, the planners’ recommendations to the MPT are based in law and policy. For this very reason, and despite independent scrutiny by the MPT decision-makers, it would be logical for the majority of MPT decisions (that must apply the very same legal and policy criteria) to largely correlate with case officer recommendations. If it were not the case, there would be great cause for concern. Nevertheless, there are occasional instances where, after deliberation, the MPT comes to a different conclusion for specific reasons.

Notwithstanding, to insinuate the MPT system is dysfunctional or captured because of this correlation demonstrates a sheer misunderstanding of the decision-making processes and applicable criteria.

Moreover, in most cases, conditions are imposed on approvals in order to address objections/concerns raised by interested and affected parties.

Importantly, to reiterate:

• The MPT is not an appeal body reconsidering a decision made by the case officer

• The case officer doesn't make the decision; but makes a professional recommendation to the decision-maker after a comprehensive assessment of the application and all related information. The MPT then considers that recommendation and the supporting record and makes the decision

• It is therefore not surprising but to be expected that most MPT decisions agree with the case officer's recommendation

• In a properly functioning administration, experienced professional planners should generally make recommendations that correctly apply the planning rules, policies and facts of the application. If the MPT routinely had to overturn those recommendations, that could instead raise questions about the quality and consistency of the professional assessment process.

The MPT's independence is not measured by how often it disagrees with officials. It is measured by whether it fully considers each matter for itself and is willing to change or reject a recommendation where there is a proper reason to do so. A low level of deviation is therefore entirely consistent with a competent administration: the professional recommendation is sound in most cases, and the MPT intervenes where the circumstances require it.

Contextualising MPT decisions:

Sustainable development is necessary for Cape Town. This is very clear from the City's adopted policies including the Integrated Development Plan (IDP). Our city is growing at 2.3% households per annum; this growth needs to be accommodated.

Municipal planning exists to achieve a careful balance between protecting the public interest and enabling sustainable development. Sustainable development that makes provision for population growth in a planned manner is in the public interest. This planning framework is carefully and fairly regulated in planning law country-wide.

2. Across the 1,328 decisions reviewed, MPT decisions directly matched the City of Cape Town's recommendation in 89.8% of cases overall (1,192 of 1,328). Broken down by category: administrative penalty determinations were direct matches in 96.2% of cases (929 of 966), while land use applications were direct matches in 73.3% of cases (263 of 359), with only three cases unclassifiable. The remaining cases across both categories were either deferred, withdrawn or ambiguous, with (as above) none listed as explicit deviations from the planner’s report. Does the City consider this level of direct alignment with staff recommendations to be consistent with the independent decision-making function required of the MPT?

As explained above, the City planners’/case officers’ recommendations to the MPT are based in law and policy. For this very reason it would be logical for the majority of the MPT decisions (that must apply the very same legal and policy criteria) to largely correlate with the case officer’s recommendation. If it were not the case, there would be great cause for concern.

Thus, to insinuate as this question seems to do, that the MPT system is dysfunctional or captured because of this correlation, demonstrates a sheer misunderstanding of the decision-making processes and applicable criteria.

Moreover, most often conditions are imposed on approvals to address objections/concerns raised by interested and affected parties. Conditions may also be proactively imposed to mitigate negative impacts and to protect the public interest.

3. SPLUMA sections 35 to 39 establish the MPT as a body that must exercise independent, quasi-judicial decision-making authority, distinct from the planning department whose recommendations it reviews. Given the absence of recorded material deviations in our sample, how does the City reconcile this pattern with the independence contemplated by these provisions, specifically in sections 36(2) and 37(1)?

See the response above to questions no. 1 and 2.

4. What internal mechanisms, if any, does the City consider evidence that MPT members exercise independent judgment separate from staff recommendations, given that the written record of decisions does not itself reflect this?

See the response above to questions no. 1 and 2.

5. Section 37(1) of SPLUMA has previously been described by the City's spokesperson as an "overreach" into the City's "constitutional competencies" as the municipal planning authority. Does the City consider section 36(2)'s implicit requirement that the MPT function independently to be, in the same sense, a matter of municipal discretion? If so, on what basis does the City distinguish its own executive authority over municipal planning from Parliament's role in setting minimum norms and standards for how that authority is exercised?

The MPT functions independently, and to imply a different interpretation is disingenuous.

The MPT's independence is not measured by how often it disagrees with officials. It is measured by whether it fully considers each matter for itself and is willing to change or reject a recommendation where there is a proper reason to do so. A low level of deviation is therefore entirely consistent with a competent administration: the professional recommendation is sound in most cases, and the MPT intervenes where the circumstances require it.

6. We calculate that 966 of the 1,328 decisions in our sample (72.5%) are administrative penalty determinations relating to already-built unlawful work, rather than prospective planning decisions. Does the City agree with this characterisation of the MPT's caseload composition?

In the last financial year (1 July 2025 to 31 July 2026), approximately 54% of all applications that served before the MPT were for administrative penalties, and 46% were for planning decisions.

Only the MPT may decide on administrative penalties, as per the relevant legislation and delegations. 

7. Of the 966 penalty decisions reviewed, only 9 cases record an explicit statutory maximum penalty alongside the penalty actually recommended. In each of those 9 cases, the penalty imposed fell far short of the statutory maximum, ranging from roughly 1.0% to 9.8% of the applicable cap. Across all 943 cases where a penalty amount is stated, the average penalty was R28,153, with a total of approximately R26.5 million collected across the full dataset. In April 2024, Garron Gsell, presenting to the illegal-building task team established under Deputy Mayor Eddie Andrews, alleged that the City was "monetising inefficiencies through the MPT" and questioned whether MPT penalty revenue sat within a City budget line item with an annual target. Given that penalties in our sample consistently fall well short of the statutory maximum, does the City agree that this pattern lends support to the allegation that the MPT's penalty function operates more as a revenue-collection mechanism than as a deterrent? And does the City consider an average administrative penalty of R28,153 sufficient to deter unlawful construction, given the potential financial upside to building without approval?

Devoid from context and case specific facts in each instance (such as contravention scale and gravity), especially given the range of applications tabled at the MPT, the average stated in your question is not helpful and/or a logical measure to consider or apply.

Section 129(8) of the MPBL requires that when determining an appropriate penalty, the following criteria should be considered:

(a) The nature, duration, gravity and extent of the contravention;

(b) The conduct of the person involved in the contravention;

(c) Whether the unlawful conduct was stopped;

(d) Whether a person involved in the contravention has previously contravened this By-law or a previous planning law; and

(e) Any matter relevant to redressing the contravention.

8. Only 63 of the 1,328 decisions we reviewed (4.7%) reference objections anywhere in the panel's recorded decision text, despite our identifying cases in the addenda to these same minutes where hundreds of formal objections were lodged. Can the City explain why the volume of public objection is not reflected in the decision record itself?

Where the MPT decides an application (whether approval or refusal), this is only done after due consideration of the full report including any public objections and/or comments received and attached to the report.  

Anyone attending a MPT meeting or listening to a recording of one, would be able to clearly attest how objections are, as a matter of course, carefully considered and weighed up against the merits of an application by MPT members in their deliberation and decision-making.

There is no need or requirement to repeat or reference objections in the minuted decision. To imply that the absence of such a reference in the minuted decision is problematic or somehow evidence of inadequate consideration of same would be disingenuous. 

It appears from the content of your question, that you only considered the final decisions of the MPT and not the full record.

As decision letters only convey the reasons for the decision and not record the deliberation, it is entirely correct that it does not repeat or reference objections. Anyone reviewing the full MPT report, would note that each objection is not only considered but all objection letters are attached. The same applies for the applicant's response to objections.

9. What is the City's process for ensuring that the substance of public objections — as opposed to merely their existence — is addressed in the MPT's written reasons for a decision?

As above.

10. Our review found 11 recorded conflict-of-interest declarations across the full sample: 8 on the South Eastern panel, 3 on the North Western panel, and none recorded on either the North Eastern or South Western (Alphen) panels — the two highest-volume panels in our data. Can the City explain this disparity?

There is no logic to suggest case volume must necessarily correlate with conflicts of interest, and an attempt to imply such relation or describe the absence thereof as a ‘disparity’ is irrational.

No conflict of interests was declared for these samples. If you have evidence that point to the contrary, you are encouraged to submit this to the City’s Ombudsman for investigation.

11. Of the 1,328 decisions reviewed, we identified 34 refusals, all of them land use applications. More specifically, of these refusals, 25 were recorded as following the recommendations in the planner’s report, with the text in the remaining 9 ambiguous/non-definitive about whether the planner’s report was followed. What does the City consider this refusal rate to indicate about the rigour of the MPT's review process for land use applications specifically?

See the answers to questions no. 1 and 2. DM

Read Part 1 of the Rubber-Stamped series here and Part 2 here.