Cape Town planning officials must listen to residents, drop the ‘take us to court’ attitude

A recent series of investigative articles by Daily Maverick’s Kevin Bloom examined Cape Town’s planning and development approval system. These were summarised in a Daily Maverick video released on 25 July, containing nothing the original articles didn’t already cover, but which has drawn more than 100,000 views online and provoked a furious response from senior City officials.

Since many of the residents featured in the series, and the video, represent members of the Cape Town Collective Ratepayers’ Association, a body of 45 resident and ratepayer organisations across the city, it’s important for us to set the record straight.

In a Facebook post attacking the video for presenting “false and unsubstantiated claims about Cape Town’s Municipal Planning Tribunal”, and accusing Daily Maverick of “irresponsible journalism”, the deputy mayor and mayoral committee member for spatial planning and environment, Eddie Andrews, nevertheless claimed that Cape Town’s planning system “is not beyond scrutiny”. 

Unfortunately, his response to the exposé suggests exactly the opposite: that anyone who tries to hold the Municipal Planning Tribunal (MPT) – and the planning system – accountable for its far-reaching decisions will be denounced and discredited. 

Cards stacked against residents

Rather than going on the offensive against the country’s most trusted investigative journalism outfit, the deputy mayor might do better to start by answering the legitimate questions raised by Daily Maverick, and to give some thought to why residents across Cape Town are up in arms. If Daily Maverick got it wrong, then show us the proof.

Contrary to regular insinuations by City officials, Capetonians are not Nimbys. They are also neither naïve nor foolish when it comes to understanding the need for growth and adaptation in a modern city. The real complaint that a large and growing number of residents have is that Cape Town’s planning system is structurally weighted towards approving development regardless of the merit and legal validity of objections raised by interested and affected parties. 

Any resident who engages with the Cape Town planning system soon makes the same discovery: the cards are stacked against them at every level. A series of planning by-law amendments over the past decade have progressively made life easier for developers and ensured that it is almost impossible for residents to contribute to decisions affecting their own areas. 

Planning by-laws regulate land use and development to ensure orderly, sustainable growth while balancing individual property rights against community interests. A central purpose is protecting neighbourhood character – preserving the scale, heritage and sense of place valued by residents – by managing how new development fits within existing streetscapes. 

In Cape Town, however, planning decisions routinely ignore policy instruments and overlay zones designed to protect the unique characteristics that make Cape Town special, paving the way for high-end, cookie-cutter development that is slowly but steadily erasing the distinctive attributes of the City’s diverse neighbourhoods. 

And let us be clear: this is not development that contributes to the stock of social housing or in any way addresses spatial inequality. 

Unilateral decisions

Officials in charge of planning, presumably taking their cue from the politicians in charge, have decided that they know better than all Capetonians what’s best for development in their areas. Public and expert input into draft policies and legislative amendments is largely dismissed. 

What’s more, these officials have unilaterally decided that the parts of national legislation (such as the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act) that do not suit their agenda can simply be ignored. When challenged on this – as it was by the Daily Maverick – the City refuses to provide any evidence to justify these decisions. This seriously undermines the City’s trustworthiness and claimed adherence to the rule of law. 

The changes to the planning by-law, together with its interpretation by planning officials, the MPT and the Planning Appeals Advisory Panel (headed by the mayor), also increasingly threaten the constitutional right to just administrative action – the principle that decisions taken by officials must be lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair.

Interpreting the law, including municipal by-laws, is a specialised skill; understanding how municipal legislative powers interact with national law is more specialised still. Planning officials who assess land use applications are not lawyers, and none of the MPT members are lawyers, although the MPT is sometimes advised by a City-appointed legal adviser.

And yet many a resident who has hired a professional planning lawyer to submit an objection and argue it before the MPT has been gobsmacked to see sound legal arguments dismissed lightly by a panel with no legal training, simply on the basis that the City says it knows better.

A seat at the table

The City’s response to criticism on the way the planning system works is that anyone who is unhappy can go to the high court to review a decision. This “take us to court” attitude is common across the City, and deployed by planning officials, MPT members, the City’s legal advisers, and political figures like Eddie Andrews, who repeated it in his Facebook video. 

What this retort conveniently ignores, however, is that most ordinary residents understandably lack the appetite, resources or time to take anything to court, much less a decision made by the administration that governs them. The City is notoriously aggressive in its defence of litigation brought by residents on planning matters, and many attorneys will advise prospective clients not to even try. 

This fear of litigation is compounded by the knowledge that the City has endless resources at its fingertips – resources that are, of course, funded by ratepayers. In contrast, most cases that are brought by residents rely on pro bono legal advice and volunteers who simply cannot bring to bear the financial and legal clout that the City has at its beck and call. 

The City’s threat to sue Daily Maverick for its articles on planning fits the mould: ignore the questions, threaten legal action and refuse to provide any evidence that demonstrates how Daily Maverick got it wrong.

Our message to deputy mayor Andrews: stop disparaging residents and journalists who are legitimately holding the system to account, start listening and answer reasonable questions truthfully and transparently. 

Stop telling us to go to court if we don’t like something: acknowledge the flaws in your system – not least a growing, undemocratic disregard for the constitutional principle of just administrative action. 

Accept that the people of this City want it to succeed and want a genuine role in shaping how growth and development are managed. Bring us to the table, so that we can openly discuss where the planning system is failing Capetonians, and how we can help build a city that works for everyone who loves it. DM