Following several public meetings with City of Cape Town officials this month (on the 8th and 21st of October), to discuss proposed amendments to the municipal planning bylaw (MPBL), the Collective Ratepayers’ Association (CRA) wishes to express its deep concern and dissatisfaction with the format of the engagement and the lack of answers in addressing the concerns of approximately 50 000 households from close to 50 different communities across the City of Cape Town.
“Of notable concern was the lack of response to any of the written questions submitted prior to the meetings, which were then ignored by Alderman Eddie Andrews, and other officials, in the revised format. At the October 8th meeting at City Council Chambers, the Deputy Mayor did not acknowledge that any of the vast array of objections to the by-law were valid or that they justified further consideration, indicating to ratepayers that the meeting served no purpose” adds Bridgette Lloyd, Spokesperson for the CRA.
These circumstances were further exacerbated in a second meeting requested by the CRA, which took place online on 21 October 2024 with Jaco van der Westhuizen, Manager: Development Policies, Processes and Legislation, and Schalk de Jager, Head: Land Use Management. In this meeting, Mr. van der Westhuizen confirmed that the meeting simply served to clarify MPBL amendments.
“It is evident that these meetings simply aim to clarify the policies government intends on effecting, with little regard for the inputs requested by those the city governs. At present, the officials we elected into power are conducting public participation processes in a very demoralising manner. Jaco further clarified that ratepayers will have to address their concerns at a policy level, via political routes, if we want to be heard. It is clear that the CoCT intends to implement MPBL and other policies, regardless of our concerns, purposeful feedback and participation” comments Antony Saunders, founding member of the CRA, who also participated in yesterday’s meeting.
Lloyd argues that the CRA will now aim to amplify its concerns by requesting a seat at the table as stakeholders when policy drafts are prepared, in order to focus its attention on the policies that are driving poor changes in the MPBL, with the hope to secure the right to influence overlays with the guarantee that the CRA’s inputs will be considered and adhered to: “The CRA would also like civic oversight over the consideration of these public comments, in order to ensure that all comments are accurately grouped and meaningfully considered, before they are tabled to council. To ensure that all parties understand the impact of proposals, it is also recommended that a Socio-Economic Impact Assessment (SEIA) is done for all significant legislative changes, as is required for provincial and national legislation.”
Overall, both meetings underscored the need for an independent mediator to facilitate future engagements. There has been overwhelming support for this proposal, with the CRA recommending a mutually respected figure to ensure fair and constructive dialogue moving forward. The following concerns were particularly evident at the public meeting earlier this month:
- Flawed meeting format: The structure of the meeting was fundamentally flawed. A single official, such as Alderman Eddie Andrews, cannot be expected to meaningfully respond to over two hours of questions in under ten minutes. This led to superficial answers that failed to address the depth and complexity of the issues raised.
- Unanswered and avoided questions: Numerous questions posed by concerned residents were either avoided or inadequately addressed. The meeting’s format allowed Ald. Andrews to selectively reformulate and respond to questions at the end, often failing to provide substantive responses. This undermines the City’s claim of fostering meaningful public participation.
- Lack of trust in by-law enforcement: Residents expressed significant concerns about the City’s ability to enforce existing by-laws, let alone new ones. Numerous instances of illegal developments were mentioned by residents. Effective implementation of increased use rights, applicable for an entire community, are reliant on strong enforcement. While the City acknowledges that enforcement is a problem, it does not offer any clear path for enforcement failures, with a dismissive approach to answers.
- Insufficient data to support proposed changes: The City did not provide adequate data to justify its aggressive densification plans, beyond citing population growth projections. Communities need detailed, localized data to understand the impact of these changes on them, including enforcement, security, transport, sewerage, water and maintenance services. The City failed to offer meaningful statistics or answers to the pre-submitted questions that should have been prioritized. Instead, city officials played a 3 minute animated video, which offered no insight into the city’s plans to improve infrastructure and service delivery, in the communities where over densification is becoming an issue (Summer Greens and its sewerage spillover being a key issue).
It is important to note South Africa is not merely a democracy, but a participatory democracy. A good document that describes how a participatory democracy is the attached draft compiled by Parliament, which the CRA encourages the public to engage with.
“The CRA urges the City of Cape Town to overhaul the format of these engagements and take genuine steps to foster transparency, accountability, and meaningful public participation. The CRA stands ready to work constructively with the City, but future engagements must be held to a higher standard, with clear mechanisms for accountability and independent oversight to ensure the voices of Cape Town’s communities are truly heard” concludes Lloyd.
