Municipal Planning by Law Review.

The current Municipal Planning by Law (MPBL) is in review. This By-Law deals with development in the City. As we know there is a need in the City for densification and this is one of the tools the City uses to push the densification agenda.

MPBL only governs some 25% of the accommodation of the “growth” population of Cape Town (evidence from the City’s own demographic and economic projections) and the MPBL since 2015 with six amendments has been the cause of so much anxiety among rates payers, residents, and civic organisations. We have asked for the cost of these six amendments. GTAF feels this money would be better spent on service delivery. Rather than endless amendments to the MPBL that target homeowners and their property rights. There is always enough rate payer funds to target the rate payer and never enough for property service delivery.

You can read or download the draft MPBL amendments here. To read the executive summary and the claims from the City please follow this link.

GTAF has prepared our comments you can read and edit our comments. Please fill in the form below and this will send these comments to the City. We need your help to stop the City removing the rights of all its residents and rates payers. Please fill in the form and send your comments.

Municipal Planning By Law Comments

Please find below our comments on the draft MPBL.
As a community-based organization, we are shocked and saddened by the position of the City in it attitude to planning, public participation and support for the rule of law. The City seems to have lost its way in supporting development that is in the public good and forgotten its commitment to creating an inclusive sustainable City. The City seems to focus on the short term needs of developers and short term employment opportunities that this development brings. We enclose a submission by one of our members outlining the outcome of the City’s current stance.

Redlining and Gentrification in Cape Town

Redlining is a discriminatory practice that has been used to limit access to housing and other resources in certain neighborhoods. While it originated in the United States, similar patterns have emerged in other countries, including South Africa.
In Cape Town, established neighborhoods are facing a decline in property values and the displacement of residents due to slumlord activity and high-density, sub-economic housing development. This phenomenon bears striking resemblance to the redlining practices seen in the United States.
While the City of Cape Town may not have explicitly implemented a redlining policy, its densification strategy and lax enforcement of zoning regulations have inadvertently contributed to this situation. Suburbs like Sanddrift, Tygerhof, and Summer Greens have witnessed a proliferation of overcrowded boarding houses owned by slumlords, often linked to organized crime.
These boarding houses are frequently developed illegally, taking advantage of loopholes in the town planning legislation. The City\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s failure to enforce regulations has allowed this practice to flourish, leading to concerns about public safety, property values, and the well-being of residents.
The consequences of redlining and slumlord activity are far-reaching:
Property Value Decline: High-density, substandard housing can negatively impact property values in surrounding neighborhoods.
Displacement of Residents: As living conditions deteriorate and rents increase, long-time residents may be forced to relocate.
Social and Economic Disparity: Redlining and slumlord activity can exacerbate existing social and economic inequalities.
Public Safety Concerns: Overcrowded and poorly maintained housing can contribute to crime and public safety issues.
To address these challenges, the City of Cape Town must take a more proactive approach. This includes:
Enforcing Zoning Regulations: Stricter enforcement of zoning laws can help prevent the development of illegal boarding houses.
Supporting Affordable Housing: The City should invest in affordable housing initiatives that provide quality, accessible housing options.
Community Engagement: Engaging with residents and community organizations can help identify and address local concerns.

Addressing Slumlord Activity: Implementing measures to hold slumlords accountable can deter harmful practices.
If high density development is well-planned and implemented, it can revitalize neighborhoods, attract businesses, and improve local amenities, potentially increasing property values.
Poorly executed high-density projects can lead to overcrowding, strain on infrastructure, and decreased desirability of adjacent properties and neighborhoods, negatively impacting their values.
By taking these steps, Cape Town can work towards creating more equitable and sustainable communities for all its residents instead of impoverishing homeowners.

Comments on MPBL Changes
Page 4 
The following amendment to S4(1) is proposed. S4(1)

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"(1) The City must adopt a process, which includes a meaningful public participation process, for drafting the municipal spatial development framework which complies with the Municipal Systems Act and any other applicable law. For bylaws that can affect property values, this public participation must include a Socio-Economic Impact Assessment (SEIA) according to the guidelines of the Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation.”
Page 4
The following amendment to S4(2)(d) is proposed.

“S4(2)(d) set out the City’s responses to the comments received, publish the comments in anonymized form and indicate which amendments were made in response to valid objections;\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"

Page 13 Single Residential. 
The terms Single should not be removed. The given building limitations should reference district plans and must align with the District Plans and LSDF. The City is legally required to give effect to the IDP and therefore the MSDF and district plans. The City is ignoring the district plans in favor of City wide zoning. 
Place of Instruction should need to be applied for and not given as a right.

Page 15.
The building on a boundary wall must take into account the District plan or LSDF for the area of application. City wide rights can not be correct as it fails to give area context. 
Page 21 (b) Beneficial Owner of Land. This should remain unchanged.

Page 26 Section 7
The following amendment to S7 is proposed.

The City Manager must submit the following to the provincial minister responsible for local government, within 10 days of the Municipal Council adopting the municipal spatial development framework or an amendment:
(a) a written notice of the decision to adopt or amend the municipal spatial development framework;
(b) the adopted or amended municipal spatial development framework;
(c) a copy of the report referred to in section 4(2); and
(d) a further report or statement to the extent required to comply with section 32(1)(b) of the Municipal Systems Act or section 14 of the Land Use Planning Act or any other legislation; and
(e) if the City Manager fails to submit the above within the prescribed timescales, without a just cause, the amended municipal spatial development framework will be deemed as invalid.

Page 31 Section (24) 
It is proposed to address the problem by adding the following subsection to S24:

(4) In respect of each overlay zoning, except a subdivisional area overlay zoning, the City must, after public consultations with affected communities, publish in the Provincial Gazette Provincial Gazette –

(7) If the residents in area submit a petition, signed by 20% of the households, requesting the cancelation of the overlay zone, then the cancellation process as described in subsection (5) must be initiated. All overlays must be in line with District Plans and LSDF.

Page 32 Section (27) 2 
To ensure affected communities are meaningfully engages in the designation of areas in overlay zones, the following ammendments are proposed for 27(2):

(2) The City Manager must give notice in the media, in accordance with section 21 of the Municipal Systems Act, of the City’s intention to review the development management scheme and specify –
(a) to whom comments or suggestions must be submitted for the purpose of the review; and
(b) the due date for comments or suggestions; and
(c) comprehensive socio economic impact assessment reports on the impact of the designation for each area affected; and
(d) times and dates of public meetings one month prior to the closing date of comments in each affected area in which communities be empowered to make informed comments on the designation.

Page 32
Section (28) Zoning Map 
Should include a reference to ensure the zoning map aligns with the district plans and area LSDF

Page 50 Section (66)
It is proposed to add the following to S66:

(1) The applicant must pay a development charge to the City in respect of the provision and installation of bulk engineering services and link engineering services in accordance with a policy adopted by the City.
(2) The City may grant an exemption or rebate from the payment of development charges in accordance with a policy approved by the Municipal Council or in accordance with applicable legislation.
(3) The development charge is subject to annual escalation as provided for in the approved policy.
(4) The procurement of engineering services for which the applicant is responsible will be exempted from preferential procurement policies.

Page 54 Section (69)a
To realize the intention of the section, the following amendment to S69A(4) is proposed:

(4) The basic values and principles governing public administration, in terms of section 195 of the Constitution, apply to the Department with emphasis on the following:
(a) Impartiality means that equal weight must the given to the interests of the applicant and residents that are potentially adversely affected by the application.
(b) Responding to people’s needs means that officials must give existing residents the benefit of the doubt when deciding on public participation.
(c) Transparency means that officials must actively inform residents and community based organizations on opportunities to provide comments, and not merely expect residents to monitor website, using reliable communication channels.

Page 60 Section (82) Notice to a Person
This section must remain as is and not be changed. The City’s proposals give the City a subjective decision as to who’s right may or may not be affected. This must remain objective so that a notice to a person is triggered by the current objective factors.
Added to this section the City must be obliged to notify a person on planning applications.

Page 60 Section (78) 2To offer protection to such residents, the following amendment to S78(2) is proposed:

(2) A person who contravenes subsections (1)(a), or (1)(b) or (1A) is guilty of an offence and upon conviction is liable to the penalties contemplated in sections 133(2) and 133(3) as well as damages incurred by residents adversely affected by the contravention.

Page 65 Section (90) 9
To provide more protection to such residents, the following amendment to S90(9) is proposed:

(9) No person may offer payment of money or other, or any form of threat or intimidation, to others not to object, to submit a notice of no objection or to support the application.

Page 66 Section (91) (1) (b)
To protect the right to petition the following amendment to S91(1)(b) is proposed:

(1)(b) each petitioner must give their full name, physical address and signature or verified email address; (91)

Page 66 Section (92) 2
To uphold the values of transparency, the following amendment to S92(2) is proposed:

(2) An applicant may submit to the City a comprehensive written response to the all comments, representations, objections and requirements, within –(a) 20 days of notification; or (b) an additional period of 7 days, if the City Manager approves an extension before expiry of the first 20 days.
Page 66 Section (91) 1a
To protect the general right to petition the following amendment to S91(1A) is proposed:

(1A) The City Manager may prescribe additional requirements to those in subsection (1) for a specific petition, when there is a just cause for this.

Page 68 Section (93) 3
To support the authority of officials, the following amendment to S92(3) is proposed:

(3) No person may interfere with an authorized official who is conducting an inspection contemplated in subsection (1). Any person that without just cause interferes with the inspection by an authorized official is guilty of an offence and upon conviction is liable to the penalties contemplated in sections 133(2) and 133(3).
Page 74 Section (3)

This appeal period must be increased to 60 days. This to allow residents time to formulate an effective appeal. 
Page 77 Notice to a person
It is not possible for a person to know if they will need to be on the City’s mail database. This section removes any responsibility from the part of the City to notify a person of an application that might affect the rights of a person. This section also assumes that a person is literate, computer literate and has an access to a device that uses e-mail. It also assumes that a person has an e-mail address. In fact, this section demands that in order to receive a notice a person must have an e-mail address. 
The City has a legal obligation to ensure that all of its services are available to those who are not literate and also vulnerable. To demand access to an e-mail address in order to receive a notice excludes the illiterate and the vulnerable, particularly the aged who are deemed vulnerable and who in many cases are not computer literate. 
This City is responsible to create and encourage public participation and create an environment for public participation to take place. This section places the responsibility on the person to engage with the City. It should ensure that the City engages with the person. 
We would add to this section that where a notice to a person is required properties that abut the application or are directed effected by an application should receive written notice. This should be hand delivered and include a link to the application. This would allow community members to help vulnerable people in the area. 
The City must also be obliged to notify all Rate Payer and Community based organizations.

Page 79 (Section 115) Establishment of the Municipal Planning Tribunal (MPT)
The City must be obliged to appoint residents to the MPT to give the local context as required by the IDP, MSDF and the District Plans.

Page 82 (Section 120) 
Every person must have the right to an oral submission. To do this at the discretion of the Chairperson ignores that City’s legal obligation to create a culture of public participation. 
A person wishing to give an oral submission must have a 30-day period from receipt of the MPT report to prepare for the oral submission.

Page 89 (Administrative Penalty)
The City must be obliged to allow residents who rights have been affected to receive the administrative penalty. To allow these penalties to be paid to the City act against the City’s obligations to not condone illegal acts. 
The City cannot benefit from admi penalties as this would be deemed as monetizing an illegal act. 
The following amendments to S135f(2) are recommended:

Page 97 Section 135F
(2) (b) the earliest date of the City’s decision to impound; 
(2) (f) the identity of the investigator and any other person authorized under section 135(3)(a) to execute the impoundment; 
(7) Obstructing or preventing an impoundment, or attempting to do so, is an offence and upon conviction is liable to the penalties contemplated in sections 133(2) and 133(3).

Page 100 
141(1)To offer protection to such residents, the following amendment to S141(1) is proposed:

(1) The City is not liable for any loss sustained by or damage caused to any person as a result of any act or omission relating to the performance of any duty or the exercise of any power under this By-Law, unless fraud or corruption or maladministration is proven or proof is submitted that objections pointing out potential damages that would be caused by the decision were not meaningfully addressed.
Page 127 Table of Zonings
The city must link zoning to District Plans. The City is legally obliged to give effect to the IDP and by default the lower-level plans that make up the IDP. The City is also obliged to integrate all policies. The zoning tables in the MPBL do not allow for local context that is required by the IDP and district plans. As such we believe that zoning should be aligned with local district plans and LSDF. 
SR1 should remain. 
Filming, Childcare, affordable flats and supplementary dwelling units should not be a right and must be subject to an application.

Page 128
1. The consent use for \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"boarding house\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" should be removed from this zoning.

2. A mechanism must be introduced through which residents that are negatively affected by the planning decisions of city officials, can claim damages from the city, if it can be provided that officials failed to meaningfully consider objections by residents.

Page 133 Section (93)
The objection can be resolved by amending S33(2) as follows:

(2) Upon conviction of an offence in this By-Law a person is liable to a fine or imprisonment not exceeding 20 years or to both a fine and such imprisonment as well as damages incurred by residents adversely affected by the offense.

You can add formatting using markdown syntax - read more

BCC yourself

35 signatures

Greater Table View Action Forum

Municipal Planning by Law Review.

Municipal Planning By Law Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply