TRACEY DAVIES: Troubling developments in the Mother City

The DA prides itself on its administration of the Western Cape, touting it as an example of how the whole country could function should the party ever get the chance to govern. The City of Cape Town is the jewel in the Western Cape crown, with a reputation — in the middle-class suburbs at least — for largely pothole-free streets, trimmed verges, timely refuse collection and rapid responses to water and power outages.

But in recent months a series of public statements by a group of more than 35 residents’ associations — the Collective Ratepayers’ Association (CRA) — has shown that all is not well in the Mother City.

Associations from a surprisingly diverse range of suburbs — including Milnerton, Camps Bay, Tijgerhof, Noordhoek, Summer Greens, Table View, Maitland, Plumstead, Wynberg, Constantia, Durbanville, Sea Point, Phoenix, Green Point, the city bowl, Observatory and Newlands — are up in arms over the council’s approach to land use planning (how it deals with development). Long-held frustrations appear to have catalysed a city-wide revolt against proposed amendments to the municipal planning bylaw.

The dispute centres on densification. The DA’s powerful PR machine has been hard at work for several years, promoting densification as the answer to managing Cape Town’s growing population, spatial divisions and infrastructure constraints. It argues that the city must become more “compact” and densely populated to optimise economic opportunities and integrate citizens.

Sounds good, and most residents appear to accept that densification is necessary. But the CRA argues that the council’s densification agenda is not creating a more sustainable, equitable city. Instead, planning laws are being implemented to benefit property developers and boost the council’s finances, while residents’ rights and input are ignored and spatial injustice is entrenched. 

The bylaw amendments, for example, identify a swathe of less affluent suburbs where property owners can build up to 12 “affordable rental flats” without planning permission and without consulting neighbours.

Suburbs such as Milnerton accuse city planners of using densification as a cover to regularise existing unlawful development in areas which suffer from a proliferation of illegal boarding houses and backyard dwellings. They argue that the council’s failure to control these is eroding property values and diminishing the quality of public space.

Meanwhile, more affluent suburbs are excluded from the affordable rental unit provision. But a previous change to the bylaw gives property owners the right to build second and third dwellings on single residential properties, also without planning permission or public consultation.

This has led to a dramatic increase in the development of luxury, high-density “secure estate living” complexes (à la Joburg) in prime areas. They generate huge profits for developers and increase revenue for the council through increased rates and the development charges levied for every approval.

But residents’ associations argue that they infringe on the rights of existing property owners, strain inadequate infrastructure, erode the unique character of neighbourhoods and further concentrate wealth in affluent suburbs without addressing the city’s considerable housing backlog.

Administrative justice lies at the heart of the CRA’s complaint. In a constitutional democracy, decision-making by authorities must be procedurally fair and legislative processes must meaningfully incorporate inputs from affected citizens.

The CRA has criticised the bylaw amendment process, accusing council officials of dismissing public concerns and treating public participation as a tick-box exercise undertaken without any intention to change the outcome.

The CRA has also flagged problematic conflicts of interest: the council acts as primary decision-maker on all development applications, benefits financially from approving them and decides appeals against those decisions — members of the mayor’s planning appeals advisory panel are all DA councillors. Aggrieved residents feel the only way to get a fair outcome is to litigate, an option unavailable to most. 

Residents say planning officials and the mayor greenlight every development that claims to advance the densification agenda, regardless of its impact on existing residents or the number or substance of objections. 

A recent article in community newspaper Tabletalk refers to the approval of a controversial housing development, despite 384 objections from residents of Table View and Milnerton.

The outcome of the bylaw amendment process will reveal much about whether the city of Cape Town, and by extension the DA, cares about what residents think and is serious about its constitutional obligation to ensure that it acts in a manner that is procedurally fair.

Will the council listen to residents’ concerns and reflect the outcomes of the public participation process in the new bylaw? Or will it impose a predetermined outcome on an infuriated populace?

Davies is director of Just Share