From: Chris Hudson [mailto:chudson@iafrica.com]
Sent: 21 August 2013 12:55 PM
To: Garreth Bloor
Cc: Anne Murphy; Rodney Cronwright; Neil van der Spuy; Jeremy & Hazel Hele; Chris Everett; Richard B Timms; Keith & Daphne Mackie; Dave Cowley; Ryan Buda; Len Swimmer; Marga Haywood; Taki Amira
Subject: Re: FW: Systems of Delegations
Dear Councillor Bloor
Thank you for your letter concerning the proposed amendment to the System of Delegations. It has so much interesting content which I consider worth a response that I have taken the liberty of putting my thoughts immediately beneath the relevant sections in your letter, so that your remarks and my reactions to them can be easily compared. This document is attached.
Your letter was kindly addressed to myself but I feel sure that I received it in my capacity as a member of either or both the Hout Bay Heritage Trust and the Hout Bay Residents' & Ratepayers' Association. Accordingly I am copying my reply to persons in those two organisations. However, I stress that the views I have expressed are mine and not those of either the Trust or the Association. I am also sending this email to my local councillor and our sub-council chairman so that they are aware of what one of their noisy constituents is up to.
Kind regards
Christopher Hudson
Cllr Bloor's letter:
21/08/2013
Dear
Civic Leaders,
Dear Councillor Bloor
As mentioned in my accompanying email, set out below please find
my responses to certain of the points made yourself in this letter.
The
City of Cape Town is in the process of reviewing the system of delegations
pertaining to its Economic, Environmental and Spatial Planning (EESP)
Portfolio. This forms part of an overall broader assessment of the City’s
planning systems. These democratic processes are still unfolding and your input
and views are critically important.
In
light of the reporting on the matter that led to some confusion - together the
City’s principle of communicating openly with the citizens of Cape Town - we
would like to clarify a few matters relating to the System of Delegated
Authority.
At the outset, and
contrary to a number of media reports, the current delegations review remains
as part of a proposal that has not yet been approved by Council or even
considered by the Council.
The
review of the delegations system comes after engagement with internal
structures, which has included consideration of sentiments expressed by various
outside bodies, such as civic associations.
A previous report on this matter to the Mayoral
Committee was not put to Council so as to allow for more discussion and
refinement of the proposals. This remark is correct
in a very narrow sense but disguises the fact that a formal paper entitled “Proposed Amendment to System of
Delegations for Economic, Environmental and Spatial Planning (EESP) matters”,
numbered C69290513, was
included in the papers circulated for the council meeting on 29 May 2013 and
recorded on the agenda for that meeting.
Had it not been for vigorous
objections by councillors just prior to the meeting, this item would have been
put to the Council. With the
greatest respect, if the intention of your sentence above was to suggest that
the Mayoral Committee by itself alone decided not to put this proposal before
Council, it is just not true. I have it
on good authority that for once the DA councillors acted ethically and not
expediently, stood up to their political superiors and forced the removal of
this offensive and ill-considered proposal from being debated in Council.
Over
two months have passed and during this time significant changes have been made
to the proposals. We are delighted that Mayco has
on this occassion taken heed of what its constituents think.
This
review of the system of delegations was necessary in terms of Section 59 (1) of
the Municipal Systems Act, 32 of 2000 which necessitates that the system must “enable
maximum administrative and operational efficiency in the affairs of Council”. Sec. 59 (1) of the Municipal Systems Act does indeed
require that “a municipal council must develop
a system of delegation that will maximise administrative and operational
efficiency” BUT it
goes on “and provide for adequate checks
and balances”. The proposed altered delegations system in C69290513 did anything but “provide for adequate checks and
balances”.
Reviews
of this nature are regular and required by law in order to ensure that Council
processes ensure effective public input in planning matters, while ensuring
that responsible and sustainable development can be achieved. There is nothing in Act 32 of 2000 which requires a
review of the delegations system regularly. Sec. 59 (2) merely requires that “A
delegation or instruction in terms of subsection (1) must
be reviewed when a new council is elected” – that is a very different imperative.
This
review is in line with the City of Cape Town’s Integrated Development Plan,
which commits the City to a planning regime that enhances and improves service
delivery. The fear of local civic organisations,
well-founded on experience in dealing with this City in recent years,
unfortunately, is that when a local politician talks about “enhancing and
improving service delivery”, what he or she means is making it easier for
developers to get around the checks and balances preventing them getting on
with their projects to destroy the elements that make Cape Town one of the most
envied cities in the world. I’m sure you
don’t fall into that category but the use of such a phrase, without
qualification, raises all sorts of spectres in a community subjected to wilful
political expediency in decision-making in the past.
At
all times we seek to balance the prerequisite for local level engagement
regarding planning decisions with the need for responsible development that
helps create jobs. The mayor’s battle cry “Red
carpet instead of red tape” is as a red rag to a bull for persons who really care for this beautiful part of
the world. Every thinking person here
appreciates the enormous pressures that uncontrolled internal immigration is
placing on the City’s resources but this misguided view that unbridled
development equals economic prosperity for Cape Town, without thinking through
the longterm implications, is tantamount to throwing the baby out with the
bathwater.
The
process of formal public participation is not under review or up for debate.
The review mainly concerns the decision-making element relating to land use
planning functions.
Public
participation processes will continue as is formally prescribed by law and Ward
Councillors will continue to be informed of applications, as is the current
practice. The City has always considered this a valuable and essential part of
the process. I’m sure that what I am now going to
say will further infuriate you but for you to think that assuring the community
that “Ward Councillors will continue to be informed of applications” will
console us, is wishful thinking. We are
well aware that councillors are beholden to their political masters/mistresses
for their daily bread and that there are precious few of them who have the
private means to enable them to cross their political superiors by standing up
for what they and their constituents believe in. Take the recent Philippi Horticultural Area
vote in Council as a perfect example: 127 DA councillors For, despite intense
lobbying by their wards against this unthinking rape of one of Cape Town’s
agricultural jewels and scarce pure water resources.
Despite
reporting that suggested otherwise, neither the Executive Mayor nor any other
single individual will be making all the decisions on planning matters. This
was never an option and never will be. Furthermore, whatever structure of
Council makes a planning decision, full auditable records are always kept to
further enhance transparency. Unfortunately this
assurance concerning auditable records is not reassuring. By the time anyone has a need to ask for
sight of such a record, the deed that is the subject of the record concerned
has been done. The saying about Bolting Horses and Stable Doors comes to
mind. What the Cape Town community is
asking for is full compliance with the Constitutional imperative [I refer you
to Sec. 152 (1) (e) of the Constitution] that NO decision that affects its
citizens is taken without full public participation in the decision-making
process AND real weight, not just lip-service, being given to the public’s
input; I’m sure you will appreciate that land use management matters are a
particularly sensitive matter to local communities.
Further
discussion has led to the proposal that Subcouncils are to decide on all
policy-compliant applications should any public objections be lodged when an
objection has been received. When there is no objection from the community and
a matter is policy-compliant, unnecessary delays will be avoided. The retention of the present system of delegations to
sub-councils, which works well, is sensible.
Delays in the consideration of land use planning applications do not
occur in the sub-council area: there are strict timetables to which these
bodies have to adhere in these matters; I’m sure you are well aware that
planning applications languish in one or another City department for over a
year on occasion.
The
City’s Spatial Planning, Environment and Land Use Management Committee will
consider all larger applications that trigger environmental or traffic impact
assessments. This proposed move is a retrograde
step. A planning application which
triggers, say, a TIA, may also have significant local impacts of which the
distant SPELUM committee may not be readily aware. ALL applications should first be subjected to
scrutiny at sub-council level.
There is a FUNDAMENTAL error in what you have said in the last
two paragraphs. They both infer that Mayco
has completed a review of what it tried to get passed in May and as a result
the City has decided on a new set of proposals on this EESP Delegations
matter. If I am correct in my inference,
the public participation which the mayor promised in her article on 12 August
is sadly lacking. Mind you, in that
article the mayor stated “We are compelled in law to do public participation”
so it is crystal clear that she doesn’t willingly relish the idea of such
interaction and so will only undertake it when compelled by law so to
do.
In
addition, the law still allows for appeal to the relevant body in Council,
regardless of which structure took the decision, thus allowing the opportunity
for decisions to be reviewed where necessary. This means all decisions can be
appealed, including that of the Mayoral Committee. Please
advise the correct process for appealing a decision of the Mayoral Committee.
These
checks and balances are fundamental to protecting the rights of all interested
parties.
Notwithstanding
the above at this stage of discussions, no final decision has been taken on the
reviewed system and it is yet to be formally considered by Council. To date all
that has taken place is debate and consideration of the merits of various
models that will help to ensure administrative and operational efficiency,
which is in line with democratic and consultative principles. When will the public participation in consideration of
these models take place, please?
A
primary driver of reviewing the delegations was to streamline accountability
within the City by officials reporting to your elected representatives – not to
vest power in any single person but rather to centre responsibility in the
executive civil servant appointed to oversee the planning departments. The problem is that the discredited proposals did just
that – they vested power in a single person.
A
single point of responsibility and accountability (not decision-making) of the
previous functionally fragmented delegations to individual departments is now
proposed - to ensure sustainable and integrated triple bottom-line
(environmental, social and economic sustainability) decision-making.
Robust
debate is a necessary part of reaching the best possible and most efficient
decision-making system with the necessary transparency and accountability to
the people of Cape Town. There is no need for any individual or grouping to
feel that local input into planning decisions is being done away with, when in
fact this will always be protected. Good news.
Please
do not hesitate to get in touch with my office should you have any further
questions on this matter.
Your
role as civil society is deeply valued, thus please use this and other open
channels of communication to ensure Cape Town advances as a world class city
for its residents. Thank you for this
invitation. It is in this spirit that I
have written in response and hope that you will view it as constructive comment
from a very concerned citizen.
Christopher
John Hudson
“Grantchester”, 9 Campbell Road. Hout
Bay
Sincerely
Councillor Bloor
No comments:
Post a Comment