Read the CBCRA’s full comment on the proposed amendments to the MPBL so that you may better understand our deep concerns regarding these draconian steps by the City to prejudice your property rights.
** Find easy print and submit document links and the petition at the end of this page:
CONCERNS
• The total removal of 3rd-party objections to new developments
• Additional restrictions on specific areas
• Reduced public participation without public consultation
• Temporary land use deviations, such as converting residential
properties into commercial spaces
• Increase to allowable building heights
• No public notice for small-scale developments
• Removal of 10m height restriction for Camps Bay & Bakoven
COMMENTS TO THE AMENDMENTS TO THE MUNICIPAL PLANNING BYLAW (MPBL) 2024
The City administration has, for more than 2 decades now, attempted to minimise public participation and impose its own version of planning law on the property-owners of Cape Town.
This despite the ongoing efforts of, amongst others, the Camps Bay & Clifton Ratepayers Association (CBCRA), other civic and ratepayer groupings and many individuals, to engage positively with both the planning officials and the politicians of the City.
The CBCRA, in particular, has responded to hundreds of applications over the years and dutifully conformed with all the requirements of an interested and affected party - and a good citizen.
This has been almost to no avail, as the planners and Municipal Planning Tribunal (MPT) generally ignore all of its representations, with almost standard dismissal arguments incorporated into planning reports, which the MPT simply approve.
Even well-motivated and sound legal opinion is brushed off, often by professional planners, who should know better than to give legal advice to City processes.
In one notable case, the CBCRA presented a detailed traffic assessment, by a respected professional engineer, to refute many claims made by an applicant. This comprehensive report was accepted onto the agenda by the MPT at the appointed meeting but not a single member of the Tribunal bothered to read it, or refer to it. Needless to say - and within 30 minutes of deliberation - the application was approved and tens of thousands of rands worth of detailed, well-reasoned investigation consigned, unread, to the waste bin!
In the current attempt to amend the MPBL, the City has clearly indicated that public participation needs to be curtailed to the absolute minimum possible.
An issue that has irked both planners and politicians over the years, restrictive title deed conditions (viewed by all SA courts, including the Concourt, as praedial servitutal rights in property), are also to be dealt with dismissively. So much for the Constitution!
South Africa is a constitutional democracy and its citizenry should be encouraged to actively participate in matters that affect them. The proposed amendments are designed to discourage – even prevent – public participation for the purposes of allowing a bureaucracy the unfettered opportunity to engage in its own, often self-serving, actions and policies.
With the proposed amendments, the City is attempting to use a bylaw to circumvent statutes contained in national legislation (of the National Building Act and the Spatial Planning & Land Use management Act). National legislation obviously stands before local bylaws.
In essence, a City planner will now decide whether an application materially affects a property owner and whether it is deemed necessary to inform that owner of a pending application in the first instance. So much for property rights and public participation!
It is very important to contextualise the planning process: A Zoning scheme for an area exists for those who live and own property there. It is not a plaything for officials and politicians to manipulate for their benefit. The City’s function is to manage the area for the owners and residents, not special interest- or lobby groups, which mostly have a profit motive. The City is actually the manager, not the owner, of the city and is meant to act for the benefit of the residents and owners of property, who are, in a sense, the City’s clients.
Clearly, the proposed amendments to the MPBL do not benefit ratepayers and property owners.
Further, it is proposed that certain sections are back-dated. This can only mean that the City wishes to “assist” a developer(s) with a troublesome application!
Another problematic proposal is for an official to decide whether an amended application needs to be re-advertised. The CBCRA has seen too many acts of deceit over the years to ever believe that this could be a good idea.
In conclusion, the current proposed amendments should be scrapped and, if necessary, be reworked by delegates who are representative of all role-players in the city.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
From the Friends of Constantia Valley Greenbelts Facebook, which we support:
The proposed Municipal Planning By-Law amendments by CoCT will remove environmental protections for greenbelts & open spaces & vastly alter residential rights!
The deadline for submitting comments is FRIDAY 25th OCTOBER.
Please see below for more information and instructions on now to object:
Please see below for more information and instructions on now to object:
*Three urgent & critical steps to preserve environmental protections & residential rights across Cape Town* 
Email objections by *THIS FRIDAY 25th OCT* to: lums@capetown.gov.za
*Please share far and wide.*If you are unclear on the issues and threats to our greenbelts, public open spaces & suburbs, please read the executive summary here: https://bit.ly/FoCVGBSummary
JOIN the *Constantia Matters* WhatsApp Community (Broadcast Only) to be informed in future: https://bit.ly/40g69OnBe proactive, Be an involved citizen - *Not objecting means these amendments WILL BECOME LAW!*
No comments:
Post a Comment