Proposed changes to the Municipal Planning By-law have drawn criticism from civic associations and residents who say they give the City more power at their expense.

The by-law regulating development and land use in Cape Town came into effect on July 1, 2015.

The City says the proposed amendments respond to advancements in spatial planning and give effect to policies and strategies adopted by the city council since the by-law was last reviewed in 2019.

The City published a draft of the revised by-law in July giving the public two months to comment, but then pushed the deadline back to Friday, October 25.

The revised by-law has been slammed by the Collective Ratepayers’ Association of the City of Cape Town (CRA), which says it places developers’ commercial interests over residents’ rights to property, health, and safety.

The City has been holding public meetings to discuss the amendments with the last one taking place in Mitchell’s Plain tomorrow Tuesday, October 22.

Peter Feasey, chairman of the Fish Hoek Valley Ratepayers’ and Residents’ Association (FHVRRA), said most of the residential plots in Fish Hoek were zoned Single Residential 1 (SR1).

The SR1 zone provides for predominantly single-family houses and additional use rights in low-to-medium density residential neighbourhoods, whether these incorporate small or large plots.

Additional use rights which may be exercised by the occupant of a property are home occupation, bed and breakfast establishment and home child care.

Mr Feasey said that in terms of the new draft regulations, the neighbours of any property zoned SR1 would be able to build three dwellings of three storeys each, similar to the building on the right of the picture accompanying this story but minus the top beige floor.

The picture, he said, was of two adjoining properties in Second Avenue, Fish Hoek, zoned General Residential 2 (GR2).

On the right, he said, was a four-storey section of 10 dwellings built in accordance with existing regulations. On the left, one of the many similar houses in the street.

He said the gap between the buildings blocked the view of the cottage and was an intrusion on privacy.

“FHVRRA exco would not like to see our area develop in this fashion, so we will oppose the one-size-fits-all regulations by applying for a local area overlay that prevents it,” he said.

He urged the community to comment on the proposed regulations at www.capetown.gov.za/haveyoursay.

Tracey Davies, deputy chairperson of the Constantia Ratepayers’ and Residents’ Association, believes the amended by-law will be a way for the City to give itself more power while further muting residents’ voices.

“Public participation is not just about telling people what you’re going to do, it’s about getting their feedback and incorporating that feedback into what happens next.”

Civic groups and members of the public “spent enormous amounts of time and effort commenting on plans and documents and laws only to be ignored”, she said, adding, “This has created a huge amount of friction between residents and the City.”

She asked whether the City had commissioned a constitutional review of the by-law to ensure that it did not infringe on residents’ rights to just administrative action and to property.

Tijgerhof Residents’ Association chairman Garron Gsell said seizing moveable property used for illegal building work was a reasonable deterrent, in theory, but there was no public faith in the enforcement of existing by-laws.

Milnerton Central Residents’ Association chairman Bouwe van der Eems said the preamble to the amendments set out to achieve “all kinds of noble objectives”, but there was no proof that the legislative changes, which would impact human rights, would achieve those objectives. He reiterated the CRA’s call for a socio-economic impact assessment.

March Turnbull, the chairperson of the Newlands Residents’ Association and general manager of the Newlands City Improvement District, said the City could not deny that its public participation process was a “tick box” exercise.

“I think a public participation of this importance should be independently mediated… I think there should be someone who is mediating this public participation who doesn’t just speak for the City, and it’s not poacher and gamekeeper on the same side.”

The amendment that identifies 194 residential areas where property owners will be able to build eight to 12 “affordable rental flats” on their residential plots without needing to seek land-use approval from the municipality drew flak for disproportionately allocating such leeway in previously disadvantaged areas that are already densely populated while excluding affluent areas with larger property sizes and proximity to central business areas.

At an online meeting, Prof Ivan Turok, who holds the research chair in city-region economies in the department of economics and finance and the Centre for Development Support at the University of the Free State, said that by international standards, Cape Town was a very low-density city, and he stressed the need to densify.

“Densification is really important for efficiency, for reducing traffic congestion, for improving the viability of public transport and so on. A key point that some residents haven’t recognised: it’s already happening in many of our townships. We have to catch up with the infrastructure to ensure that it doesn’t cause massive sewage, water and other problems.

“There are undoubtedly some trade-offs, and the character of many of our neighbourhoods will change gradually, slowly over time. In many cases, it will be an improvement. High-quality apartments will be an improvement on what already exists, modern buildings rather than old, run-down buildings. But we do need to increase the infrastructure and manage the process in various ways.

“My question is why not make the whole city subject to the overlay and the deregulation of planning, so that the well-located suburbs, which are the most vociferous, are not also included in this change in policy? These places are often better located than our townships. These places need and deserve to be densified. That would be fairer than targeting just the 194 areas.”

Mayoral committee member for spatial planning and environment Eddie Andrews said the cost per square metre in areas like Rondebosch and Constantia prevented the private sector from meeting the objectives of delivering affordable housing opportunities. However, those areas were included in the City’s densification approach.

The City had looked at where development was already happening unlawfully and had considered recommendations from tabled reports from all 22 sub-councils to identify the 194 areas, he said.

#fish-hoek-valley-ratepayers-and-residents-association

Planning by-law changes draw flak