Cape Town's Municipal Planning Tribunal (MPT), a powerful 23-member body responsible for deciding billions of rand worth of development annually, has been accused of operating without transparency. The MPT, which holds significant sway over development decisions worth billions of rand annually, has been accused of operating without transparency, specifically by quietly writing itself free of term limits, withholding a legal opinion ratepayers paid for, and leaving a forged official document unexplained. The MPT, which rules on rezonings, subdivisions, and the removal of restrictive title deed conditions, has reportedly written itself free of term limits, withheld a ratepayer-funded legal opinion, and left a forged official document unexplained. Daily Maverick conducted a three-month investigation into the tribunal's operations, uncovering these alleged irregularities. This body plays a critical role in shaping the city's development landscape, from Constantia to Blauwberg, and its decisions impact numerous projects, including significant rezonings. The investigation by Daily Maverick spanned over three months, delving into the various facets of the MPT's conduct and decision-making processes.
Term Limits Circumvented
National law, specifically the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act (Spluma), stipulates that members of a municipal planning tribunal may serve a maximum of five years, with the possibility of one renewal, totaling ten years. This national legislation sets a clear framework for the tenure of individuals serving on such critical planning bodies. David Daniels, the chair of Cape Town’s Municipal Planning Tribunal (MPT), reached this ten-year term limit on June 30, 2025. This date marked the culmination of his permitted service under the national guidelines.
Four days before Daniels' term was set to conclude, the Cape Town municipal council passed an amendment to its planning by-law. This amendment, specifically affecting section 116, removed references to the national ten-year limit. Crucially, it also introduced a provision allowing the council to reappoint members indefinitely, provided there is a break of at least one month between terms. The city justified this change by stating that the national law constituted an "overreach" into municipal authority. This assertion suggested that the city viewed the national term limits as an undue imposition on its local governance powers, arguing that Spluma's provisions on tenure were infringing upon municipal authority.
Pierre Smit was named the incoming chair, with his appointment effective from July 1. This change in leadership appeared to align with the impending conclusion of Daniels' term. However, four months later, David Daniels was reinstated for a third term as chair. This reinstatement, following the by-law amendment and a brief hiatus, allowed him to continue leading the tribunal despite having exceeded the national term limits. Records indicate that most of the tribunal’s 23 members have already served more than ten years, raising questions about the consistent application of term limits across the body. The Municipal Planning Tribunal (MPT) is a powerful body made up of these 23 members, whose long tenure has become a point of contention.
Information Withheld and Documents Questioned
A Constantia ratepayer's request for information regarding the professional qualifications and affiliations of Municipal Planning Tribunal (MPT) members received a response from the city stating that such details are not maintained on record. This response left the ratepayer without the requested information regarding the background of the individuals making key planning decisions, noting a lack of transparency regarding the credentials of MPT members. Separately, Tracey Davies, also a Constantia ratepayer, has lodged objections to approximately a dozen subdivision applications. Her arguments against these applications have relied on a legal opinion from a single, unnamed senior counsel, which ratepayers funded. This opinion was commissioned to provide a strong legal basis for her objections.
The tribunal reportedly declined to provide this legal opinion for over a year. The opinion itself contends that the city’s by-law supersedes the national Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act (Spluma) because of powers vested directly under the Constitution. This legal argument posits that the city's local legislation holds precedence over national planning law in certain contexts, a claim that has significant implications for urban development governance and the interpretation of legislative authority. In mid-2024, an official within the deputy mayor’s office sent an email to colleagues, alleging that an engineering certificate had been forged. The deputy mayor subsequently confirmed the forgery, stating the engineer’s details and signature "appeared to have been used fraudulently." This incident notes serious concerns about the authenticity of documents submitted in support of development applications, particularly an engineering certificate which was found to have been used fraudulently.
Questionable Rulings and Penalties
In 2020, the Municipal Planning Tribunal (MPT) approved the rezoning of the River Club site in Observatory for Amazon's African headquarters. This decision was made despite 180 formal objections and without incorporating concerns raised by the city’s heritage and environmental departments. The approval, in the face of significant opposition and expert departmental concerns, drew considerable scrutiny, particularly given the large number of formal objections. Elsewhere in Cape Town, approximately 40,000 ratepayers across eight Blaauwberg suburbs have organized to protest what they describe as the council’s inaction regarding illegal buildings in their area. This widespread community action in Blaauwberg shows a broader frustration with perceived enforcement failures, with residents actively campaigning against unauthorized structures.
The tribunal has also been involved in cases of unpermitted expansion. A Milnerton Nissan dealership operated on neighbouring properties without authorization for more than seven years. This prolonged unauthorized expansion was described by a city report as "wilful and grossly negligent," indicating a severe breach of planning regulations. Despite the maximum available fine for the dealership's expansion exceeding R15 million, the tribunal recommended a penalty of R700,000. This significantly reduced fine, compared to the potential maximum, raised questions about the tribunal's punitive measures and the consistency of its enforcement. An earlier administrative penalty of R63,000 against the Milnerton Nissan dealership had been settled, but the R700,000 fine was "yet to be paid," according to a city spokesperson, indicating ongoing issues with compliance and enforcement.
Ratepayer and Resident Concerns
Residents have voiced allegations that the DA-led City of Cape Town is manipulating the law in favour of developers. This sentiment is partly fueled by instances such as a January 2021 High Court order for the city to seek a demolition order for a building on 94 Daniell Road if a land-use application was refused. The application was subsequently refused that same year, yet the building remained standing and occupied five years later. This continuing occupation of a property despite a High Court order and a refused application serves as a tangible example for residents of perceived lax enforcement, specifically regarding the property at 94 Daniell Road. Observers have cited a previous city statement describing national planning law as an "overreach" into municipal authority as contributing to concerns about local governance and the potential for selective application of rules. The broader context of these issues suggests a growing lack of trust among some segments of the population regarding the impartiality and effectiveness of the city's planning authorities, particularly in how they manage development and enforce regulations.
