RIGHT OF REPLY: Cape Town Deputy Mayor Eddie Andrews’ response to Daily Maverick’s Rubber-Stamped series
Questions from Daily Maverick regarding data analysis of Municipal Planning Tribunal (MPT) decisions and response from Eddie Andrews, the City’s Deputy Mayor and Mayoral Committee Member for Spatial Planning and Environment.
Right of Reply: Cape Town Deputy Mayor Eddie Andrews' Response to Daily Maverick's Rubber-Stamped Series
Daily Maverick's recent analysis of Municipal Planning Tribunal (MPT) decisions has sparked debate about the independence of the MPT. Deputy Mayor Eddie Andrews has responded to the findings, emphasizing the importance of understanding the decision-making processes involved.
Andrews begins by acknowledging that the City employs around 60 professional planners to assess development and land use applications. These assessments are guided by various policies and frameworks, including the Municipal Planning By-law and the Development Management Scheme. Andrews notes that the planners' recommendations to the MPT are based on law and policy, which is why it would be logical for most MPT decisions to correlate with case officer recommendations.
He then clarifies that the MPT is not an appeal body, but rather the final decision-maker after considering the case officer's recommendation and supporting evidence. Andrews stresses that a low level of deviation from the case officer's recommendation is entirely consistent with a competent administration, as the professional assessment is typically sound in most cases.
Andrews further explains that the MPT's independence is measured by its willingness to change or reject a recommendation when there is a proper reason to do so. He argues that a low level of deviation does not indicate dysfunction or capture, but rather demonstrates that the MPT is functioning as intended, applying the legal and policy criteria in each case.
Finally, Andrews addresses the City's concern about reconciling the absence of recorded material deviations with the MPT's independence contemplated in sections 36(2) and 37(1) of the SPLUMA Act. He reiterates the response provided in previous answers, maintaining that the MPT's independence is measured by its ability to fully consider each matter and change or reject a recommendation when warranted, rather than by the frequency of disagreements with officials.
Written by urgent.news from Daily Maverick's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
