CAPE TOWN — A data-centre in King Air Industria, a service station in Durbanville, a Table View development on Arnold and Gie Roads, and the Flandorp/Millview development — these are just some of the contentious planning decisions CAPEXIT wants the Public Protector to scrutinise.

The party has lodged an official complaint with the Public Protector calling for an independent investigation into the City of Cape Town’s Municipal Planning Tribunal (MPT), its amended appointment and reappointment provisions, and concerns about planning decisions affecting communities across the city.

The complaint asks the Public Protector to examine whether the City has acted lawfully, transparently and in the public interest.

It raises questions about the 2025 amendments to the City’s Municipal Planning By-law, the tenure of tribunal members, the consideration of public objections, and the City’s handling of selected development and enforcement matters.

ALSO READ: Fuel station in Durbanville appealed on legal and constitutional grounds

Councillor Karl Bodin of CAPEXIT says, “Cape Town residents deserve a planning system they can trust. When decisions affect their homes, neighbourhoods, property rights and environment, they have every right to expect a fair process and proper accountability.”

“We have lodged this complaint because serious questions need answers. The City cannot expect residents to accept controversial decisions without scrutiny, particularly when the rules governing the tribunal itself have been amended.”

“We are asking the Public Protector to examine the evidence, obtain the relevant records and establish whether the City has complied with the law. If the City has acted properly, it should welcome that scrutiny. If maladministration or unlawful conduct has occurred, there must be consequences.”

A central issue in the complaint is the City’s 2025 amendment to its Municipal Planning By-law, including provisions dealing with the terms of office and reappointment of MPT members. Tribunal members’ term is now no longer limited.

Contentious developments flagged

The party wants the legality of these provisions assessed against the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act (SPLUMA), including the statutory framework governing tribunal membership and terms of service.

The complaint raises questions about how objections in the above-said developments were considered, how decisions are justified and whether municipal procedures adequately protect the interests of affected residents.

ALSO READ: City approves data centre plan at King David Country Club

He says it is not about development for the sake of opposition, but rather whether development decisions are lawful, properly motivated and fair to the people who must live with their consequences.

“Residents should not have to wonder whether their objections have been meaningfully considered, whether the applicable rules are being followed, or whether the system gives sufficient weight to the public interest. When concerns arise, the answer cannot simply be that the tribunal has made its decision and everyone must move on. Public institutions must be able to explain and defend their decisions.”

The party recognises that a tribunal agreeing with municipal planning officials does not, on its own, prove bias or wrongdoing. The complaint seeks an independent assessment of the relevant records, procedures and legal questions rather than treating allegations as established facts.

Residents must not be left out of the process

Bodin said the issue extends beyond individual developments. It concerns public confidence in the City’s planning system and the accountability of those entrusted with decisions that shape Cape Town’s future.

“Residents invest in their properties, support local businesses and contribute through municipal rates and charges. They should not be expected to carry the consequences of planning decisions without a transparent process and meaningful opportunities to raise concerns.”

The complaint asks the Public Protector to consider the matters falling within its jurisdiction, examine relevant municipal and Council records, assess the legal basis for the by-law amendments and appointment decisions, and determine whether further investigation or remedial action is warranted.

“We are seeking answers, not a predetermined verdict. Any findings must follow a proper investigation and consideration of the evidence. Residents pay their rates. They live with the consequences. They deserve answers.”