NRA – De Waterkant Ratepayers Association*

Please note: This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity and readability, including the removal of timestamps and the correction of obvious transcription errors. Every effort has been made to preserve the meaning and tone of the original interview. Where any discrepancy arises, the audio recording should be regarded as the authoritative version.

* The programme title uses “De Waterkant Ratepayers Association”, but the organisation interviewed is the De Waterkant Civic Association (DWCA). 

Radio 786 | 20 July 2026

RADIO 786:
This podcast is brought to you by Radio 786.

TARIQ:
Tensions over development in Cape Town’s historic neighbourhoods came to a head at a public meeting in De Waterkant, where residents challenged the City over planning decisions and transparency.

Civic groups say repeated procedural shortcomings are eroding public confidence in the planning system and are calling for greater scrutiny of the Municipal Planning Tribunal.

Deputy Mayor Eddie Andrews defended the City’s processes, saying that development applications are being assessed on their merits and that public participation remains central.

Here now for more on these concerns, we’re joined by the De Waterkant Ratepayers Association’s Deputy Chairperson, Willem Bruwer.

Willem, a very good morning and welcome to Radio 786.

WILLEM BRUWER:
Good morning, Tariq. How are you?

TARIQ:
Very well, thank you very much for joining us.

Tell me quickly a little bit more about your community, whereabouts you are situated, and the broad concerns that you hold.

WILLEM BRUWER:
Sure. The De Waterkant Civic Association is a ratepayers’ association in De Waterkant. We’re just outside the city centre, between the Bo-Kaap and the CBD.

We are a voluntary association that has about 200 members, and we look at all different aspects of community life here, of which the built environment is one.

Most of the planning applications should come across our desks. We’re a recognised conservation body, and we should have the opportunity to comment on applications coming through, especially where there are departures from the Development Management Scheme and Local Spatial Development Framework that have been put in place by the City.

TARIQ:
Given the proximity and insight that you hold, you’re seeing a pattern beginning to emerge, which is why you’re raising the alarm bells and saying that a balance must be struck between new development and protecting the historic character of neighbourhoods like De Waterkant.

WILLEM BRUWER:
Yes, that’s 100 per cent correct.

We’re not asking the City to follow the rules more strictly than the law requires. We’re simply asking that departures from those rules be treated as the serious exceptions they were always intended to be under these frameworks.

In just the past couple of years, we’ve routinely seen departures from these rules being very easily granted, which is quite a concern for us.

TARIQ:
We saw a big debate, of course, happen on this programme last week, and it spilled over everywhere else in the media, when we interviewed the Executive Mayor of Cape Town, Geordin Hill-Lewis, about the Good Hope Centre and the sale of that particular property.

That has again raised concerns, together with Tafelberg and a whole lot of other issues that have come up, about what appears to be a pattern that is favourable to developers and the private sector, and one that increasingly squeezes the space for opportunities for things like homes and that sort of thing.

Where do you stand on this seemingly push-and-pull debate regarding development?

There are also questions around the Municipal Planning Tribunal, which appears to be the body rubber-stamping these developments—the very body that the Daily Maverick has reported appears to be following some seriously questionable practices that undermine national directives.

I essentially want to get your assessment of whether you think there is some gravitas to the complaints that we’re hearing.

WILLEM BRUWER:
Well, we certainly communicated that to the Deputy Mayor last Thursday, when we met with him as a community.

While we are not privy to such information, we definitely communicated to him that this is the perception held within the community: that there is some kind of partiality towards private development and things like that.

In terms of the MPT—and I’ll go back again to the departure issue that we have—we currently have a development under appeal in De Waterkant.

The developer applied for 14 departures, of which only three were refused by the MPT.

I will also just mention that the DWCA, despite the fact that we are the conservation body for the area and have also been an interested and affected party in this development, was not told about the meeting that was held on 5 May, which does not bode well.

But I digress. In terms of that development, 14 departure applications is a lot. They relate to height, setbacks and floor-factor ratio. It is essentially overbulking the site.

Of those 14 departure applications, only three were refused.

TARIQ:
Just at this juncture, what exactly is a departure?

WILLEM BRUWER:
The City has certain rules in place.

There is the Development Management Scheme and the Local Spatial Development Framework. On top of that, you have title-deed conditions, and you also have overlay zones, which are of particular interest in an area like De Waterkant, which is a Heritage Protection Overlay Zone.

All of these frameworks and rules are the result of years and years of democratic processes and public participation to set boundaries and guardrails in terms of development.

A departure is essentially a departure from these frameworks and development rules.

TARIQ:
So, basically, you have a large number of concessions that are being requested and granted?

WILLEM BRUWER:
Correct.

When all of these concessions are routinely granted, the development frameworks become obsolete.

These development frameworks already allow for development and for the progressive development of our cities and our areas. We are not asking for that to be set aside, and we are not at all against the development of our areas. But all of these frameworks exist for a reason.

If we routinely set aside the rules and the vision that have been worked on for years in favour of concessions—as you say, a departure is basically a concession—then what is the point of them?

The thing is that these schemes and frameworks do not only benefit residents. They benefit everyone because they provide certainty.

As a developer, when you buy something that you are planning to develop, you know what rights are granted.

I think that, with the way it is going at the moment, everyone is losing. Associations like ours waste countless hours, the City wastes countless hours, and developers are also adversely affected because it costs money to do these things.

TARIQ:
Sure. Well, I’m out of time, but if you could, very quickly, tell us where the Association stands on this debate around social housing and the provision of inner-city housing.

It is quite a contentious issue. Where do you stand on it?

WILLEM BRUWER:
As a residents’ association, we absolutely welcome social and affordable housing schemes that are undertaken within these frameworks and that are transparent and sustainable.

TARIQ:
All right. Thank you very much for joining us.

That was the De Waterkant Ratepayers Association’s Deputy Chairperson, Willem Bruwer.

RADIO 786:
This podcast is brought to you by Radio 786.