Advert
Advert – scroll down
Displaying the 5 latest comments.
Submitted | first-name | support | concern | top-concern | message |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2026-06-09 21:23:04 +02:00 | Carmen | No I do not | All of the above | Fabricated Transport Infrastructure | The traffic and transport assumptions in the Draft Development Concept are fundamentally flawed. The plan relies on a proposed PRASA rail station that does not appear in any of PRASA’s Corporate Plans up to March 2026. The City cannot approve a high-density precinct based on unverified, unbudgeted transport infrastructure. The strain on traffic in Pinelands as well as the N2 is unsustainable as it is already, |
2026-06-09 21:19:28 +02:00 | Dave | No I do not | Fabricated Transport Infrastructure | ||
2026-06-09 21:19:16 +02:00 | Dimpho | Yes I do | No concern, I Support the Development | ||
2026-06-09 21:16:30 +02:00 | Kirsten | No I do not | All of the above | Irreversible Sequence of Environmental & Heritage Approvals | |
2026-06-09 21:04:34 +02:00 | Lauren | No I do not | All of the above | Fabricated Transport Infrastructure | The whole engagement with the wider Pinelands community appears non-transparent and lacks trust. The assessment of infrastructure and traffic as well as services implications has been woefully inadequate and I don’t think the city really has any intention of really hearing the concerns of the community that will be the most affected. I also think the councillor is not neutral and does not truly represent the desires and input of Pinelands residents. Already multiple other individual homes are in flagrant breach of Garden City planning permissions with no consequences. The Conradie Development has not upheld the original approvals at all and has way exceeded scope while also not delivered on multiple promises. This whole disposal proposal is unacceptable in every way. |
The City maintains that the redevelopment process is entirely “procedurally sound” following the adoption of Council Resolution C39/05/26 on 27 May 2026. Proponents argue that the draft concept represents a vital step toward spatial justice, turning an exclusive recreational area into a vibrant, high-density precinct with 8,600 homes (minimum 30% social housing). They assert that technical studies, transit coordination, and environmental impact assessments will be dealt with thoroughly in the subsequent legislative phases after the land disposal principle is approved.
Opponents argue that the City is executing an administrative “bait-and-switch.” Asking the public to approve an irreversible public asset disposal while keeping essential technical studies (valuations, sewer metrics, and TIAs) hidden behind PAIA walls violates the basic tenets of fair administrative action under PAJA. Furthermore, the revelation that PRASA has zero alignment with the City’s transit claims proves that the project’s planning is prematurely optimised. The community insists that the public participation process must be halted and restarted only when all baseline evidence is public and the legal authorisations are genuinely transparent.