Advert
Advert – scroll down
Displaying the 5 latest comments.
Submitted | first-name | support | concern | top-concern | message |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2026-06-30 21:21:52 +02:00 | Desiree | No I do not | Irreversible Sequence of Environmental & Heritage Approvals | ||
2026-06-30 20:49:57 +02:00 | Keith | No I do not | Fabricated Transport Infrastructure | Pushing proposals through the public process when it is a significant permanent change to the fabric of the city is immoral. Unless transport and sewage factors are taken into account, and leaving enough genuine safe and usable parkland green space in the development, the whole application is based on an agenda that is not in the interest of the broader community, and ultimately those who will be living there. | |
2026-06-30 15:32:53 +02:00 | Jeanette | No I do not | All of the above | Irreversible Sequence of Environmental & Heritage Approvals | |
2026-06-30 15:26:07 +02:00 | Koen | No I do not | All of the above | Fabricated Transport Infrastructure | As a Pinelands resident, I have serious concerns about another big development in/adjacent to Pinelands creating extensive pressure on the existing roads in and around Pinelands. The Conradie hospital development is showing already a huge strain in the mornings for Pinelands residents trying to exit Pinelands. The King David Mowbray Golf Coruse precint is a very big development for a suburb like Pinelands. Even though an additional "exit" is created via the existing Clyde Pinelands, this is not towards the city of Cape Town centre and the strain on the existing road infastructure will be extreme. specifically the intersection Alexandra Road-Raapenberg Road. |
2026-06-30 12:32:55 +02:00 | Shelley | No I do not | Other | There are many old buildings that can be renovated for flats instead of destroying green spaces for greedy developers and City Council just making quick profits . Sewage and infrastructure cannot support such increased densification |
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.