Advert
Advert – scroll down
Displaying the 15 latest comments.
Submitted | first-name | support | concern | top-concern | message |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2026-06-09 22:04:48 +02:00 | Marlene | No I do not | All of the above | Severe Sewer & Utility Grid Strains | The municipality is asking for a permanent land disposal before confirming whether the local sewer and water grid can physically process the waste of tens of thousands of new occupants without causing an ecological disaster. |
2026-06-09 21:50:24 +02:00 | Geoffery | No I do not | All of the above | Fabricated Transport Infrastructure | |
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. |
2026-06-09 20:48:43 +02:00 | Simon | No I do not | All of the above | Irreversible Sequence of Environmental & Heritage Approvals | |
2026-06-09 20:47:58 +02:00 | Ed | No I do not | All of the above | Procedural Unfairness & Retroactive Approvals | Densification and slummification of residential areas that form the backbone of CoCTs rates income is shortsighted and plain stupid especially when there are many alternative spaces for housing (even though at some point this in itself will become unsustainable as socialism hasn’t worked anywhere because the people whose money is being squandered get the ired of it and leave). |
2026-06-09 20:39:52 +02:00 | Nicola | No I do not | Irreversible Sequence of Environmental & Heritage Approvals | Losing more green space to development would be tragic. | |
2026-06-09 20:38:59 +02:00 | Daniel | No I do not | All of the above | Irreversible Sequence of Environmental & Heritage Approvals | Stop using Pinelands to score political points at the cost of Pinelanders. Stop this nonsense. DA it’s an election year so be careful. |
2026-06-09 20:25:54 +02:00 | Kathy | No I do not | Irreversible Sequence of Environmental & Heritage Approvals | Where will the children go to school, will the sewerage system cope with additional homes, it’s a flood plain so not suitable for homes to be built on, it is already grid locked with traffic so additional cars will pose a problem. | |
2026-06-09 20:21:53 +02:00 | Adele | No I do not | Irreversible Sequence of Environmental & Heritage Approvals | The order of events in this planning process is backward. Environmental and Heritage Impact Assessments must precede any decision to permanently dispose of municipal land. By delaying the EIA and HIA until after disposal approval, the City is compromising the objectivity of future environmental oversight on the Black River floodplain. | |
2026-06-09 20:18:38 +02:00 | I | No I do not | Fabricated Transport Infrastructure | ||
2026-06-09 20:16:40 +02:00 | Cheryl | No I do not | All of the above | Irreversible Sequence of Environmental & Heritage Approvals | It feels as if every piece of green space is being taken up for development. Concrete poured over the green of the earths lungs, suffocating her. In a city that is already bursting at the seems, where traffic and humans are increasing pollution, surely we should try to preserve green space. Concrete cannot help to balance what we do and will only create more heat, which in turn has environmental consequences. Find other options, work on the infrastructure needed to get people quickly and safely from outside the city to work in the city, or create incentives for employers to decentralise their business operations. Solve the inequality first rather than spending money on legal battles like this, or walls. |
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.