Advert
Advert – scroll down
Displaying the 15 latest comments.
Submitted | first-name | support | concern | top-concern | message |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2026-07-10 16:45:42 +02:00 | Etienne | No I do not | All of the above | Fabricated Transport Infrastructure | As with Conradie development, council said there wouldn’t be an impact on traffic and sewage. Well they have lied and just don’t care. No further upgrades to any infrastructure including water supply which is already decreased in the Pinelands & Thornton areas. City of Cape Town is already incapable of improving travel into the city yet they add more housing on the outskirts and don’t add more housing in Culemborg,District Six, Tafelberg etc. |
2026-07-10 14:39:43 +02:00 | Meg | No I do not | All of the above | Irreversible Sequence of Environmental & Heritage Approvals | |
2026-07-09 15:49:30 +02:00 | Stella | No I do not | All of the above | Irreversible Sequence of Environmental & Heritage Approvals | |
2026-07-09 10:44:39 +02:00 | Ibtisaam | No I do not | Loss of Public Asset | A golf course on public land is de facto privatisation. All golf courses should be converted into public housing. | |
2026-07-08 08:25:10 +02:00 | Sandra | No I do not | All of the above | Irreversible Sequence of Environmental & Heritage Approvals | There is wasted government land right next to the Mowbray Golf Course such as the old cooling towers and this land should be utilized 1st, before any other. None of the infrastructure can cope with the densification. It is already over capacity. |
2026-07-07 22:03:52 +02:00 | claudette | No I do not | All of the above | Loss of Public Asset | |
2026-07-07 20:32:36 +02:00 | Johannie | No I do not | Loss of Public Asset | ||
2026-07-07 20:28:44 +02:00 | Rudi | No I do not | All of the above | Irreversible Sequence of Environmental & Heritage Approvals | |
2026-07-06 22:29:18 +02:00 | Lindsay | No I do not | All of the above | Loss of Public Asset | We should keep the green areas in Cape Town and not continually develop on them! There are better things to do with these spaces like create parks and natural vegetation area that the public can use. Development on this land for business and residential use will add traffic and congestion to roads that have not been built for this many cars. |
2026-07-06 17:45:12 +02:00 | Carl | No I do not | Fabricated Transport Infrastructure | I agree with all the comments above , and strongly disagree with the project proposal | |
2026-07-06 17:05:46 +02:00 | Denise | No I do not | All of the above | Loss of Public Asset | What a disater it would be to the area. Mostly retired people living in this peaceful area. |
2026-07-06 17:05:43 +02:00 | Denise | No I do not | All of the above | Loss of Public Asset | What a disater it would be to the area. Mostly retired people living in this peaceful area. |
2026-07-06 16:59:47 +02:00 | Vivienne | No I do not | Fabricated Transport Infrastructure | ||
2026-07-06 14:35:19 +02:00 | Michele | No I do not | All of the above | Irreversible Sequence of Environmental & Heritage Approvals | We need green lungs to preserve our natural environment. This proposed densification would remove a valuable green area. Pinelands already suffers with extremely low water pressure and huge traffic congestion. Adding more houses to this already congested area would worsen our traffic problems. |
2026-07-06 14:14:32 +02:00 | Val | No I do not | All of the above | Irreversible Sequence of Environmental & Heritage Approvals |
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.