Advert
Advert – scroll down
Displaying the 30 latest comments.
Submitted | first-name | support | concern | top-concern | message |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2026-09-18 17:43:11 +02:00 | Ted | No I do not | All of the above | Loss of Public Asset | You dont understand our history or the promise of our future. Stand down you ignorant morons. |
2026-09-17 14:49:07 +02:00 | Grant | No I do not | All of the above | Severe Sewer & Utility Grid Strains | the golf course would be turned into yet another shit hole of filth so no i do not support this development |
2026-09-17 13:32:41 +02:00 | Saroj | No I do not | Other | ||
2026-09-17 12:49:06 +02:00 | Shaun | Not fully | Procedural Unfairness & Retroactive Approvals | It seems like this has not been thoroughly thought through and is rushed. It needs to be planned carefully and have meaningful participation. | |
2026-09-14 19:52:33 +02:00 | Etienne | No I do not | All of the above | Loss of Public Asset | |
2026-09-14 16:16:19 +02:00 | Todd | No I do not | All of the above | The Information Blackout | |
2026-09-14 13:32:11 +02:00 | Gerhard | No I do not | Irreversible Sequence of Environmental & Heritage Approvals | I object to the proposed permanent disposal and redevelopment of the King David Mowbray Golf Course Precinct in its current form. Publicly owned land is a strategic asset that belongs to all residents and should only be disposed of after a transparent, legally compliant, and fully informed public participation process. I am concerned by allegations that critical supporting information has not been made readily available to the public, including the land valuation, feasibility studies, traffic assessments, and infrastructure capacity information. If members of the public are expected to provide meaningful feedback, they must first have access to all material facts and supporting documentation. I am further concerned by reports that resolutions and authorisations relating to the project have been amended or revisited during an active public participation process. Whether these concerns ultimately prove justified or not, the perception of procedural irregularity undermines public confidence and raises questions about the fairness and integrity of the consultation process. Decisions involving more than 65 hectares of public land and major changes to the character of an area should be based on complete transparency, independent evidence, and meaningful public participation. In particular, I believe the City should: Release all relevant technical, financial, traffic, infrastructure, and valuation reports before any final decision is taken. Ensure that the public has sufficient time to review and comment on all supporting information once it becomes available. Demonstrate that all infrastructure, wastewater, transport, and municipal service requirements can be sustainably accommodated. Clarify the status and viability of any transport infrastructure that forms part of the development concept. Protect public assets by ensuring that any disposal of public land delivers clear and measurable benefits to residents. Public participation should not be treated as a procedural formality. Citizens deserve full access to the information upon which major planning and land disposal decisions are based. Until all relevant information has been disclosed and properly scrutinised, I do not support the permanent disposal and redevelopment of this public land. The City should prioritise transparency, accountability, and public trust before proceeding with a development of this scale. | |
2026-09-13 08:42:04 +02:00 | Dave | No I do not | All of the above | Severe Sewer & Utility Grid Strains | The area proposed for development is a nightmare traffic wise every morning as well. Road infrastructure cannot handle additional traffic here. |
2026-09-12 22:34:29 +02:00 | Joanne | No I do not | All of the above | Loss of Public Asset | |
2026-09-12 10:33:02 +02:00 | HANNES | No I do not | Irreversible Sequence of Environmental & Heritage Approvals | ||
2026-09-11 17:43:49 +02:00 | Hendrik | No I do not | Severe Sewer & Utility Grid Strains | ||
2026-09-10 02:22:10 +02:00 | Tshepo | No I do not | Fabricated Transport Infrastructure | This is an illegal land grab - the very thing CoCT says they are so against. Is CoCT so greedy as to think the development of green space into more concrete buildings is good for their long term goals of tourism and being the city people WANT to live in? Most people are going to Cape Town for the outdoors lifestyle - ie. parks and fauna and flora. Wise up CoCT! Or are you just trying to take a backhand before you are caught and kicked out?? Thieves and ecoterrorists! | |
2026-09-09 12:09:39 +02:00 | Clifford Martin | No I do not | Irreversible Sequence of Environmental & Heritage Approvals | ||
2026-09-09 10:12:05 +02:00 | Gerhard | No I do not | All of the above | Irreversible Sequence of Environmental & Heritage Approvals | |
2026-09-08 21:04:10 +02:00 | Lynn | No I do not | Irreversible Sequence of Environmental & Heritage Approvals | ||
2026-09-08 11:40:32 +02:00 | Lulu | No I do not | Irreversible Sequence of Environmental & Heritage Approvals | Build further out of Cape Town it is TOO FULL!! The road a buggered - You are taking away from precious land - Birds and wildlife!!! I care for the environment - And people are MONEY HUNGRY!!! Traffic is already a nightmare!!! Build somewhere else that doesn't destroy or make peoples lives even worse. Thanks! | |
2026-09-08 07:03:11 +02:00 | Desiree | No I do not | All of the above | Irreversible Sequence of Environmental & Heritage Approvals | |
2026-09-07 17:30:32 +02:00 | kay | No I do not | All of the above | Loss of Public Asset | |
2026-09-07 15:15:38 +02:00 | Paul | No I do not | All of the above | Loss of Public Asset | We need more green spaces - not less. |
2026-09-07 12:02:18 +02:00 | Brenda | No I do not | All of the above | Procedural Unfairness & Retroactive Approvals | Loss of valuable and necessary green spaces |
2026-09-07 09:37:02 +02:00 | Rodney | No I do not | All of the above | Irreversible Sequence of Environmental & Heritage Approvals | |
2026-09-07 08:39:45 +02:00 | Tony | No I do not | All of the above | Fabricated Transport Infrastructure | |
2026-09-07 06:27:44 +02:00 | Stephen | No I do not | Procedural Unfairness & Retroactive Approvals | ||
2026-09-06 15:07:47 +02:00 | Linda | No I do not | All of the above | Irreversible Sequence of Environmental & Heritage Approvals | |
2026-09-05 09:43:25 +02:00 | Pedro | No I do not | All of the above | Loss of Public Asset | The way the government is disposing of land . It seems that there is a cartel within , aiming at making lots and lots of money |
2026-09-05 08:08:48 +02:00 | Heidi | No I do not | All of the above | Severe Sewer & Utility Grid Strains | |
2026-09-05 06:56:43 +02:00 | Zayaan | No I do not | All of the above | Procedural Unfairness & Retroactive Approvals | |
2026-09-05 06:08:58 +02:00 | Stephen | No I do not | Loss of Public Asset | This green lung is an integral and historically valuable feature in our city. Development of this land would be a huge injustice and folly of note. Please do not develop this land. | |
2026-09-04 19:00:48 +02:00 | Mateen | No I do not | All of the above | Loss of Public Asset | |
2026-09-04 14:02:17 +02:00 | nicola | No I do not | All of the above | Irreversible Sequence of Environmental & Heritage Approvals | The densification of CT and surrounds is out of proportion. Too many people not enough space and decent facilities. |
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.