Advert
Advert – scroll down
The Western Cape Government has applied to rezone and redevelop the 13-hectare, publicly owned Oude Molen Precinct in Pinelands.
The current proposal intends to replace a long-established, low-density green space with a high-density, five-storey mixed-use development. This plan introduces roughly 1,364 residential units, nearly 19,000 square metres of commercial office space, and extensive retail facilities.
However, a major legal roadblock has emerged: On 10 June 2026, Heritage Western Cape’s Appeals Committee officially dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the outright refusal of the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA). The statutory committee confirmed that the government’s HIA fundamentally fails to comply with section 38(3) of the National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA).
Despite the heritage assessment being ruled legally deficient for a second time, the City of Cape Town is pushing forward with the land use and rezoning application anyway. Public comments close on 30 June 2026.
click the link for more info, or scroll down to have your say
Have your say – shape your city.
Top concerns
The City cannot lawfully approve a development framework while the underlying statutory heritage assessment stands rejected. The applicant’s revised HIA misapplies the NHRA by using a restrictive, “vertical” definition of heritage transmission to claim that no living heritage exists on-site. It improperly treats “archival silence”—the historic exclusion of marginalised and indigenous communities from colonial records—as an absolute absence of heritage value. This violates Section 3 of the NHRA, which explicitly safeguards oral traditions, living heritage, and social associations shaped by colonialism and apartheid. The River Club litigation established that intangible heritage cannot be ignored or bypassed during public participation.
The existing community at Oude Molen provides essential care, educational, therapeutic, and cultural services that depend entirely on the tranquil, semi-rural character of the site. These activities are a direct continuation of the 130-year-old institutional “continuity of purpose” belonging to the surrounding Valkenberg therapeutic landscape, which historically utilized land-based care and agricultural rehabilitation. Displacing the Robin Trust, the holistic schools, the eco-gardens, and the equestrian therapy facilities destroys a functioning social ecosystem that delivers immense public value. These living heritage resources have been completely excluded from the project’s social impact considerations.
The integrity of this public participation process has been compromised. The application was fundamentally altered after public comment closed, shifting from a binding “Precinct Plan” to a flexible “Development Framework” with an unmapped “basket of rights”. The public commented on one specific spatial proposal, but what is currently before the City is materially different. Handing the land to an un-appointed private developer under a loose framework means future implementation will bypass meaningful public oversight once development rights are locked in. Furthermore, members of the public faced unnecessary administrative barriers when trying to access the basic planning and zoning history of the erf.
Public statements by high-ranking officials describing the legal requirement to assess living heritage as a mere “technicality” raise serious doubts about whether this process is being conducted in good faith. Official promotional materials at the Western Cape Investment Summit presented this development to investors as a done deal with completed heritage authorisations while the statutory appeal process was actively underway. Forcing a land-use decision through while ignoring the clear rejection by Heritage Western Cape indicates that the outcome has been entirely predetermined.
This is a high-value parcel of public land. It currently delivers substantial, measurable social and environmental value to the citizens of Cape Town at zero cost to the municipality. Any disposal, rezoning, or high-density development of public land must serve the genuine public interest, rather than being alienated for private commercial exploitation under a non-binding framework.
An area-wide Heritage Impact Assessment for the broader, deeply historic Two Rivers Urban Park landscape was never completed. The overarching heritage process was abruptly suspended, and the Local Spatial Development Framework was pushed through regardless. By deferring heritage impacts to individual sites and then ignoring site-level rejections, the City is systematically fragmenting a contiguous cultural landscape without evaluating cumulative, landscape-scale damage.
This application cannot be viewed in isolation. It is part of a wave of concurrent mega-developments along the same corridor, including Riverlands, Conradie Park, and the redevelopment of the King David Mowbray Golf Course. The cumulative strain on schools, medical facilities, roads, and electrical infrastructure has never been assessed. Local schools are already overloaded following the Conradie Park rollout, traffic gridlock is worsening, and there is no confirmed budget or commitment from Metro Rail for the new train station that this entire development concept relies upon.
The applicant’s marketing relies heavily on claims that one-third of the development will consist of social and affordable housing. However, the applicant’s own framework documents admit that the inclusion of these units is non-binding and will ultimately be driven by “financial feasibility” once handed over to a private developer. There is no enforceable legal mechanism in this application to guarantee that affordable housing will ever be built. The City should not grant permanent, high-density development rights based on aspirational targets that a private developer can easily abandon later.
The 13-hectare site directly borders the sensitive Black River corridor and wetland system. Despite the intense scale and density of a five-storey proposal, no independent Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has been conducted. The site is a documented habitat for protected species, including the endangered Western Leopard Toad. Pushing this rezoning through without evaluating the cumulative ecological impacts alongside neighbouring mega-developments violates fundamental principles of environmental sustainability.
Perspectives: What is the debate?
To help you make an informed decision, here is a summary of the core arguments being advanced by supporters and opponents of the redevelopment proposal:
Undoing Spatial Apartheid: Proponents argue that Oude Molen represents a massive opportunity to utilize well-located, under-densified public land near economic centers to bring working-class families closer to the city and undo historical spatial segregation.
Social and Affordable Housing Delivery: The Western Cape Government highlights the proposed 34% allocation for social and affordable housing units as a major victory for addressing Cape Town’s acute housing crisis.
Economic Stimulus & Job Creation: Pushing forward with mixed-use spaces, commercial offices, and retail infrastructure will stimulate the local economy, bring financial investment into the area, and create thousands of direct construction and service jobs.
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD): Planners argue that maximizing residential density along the urban transport corridor (adjacent to key hospital and rail hubs) reduces urban sprawl and builds an efficient, sustainable city layout.
Unlawful Heritage Procedural Bypassing: Opponents argue it is completely unlawful to push for land use and rezoning approvals while the legally mandated Heritage Impact Assessment stands officially rejected by Heritage Western Cape for violating the NHRA.
Erasure of Living Heritage: Critics point out that the developers use a narrow, outdated definition of heritage that ignores “horizontal” community transmission and mistakes “archival silence” (the colonial omission of marginalized group records) for an absence of living culture and First Nations history.
Destruction of a Fragile Social Ecosystem: Pushing high-density concrete blocks will permanently displace a 30-year-old self-sustaining village of tenants providing invaluable, free public services, including the Robin Trust medical care, two holistic schools, eco-gardens, and equestrian therapy facilities for disabled children.
Unenforceable Affordable Housing Claims: Financial fine print within the framework indicates that the “one-third affordable housing” pledge is non-binding and completely contingent on future private developer financial feasibility study outcomes.
Cumulative Infrastructure Collapse: The corridor is already buckling under the weight of concurrent mega-developments like Conradie Park. Pushing thousands of additional residents onto local roads, schools, and sewers without verified PRASA rail commitments or an independent Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) poses severe infrastructure and ecological threats to the Black River wetland system.