# Oude Molen

- Link: https://dearsouthafrica.co.za/oude-molen/
- Published: 2026-06-22T14:21:45+02:00
- Author: dearSA

![Oude Molen Precinct Rezoning and Development](https://cdn.dearsouthafrica.co.za/
wp-content/uploads/2026/06/22140301/Oude-Molen-header-scaled.jpg "Oude Molen header")

![DEAR-SOUTH-AfFRICA](https://cdn.dearsouthafrica.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2023/
02/08135845/DEAR-SOUTH-AfFRICA.png "DEAR-SOUTH-AfFRICA")

0

comments individually delivered to the City

       * No I do not support the development 3977
       * Yes I do 29
       * Not fully 101

### The Western Cape Government 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, eight-storey mixed-use development introducing roughly 1,364
residential units, extensive commercial office spaces, and retail infrastructure.

_The Statutory Roadblock:_ 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), confirming it fails to comply with Section 38(
3) of the National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA). Despite the heritage authorization
standing rejected, the City of Cape Town is pushing forward with the land-use application
anyway. Public comments close on 30 June 2026.
 click the link for more info

[ view a participation report and all public comments](https://dearsouthafrica.co.za/oude-molen/summary)

## Have your say – shape your city. [CLOSED]

**Do you support the proposed rezoning and high-density redevelopment of the Oude
Molen Precinct in Pinelands? **

**What is your concern? (scroll down for an explanation of each) **

As you've chosen "all of the above", if you had to choose one concern, what would
it be?

the fields below are optional ——————————

**What is your preferred channel for feedback on this campaign?**

**Your preferred language?**

**What is your status? (for our reporting purposes only) **

 **Check your email address then hit send! You will be redirected to a confirmation
page. **

![D-icon](https://cdn.dearsouthafrica.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/11192438/
D-icon-40x40-1.png "D-icon-40x40")

### _Top concerns_

[Heritage process is incomplete & misapplied](https://dearsouthafrica.co.za/oude-molen/#1770131112026-5a70eb21-10f15d6a-e1cd6863-150a)

The City cannot lawfully approve a development framework while the underlying statutory
heritage assessment stands rejected under Section 38(3) of the NHRA. The applicant’s
HIA misapplied the statutory framework by using a restrictive, “vertical” definition
of heritage transmission to dismiss living heritage as defined in Section 2(xxi).
The River Club litigation firmly foregrounded intangible heritage and First Nations
consultation as substantive considerations—obligations this application flouts. 
Wide-ranging formal objections from multiple recognised Khoe and San houses expose
early claims of indigenous endorsement as false, confirming that the proposal destroys
a contiguous cultural landscape.

[Loss of existing community ecosystem & historical continuity](https://dearsouthafrica.co.za/oude-molen/#1770131112043-0e75ef86-4b6c5d6a-e1cd6863-150a)

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.

[Procedural flaws, misleading visuals & constrained public oversight](https://dearsouthafrica.co.za/oude-molen/#1770131281853-5866958a-b51c5d6a-e1cd6863-150a)

The public participation process is fundamentally flawed because the models and 
illustrations published for public feedback do not depict the maximum limits for
height, bulk, and density quietly established within the legal framework. This creates
a highly inaccurate impression of the project’s true physical scale. Crucially, 
once the City approves this framework, all subsequent planning phases are legally
constrained to implement within those maximum parameters, leaving the public with
severely limited scope to influence or alter the scale of development at later stages.

[Predetermination of outcomes by officials](https://dearsouthafrica.co.za/oude-molen/#1770131323251-266a4851-6c9c5d6a-e1cd6863-150a)

There is clear, document-backed evidence that this administrative process is not
being conducted in good faith. Official Western Cape Government materials presented
to international financiers at the Western Cape Investment Summit in November 2025
explicitly misrepresented the project as a fully cleared, “derisked” opportunity
with completed heritage authorizations and finalized public participation. In reality,
the HIA had already been found non-compliant by Heritage Western Cape in June 2025,
a revised assessment had not been submitted, and public feedback windows remained
open. Forcing a land-use approval through while ignoring active legal rejections
confirms that the outcome has been completely predetermined.

[Loss of public land and open space](https://dearsouthafrica.co.za/oude-molen/#1777463528421-99209505-be9a6863-150a)

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 loose framework.

[No area-wide heritage assessment for the Two Rivers corridor](https://dearsouthafrica.co.za/oude-molen/#1777463564023-1723eae7-45f66863-150a)

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 choosing to ignore site-
level rejections, the City is systematically fragmenting a contiguous cultural landscape
without evaluating cumulative, landscape-scale damage.

[Cumulative development pressure on local infrastructure](https://dearsouthafrica.co.za/oude-molen/#1777463616189-7e8ae7c5-a8e76863-150a)

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 infrastructure has never been independently audited. Local schools are already
over-capacity following the Conradie Park rollout, traffic gridlock is expanding,
and the transport framework relies on a new train station for which no confirmed
budget or commitment has been made by PRASA.

[Unverified, non-binding affordable housing claims](https://dearsouthafrica.co.za/oude-molen/#1782130286263-6684b757-fc16)

The applicant’s marketing relies heavily on claims that one-third of the development
will consist of social and affordable housing. However, the framework documents 
explicitly state that the inclusion of these units is non-binding and entirely contingent
on future “financial feasibility” assessments. There is no enforceable legal mechanism
in this application to guarantee that affordable housing will ever materialise. 
The City should not grant permanent, high-density development rights based on voluntary
targets that a private developer can easily abandon later.

[Environmental and ecological threats to the Black River wetland](https://dearsouthafrica.co.za/oude-molen/#1782130315023-660c6f23-94eb)

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
neighboring mega-developments violates basic environmental sustainability principles.

### _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:

[What SUPPORTERS Say](https://dearsouthafrica.co.za/oude-molen/#1770892117175-dfc38055-c8385d6a-e1cd6863-150a)

**Undoing Spatial Apartheid:** Proponents argue that Oude Molen represents a key
opportunity to utilize well-located public land to bring working-class families 
closer to the city center.

**Housing Delivery:** Pushing forward with mixed-use spaces provides a 34% allocation
for social and affordable housing units to address Cape Town’s acute housing backlog.

**Claimed Job Creation:** Section 6.6.1 of the Motivation Report claims the development
will generate 900 full-time equivalent employment opportunities across construction
and operational phases.

**Transit-Oriented Development (TOD):** Planners argue that maximizing density next
to major transport and medical corridors builds a compact, sustainable city.

[What OPPONENTS Say](https://dearsouthafrica.co.za/oude-molen/#1770892117205-3c7c32e1-ce3d5d6a-e1cd6863-150a)

**Unlawful Heritage Procedural Bypassing:** Pushing land-use approvals through while
the HIA stands officially rejected under Section 38(3) of the NHRA is premature 
and legally non-compliant. Wide-ranging formal objections from multiple recognised
Khoe and San houses expose early claims of First Nations endorsement as false.

**Calculated Net Loss of Jobs:** While the state promises 900 jobs, they hide the
baseline reality. Robin Trust alone employs 410 people on-site. Combined with the
schools, stables, food gardens, and small enterprises, the site already supports
hundreds of secure, local operational jobs. The proposal represents a net employment
loss, not a gain.

**The Private School Bait-and-Switch:** Early public engagement used the promise
of new educational facilities. However, Section 5.2 of the April 2026 Motivation
Report explicitly reveals that the proposed school will be private, noting that 
the Department of Education confirmed there is no planned public school provision
for the site.

**Threat to Level 1 Trauma Emergency Access:** The Traffic Impact Assessment admits
that capacity on Alexandra Road is already critically constrained at the Berkley
and Raapenberg Road intersections. Pushing thousands of new daily vehicle trips 
onto this bottleneck directly threatens emergency vehicle response times to the 
neighboring Vincent Pallotti Level 1 trauma unit.

**Security & Operational Strains on Valkenberg Hospital:** The proposal demolishes
the historic secure buffer zone for Valkenberg Psychiatric Hospital, placing vulnerable
psychiatric patients at risk and severing long-standing land-based therapeutic and
occupational therapy integrations.

**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 services of high public value, much of it free or low cost, 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.

**Misleading Master Plans & Constrained Oversight:** While the development framework
fixes maximum height and bulk parameters, the illustrations provided to the public
fail to depict these maximums, masking the true density. Once these land-use parameters
are approved, subsequent processes are entirely constrained within those maxima,
leaving the public with severely limited scope to influence or alter the scale of
development at later stages.

[ View more info](https://dearsouthafrica.co.za/oude-molen/summary)