Summary of Oude Molen development

Advert

Advert – scroll down

What is Oude Molen?

Oude Molen is a functioning social and cultural landscape within the Two Rivers Urban Park corridor. For over 30 years, it has operated as an interconnected village of tenants providing vital social services of high public value, with significant free and subsidized components.

The site currently supports an irreplaceable ecosystem:

- The Robin Trust: Providing critical Alzheimer’s, dementia, and step-down healthcare alongside accredited carer training since 1994.
- Therapeutic Interventions: Oude Molen Stables, running equine-assisted therapy for organizations like Open Circle and offering community riding programs for disabled children.
- Holistic Education: Gaia Waldorf School and Pinelands Montessori School, serving nearly 400 learners.
- Agro-Ecology & Rehabilitation: Food gardens running horticultural therapy in direct partnership with Valkenberg Psychiatric Hospital’s Occupational Therapy department.
- First Nations Renewal: The Goringhaicona Khoena Kraal, hosting cultural practices and managing a 600-tree indigenous food forest.

Top Concerns Explained

1. Heritage Process is Incomplete & Misapplied

The National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA) dictates that heritage approvals must be finalized before major zoning or land-use rights are granted. Pushing this rezoning forward is highly premature because on 10 June 2026, Heritage Western Cape’s Appeals Committee officially upheld the rejection of the developer’s Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA).

Furthermore, the assessment itself is deeply flawed. The provincial government’s consultants used a restrictive “vertical” interpretation of heritage, asserting that because many of the community’s cultural, ecological, and therapeutic practices began post-1994, they lack the multi-generational lineage needed to qualify as living heritage. This completely misapplies South African law, which protects “horizontal” community transmission (circulating via skills, shared practice, mentorship, and cultural renewal across networks).

2. Loss of Existing Community Ecosystem & Historical Continuity

Oude Molen is not a vacant or underutilised piece of land; it is a thriving, self-sustaining micro-community that has built an interconnected ecosystem over 30 years. Pushing five-storey mixed-use developments onto this footprint will permanently displace vital social assets, including the Robin Trust medical care, Gaia Waldorf and Pinelands Montessori schools, O Grace Land transitional housing, and the Oude Molen Stables. Crucially, these practices are a direct continuation of a 130-year-old continuity of purpose tied to the surrounding Valkenberg institutional landscape, which has historically relied on land-based healing, agricultural therapy, and rehabilitation. Evicting these tenants severs an irreplaceable, living cultural asset.

3. Procedural Flaws, Misleading Visuals & Constrained Public Oversight

The transparency of this public participation drive has been heavily compromised by structural contradictions in the documentation. While the development framework legally fixes maximum height and bulk parameters, the illustrations and precinct models shared with the public do not depict those maximums at all. This results in a misleading presentation of the project’s true density and visual impact. Crucially, once these sweeping land-use parameters are locked in by the City, subsequent planning phases are legally bound to implementation within those maxima. The scope for meaningful public influence or fundamental revision at later stages becomes severely limited.

4. Predetermination of Outcomes

Official project updates reveal a profound predetermination of outcomes by the state, turning public participation into a superficial check-box exercise. Specifically, an official Western Cape Government document presented to international investors at the Western Cape Investment Summit in November 2025 explicitly misreported the regulatory status of the precinct. The official investor one-pager made four demonstrably false assertions:

1. It claimed that “Heritage Authorisation was completed by July 2025,” when in reality Heritage Western Cape’s IACom had already found the HIA non-compliant months earlier.
2. It declared the site “derisked, with secured development rights,” when no development rights had been secured then, nor have they been today.
3. It stated “public participation has been completed,” masking the fact that a second round of heritage feedback was underway and the land-use commenting window remains open.
4. It targeted a final “Project close-out of May 2026 (including appeals),” while the statutory heritage appeal was actually dismissed in June 2026.

Marketing unapproved rights as secured assets to global investors while statutory public oversight is actively open proves the state has entirely predetermined the decision.

5. Systematic Loss of Public Land and Open Space

The 13-hectare precinct is high-value, irreplaceable public property. It currently delivers vast social, medical, ecological, and educational value to the citizens of Cape Town at zero cost to the taxpayer or the municipality. Pushing forward with commercial privatisation and high-density development represents an irreversible alienation of public assets for commercial exploitation under a loose framework, directly violating the state’s duty to manage public land for the genuine common good.

6. Absence of an Area-Wide Heritage Assessment for the Two Rivers Corridor

The Oude Molen Precinct forms part of the broader Two Rivers Urban Park (TRUP) corridor—a site of deep, layered historical and spiritual significance marking ancient Khoe and San grazing paths, early colonial agricultural friction, and institutional care.

The overarching, area-wide heritage assessment for the entire TRUP corridor was abruptly and intentionally suspended by authorities to push the Local Spatial Development Framework through. By deferring heritage impacts to isolated site-by-site evaluations and then choosing to override site-level rejections, the City is systematically fracturing a contiguous cultural landscape without measuring cumulative historical and landscape-scale destruction.

7. Cumulative Infrastructure Strain

This development proposal cannot be viewed in a vacuum. It sits along a narrow urban corridor facing severe development pressure from massive, concurrent mega-projects, including Conradie Park, Riverlands, and the proposed disposal of the King David Mowbray Golf Course.

The cumulative strain on surrounding roads, sewage networks, electrical grids, and public amenities has never been independently audited. Local schools are already over-capacity following the Conradie Park rollout, traffic gridlock is expanding, and the developer’s proposed transport model assumes future rail upgrades for which no confirmed commitment or budget has been made. Pushing ahead without a mandatory sewer-capacity and infrastructure confirmation is planning irresponsibility.

8. Unverified, Non-Binding Affordable Housing Claims

Proponents frequently use the promise of “one-third affordable and social housing” as a moral shield to justify the destruction of the site’s low-density assets. However, the actual application fine print reveals that these targets are completely non-binding.

The framework explicitly states that the inclusion of social housing is entirely conditional on future financial feasibility assessments. No legally enforceable mechanism exists within this land-use application to guarantee that a single affordable unit will ever materialise once the development rights are secured and handed over to private contractors.

9. Environmental and Ecological Threats

The 13-hectare precinct directly borders the sensitive Black River corridor and wetland ecosystem. Despite introducing high-density, five-storey concrete blocks, no independent Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has been conducted for this proposal.

The site is a critical urban green lung and acts as a vital, documented habitat for protected local wildlife, including the endangered Western Leopard Toad. Pushing this rezoning through without evaluating the cumulative ecological damage to the wetland system side-by-side with neighbouring mega-developments poses an immediate, unmitigated threat to urban biodiversity.

Questions and answers

What is the official proposal for the Oude Molen Precinct?

The Western Cape Government has applied to the City of Cape Town to rezone and establish a “Development Framework” for the 13-hectare, publicly owned Oude Molen site (Case No: 1500155417). The master plan involves transforming this low-density, open green space into a high-density, five-storey mixed-use urban node. The plan includes approximately 1,364 residential units, nearly 19,000 m² of commercial office space, and retail centres.

What is the current legal roadblock regarding the heritage process?

Pushing this rezoning application through right now is highly premature. On 10 June 2026, Heritage Western Cape’s (HWC) Appeals Committee officially dismissed the provincial government’s appeal and upheld the outright refusal of the Revised Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA). The statutory authority ruled that the assessment failed to comply with Section 38(3) of the National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA). Pushing land-use decisions forward while the legal heritage authorization stands rejected violates statutory planning guidelines.

Why are critics concerned about the "Development Framework" approach?

While the development framework specifies the maximum height and bulk parameters for the precinct, the illustrations and models shown to the public do not actually depict those maximum limits. This creates an inaccurate and under-densified visual impression of the development. Furthermore, once the City approves this framework, all subsequent development steps are legally bound to implement within those maximum parameters. Because the project will remain within the approved boundaries, the scope for the public to exercise meaningful influence or push for lower density at later stages is severely limited.

What factual evidence exists that the decision is predetermined?

In November 2025, an official Western Cape Government project one-pager presented to investors at the Western Cape Investment Summit claimed that heritage authorization was “completed by July 2025,” that public participation was finalised, and that development rights were entirely secured. In reality, the HIA had been rejected as non-compliant in June 2025, a revised report had not even been submitted, and public participation was actively ongoing. Presenting un-obtained planning rights as a finalised, “de-risked” deal to international financiers proves that administrative approval has been treated as a foregone conclusion.

Why is there opposition if the project promises 34% social and affordable housing?

While promotional materials strongly highlight the inclusion of affordable housing to address spatial apartheid, the application details reveal a significant loophole. The fine print admits that this 34% allocation is non-binding and entirely dependent on future “financial feasibility” assessments once the site is handed over to a private developer. Opponents argue that permanent, high-density development rights should not be granted based on voluntary, non-enforceable targets that can easily be abandoned later due to market changes.

What does the article's mention of "vertical" versus "horizontal" heritage mean for this site?

The applicant’s consultants used a restrictive, “vertical” interpretation of heritage, arguing that because many of the community’s cultural, ecological, and therapeutic practices began post-1994, they lack the 50-to-75-year generational lineage required to qualify as living heritage.

However, South African law and UNESCO recognise a “horizontal” interpretation, meaning living heritage circulates dynamically across communities through shared skills, mentorship, networks, and cultural renewal. The First Nations cultural practices, horse-assisted therapy, and eco-gardening currently thriving at Oude Molen clearly fit this legal definition and deserve statutory protection.

What is "archival silence" and why is it central to the dispute?

“Archival silence” refers to the historical reality where colonial and apartheid authorities deliberately omitted or erased the lived experiences, labor, and movements of indigenous and working-class people from official state registries. The applicant’s assessment mistakenly treats this silence in historical records as an absolute absence of heritage. Under Section 3 of the NHRA, a site’s value is derived from its living social meaning and oral history, not purely from Eurocentric written records or physical buildings.

What is "The Valkenberg Continuity" and how does it relate to the existing tenants?

Oude Molen directly borders Valkenberg Psychiatric Hospital, which was established in 1891 as a therapeutic landscape utilising agricultural labor and land-based care for rehabilitation. For over 30 years, the current Eco-Village tenants have maintained a direct continuity of purpose with this history. Services like the Oude Molen Stables’ equine therapy for disabled kids and the food gardens partnered with Valkenberg’s Occupational Therapy department are a modern, irreplaceable continuation of the site’s historical institutional landscape.

Why are critics concerned about changing the proposal from a "Precinct Plan" to a "Development Framework"?

A Precinct Plan is a strict, legally binding document that ties developers to exact architectural layouts, height limitations, and community facility placements. A Development Framework establishes a loose “basket of rights” with variable, unmapped boundaries. Pushing a loose framework means that once these land-use parameters are locked in, subsequent processes are constrained to implementation within those maxima, and the illustrations shown to the public did not depict the maximums actually being approved.

What are the primary infrastructural and environmental concerns?

The Oude Molen corridor is facing intense development pressure from concurrent mega-developments along the river system, including Conradie Park and Riverlands. No independent Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has been conducted for Oude Molen, despite it directly bordering the sensitive Black River wetland—a critical habitat for protected wildlife such as the endangered Western Leopard Toad. Furthermore, local schools are already over-capacity, traffic congestion is high, and the entire high-density concept relies heavily on a proposed new train station that has zero confirmed funding in PRASA’s corporate infrastructure budget.

How does commenting via Dear South Africa differ from signing a petition?

In South African planning law, a petition with thousands of signatures is treated as a single, symbolic collective objection by municipal tribunals. Conversely, the DearSouthAfrica platform processes your inputs as an independent individual submission. Every comment submitted via this portal is delivered directly to the City of Cape Town’s Land Use Management directorate, legally forcing the municipality to log, read, and individually consider your specific commentary under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA).

Western Cape Government proposal package