The objections against developing the pavilion and promenade are as follows:

• Rationale

The rationale for the proposal call has fallen away. Since 1998 the problematic promenade buildings have been demolished, the swimming pool complex has been refurbished and crime has been reduced considerably. The promenade as it is now is more popular than ever and the open spaces are extensively utilised. The need for a redevelopment of the Sea Point Pavilion therefore no longer exists.

• Parking

Sea Point Beach Road experiences serious parking problems in the best of times and an acute parking shortage in season. The new development proposes reducing part of the public parking to accommodate the intended building. This will exacerbate the current under provision of public parking and effectively cedes public space to a commercial development. The negative effect will compound the parking problems already experienced.

• Economic Feasibility

The proposal call was based on the assumption that Sea Point would benefit from the creation of a new economic hub. At the time of the proposal call, businesses in Sea Point Main Road were suffering from unfavourable economic conditions. However, in the intervening nine years businesses in Sea Point have benefited from significant developments in Main Road, St John’s Piazza among them, and the entire economic climate in the area has changed. In fact, rather than benefit, the proposed development would harm the businesses in Main Road by dividing the existing clientele and would go a long way towards undoing the economic regeneration that has taken place in the area.

• Loss of Open Space

The proposed development would lead to a loss of extensively utilised and scarce urban open space. This will not only impact on the Sea Point community, but on all users of the open space.

• No Benefit to Community

The proposed project does not stand to benefit the community in the long term: There have been significant concerns about the utility and feasibility of the proposed project. The proposed “hotel” would reserve a large part of the current open space for the use of a privileged few and the general public will not be able to share therein. It cannot be allowed that erven 151, 153 and 318 be de facto placed in private hands for commercial purposes

• Lack of transparency

There has been a general lack of transparency with the award of the tender to On Track Developments (Pty) Ltd. Not only did the officials involved speak out of two mouths, but none of the large developers in Cape Town tendered for the project and the perception exists that the proposal was not properly published. Concerns also exist regarding the manner in which the appeals against the Environmental Impact Assessment were dealt with by the Minister.

• Thin end of the wedge

There are clear indications that precedents created by the proposed development would lead to the development of all the land presently zoned Public Open Space.