Partner review · 8 September 2026

Status and evidence

What the current record establishes, and what is still missing.

Working draft. Not an approved scheme, appointment or investment case.
Architect brief ↗Original model 01 ↗Expert model 02 ↗

Current position, freshly checked

  • Stage 1 was delivered in DM Report 01 on 12 December 2025. Stage 2 concept and market work remains preparatory; the six verification areas are not evidenced as closed. The old 30 January report target and July/August procurement dates are not current commitments.
  • The three SG diagrams show 5.3106 ha, 3.4576 ha and 2.1208 ha, totalling 10.889 ha, not 11.9 ha. This is the gross area of Portions 4, 6 and 7, excluding the Portion 8 road and any neighbouring dam-side land. It is not a net developable area or a current Deeds confirmation.
  • The 8 February 2001 letter records hotel/ancillary uses on Portion 6 and offices/professional rooms on Portion 7, each with 40% coverage, 0.8 FAR and two-storey/8.5 m limits. Parking for those portions refers to Table G; the separate Portion 3 parking ratios must not be imported. Current rights and all site-specific conditions need a planner's confirmation.
  • Pieter de Haas's 11 December 2025 email identifies the development of Portions 1–3 as the butchery and Village Mall, and advises rezoning Portion 4 for the intended uses. This corrects the overly categorical “sterilised” reading in the bible. It does not establish approved rights, density or an automatic planning route. His 50–60 units/ha suggestion is not a permitted yield.
  • The same email identifies unresolved substation-servitude arrangements on Portion 7 and assumes that the land south of Portion 6 belongs to the water authority. Do not treat dam-edge access or boardwalk construction as a landowner entitlement.
  • A May 8 email confirms receipt of Platinum's Portion 4 rezoning quotation, with Zubair to take it to the client. The actual quotation is absent from that accessible reply's attachments; fees, scope and acceptance cannot be verified. The July 27 diagnostic RFP is a different scope, intended to verify the whole site's planning position. Retrieve and normalise the two rather than commission overlapping work.
  • Zubair's July 27 Discord instruction names Ahmed Saber Bham as client-suggested architect and asks for a common brief so an alternate can quote. Neither appointment nor firm/contact details are verified.
  • Nando's May visit is corroborated by Zubair's May 8 follow-up. The latest matching operator reply found is May 13, promising to revert, not a lease or viability approval. Chicken Licken declined on January 12. No anchor revenue is included in the base.
  • The scoped task tracker still has the Stage 2 action-plan review open and records a request for site password protection. Mo authorised publication of these subpages on 8 September 2026. Their working status remains unchanged: publication is not approval of the assumptions or development scheme.

Evidence coverage and limits

Read: current repo bible, status, archive/context records, proposal, model registry, July options/evidence pack, live DM Report 01 and planning RFP, Site Info PDFs, relevant July Discord threads, and scoped Haarties tasks. The three SG diagrams and all three zoning-letter pages were visually inspected. The local site and live page were also checked.

Gmail coverage: initial all-time keyword discovery, then 40 matching threads containing 76 messages from April 2025 onwards across Haarties/Harties/Hartbeespoort/Hartebeespoort/Hartebeesport/Schoemansville/Waja terms, plus targeted planner/property and recent searches. Many matches were notifications or other projects. Findings above use relevant project correspondence, not notification counts as proof of activity. This is the accessible mb@akoma.life mailbox, not a claim to have searched Zubair's or Oliver's separate inboxes. No approved Haarties meeting pack was returned by the meeting reader, so recorder recaps were not used to establish new project facts. A recent bible audit date does not mean the underlying project facts were refreshed.

No signed new appointment, accepted operator terms, certified floodline, current zoning certificate, civil capacity letter, tax advice or bank term sheet was found in the checked evidence. “Not found” does not mean it does not exist elsewhere.