Why did Patel not consult community soon after March ’25 when new proposal was made?
Following the release of Draft Proposal 1 by the Municipal Demarcation Board (MDB) on 31 March 2025, residents across Tshwane were given a chance to have their say during a special input and relook phase. (All this time residents in Ward 61 were not aware of the draft proposal affecting our Ward, until the Laudium Sun brought it to the attention of the community recently).
This process is part of the MDB’s regular review, which takes place every five years to ensure that ward boundaries keep up with changes in population and development. The goal is to make sure that wards are balanced, fair, and practical for both voting and service delivery. The relook phase gave communities an important opportunity to review the draft maps and submit alternative proposals—especially where the changes might negatively affect local representation or access to services.
In Ward 61, the relook process was especially critical, as residents raised strong objections to several aspects of Draft Proposal 1
– The proposed inclusion of Mooiplaas, an informal settlement, into the Ward.
– The removal of Gerhardsville, a long established, rate-paying area.
– The division of the Rosina Sedibane Voting District between Wards 61 and 51 (Atteridgeville) which risks disrupting community cohesion and representation. These concerns formed the basis of the relook submissions, where residents proposed alternative voting district groupings that were more aligned with existing infrastructure, community ties, and the MDB’s own spatial planning criteria.\
In Draft Proposal 1, Ward 61 has three split voting districts, marked with a “Y” to indicate a division. While the Municipal Demarcation Board (MDB) explains that split voting districts can occur to balance ward sizes, some of these splits raise serious concerns.
Some of the voting district splits in Ward 61 appear unnecessary and poorly explained. In several cases, small areas that could remain whole were split, placing neighbours which share services into different wards. This has led to confusion, unclear service delivery responsibilities, and weakened representation, raising serious questions about the logic behind these decisions.
Residents have questioned the logic and fairness of these splits and raised them as key objections in the relook submissions for Ward 61.
Faced with sweeping Ward boundary changes proposed by the Municipal Demarcation Board (MDB), the Concerned Community Forum (CCF) supported by residents of Ward 61, facilitated a process of transforming a highly technical process into a powerful exercise in local democracy.
Despite repeated calls for a community meeting, the Ward 61 Councillor declined to
engage, stating that the Speaker of Council and the Chairperson of the Section 79 Rules and Ethics Committee had advised him that it was not his responsibility to address the public on the matter. Residents had requested the meeting with our Ward Councillor, not in a capacity as a representative of the MDB, but as their elected Ward Councillor, to facilitate public understanding and local accountability. In the absence of Councillor-led engagement,
the CCF stepped in to provide strategic coordination, transparent communication, and structured guidance, empowering residents to understand, engage with, and respond to the MDB’s Draft Proposal 1. The CCF Demarcation campaign not only ensured that submissions met all technical criteria, but also amplified public participation and reinforced the principle that governance must reflect the voice and needs of the people it serves. Members of the Concerned Community Forum (CCF) attended the public participation meeting on 20 June 2025, hosted by the Municipal Demarcation Board (MDB).
Drawing on the insights and technical information presented at that meeting, the CCF took the lead in coordinating a structured response on behalf of Ward 61 residents. Their efforts focused on raising public awareness through targeted information campaigns, co ordinating both digital and physical alternative proposal submissions using the MDB’s official Relook/Input Form, and motivating for spatially and administratively sound alternatives that better reflect the realities on the ground.
This structured and inclusive approach ensured that all inputs submitted were evidence-based, resident-informed, and aligned with the MDB’s official criteria — including norm compliance, geographic coherence, service delivery efficiency, and community of interest. This phase represents a key moment in local democracy — where residents asserted their right to shape their ward’s future, even in the absence of formal leadership support. The Municipal Demarcation Board’s (MDB) Relook Form allowed residents to submit alternative proposals to the draft ward boundaries published in Draft Proposal 1.
This process focused on voting districts (VDs) — the building blocks of each ward. Residents could propose changes to how a specific Voting District (VD) is grouped, suggest better-aligned ward boundaries, and were required to submit one form per VD. Each submission had to clearly identify the municipality, ward number, and specific voting district (VD), provide a clear alternative proposal, and justify the change using the MDB’s official criteria: population norm compliance, geographic coherence, community of interest, service delivery, and administrative practicality.
On June 27, 2025, the Concerned Community Forum (CCF) circulated an online objection form to residents, aimed at garnering support for the Relook/Input submissions to be submitted to the Municipal Demarcation Board (MDB) by June 30, 2025. The initiative received 397 online responses and 86 physical signatures, reflecting strong community backing for the formal objections submitted, despite the CCF BEING NOTIFIED IN THE 11TH HOUR, THANKS TO THE LAUDIUM SUN, ABOUT THE PROPOSAL.
The process also sparked active community engagement, with residents expressing concerns, asking questions, and sharing personal insights related to the draft proposal. This feedback helped shape the final submission, ensuring it was both technically sound and grounded in lived experiences. Each submission is based on the principle that any alternative proposal for a voting district must ensure that both affected Wards remain within the MDB’s required voter range. This means each Ward must have between 12,864 (minimum) and 17,404 (maximum) registered voters, with the norm set at 15,134. To ensure fairness and legal validity, the number of registered voters per ward should be kept as close to the norm as possible, maintaining balanced representation and service delivery.
The CCF with residents of Ward 61 officially submitted 4 Relook Forms to the Municipal Demarcation Board on June 30, 2025.
When read in isolation, the affected Wards may appear either compliant or non-compliant with the voter norm. However, we also submitted a consolidated proposal demonstrating that when the adjustments to Ward 61, Ward 51, and Ward 48 are considered together, all three wards retain norm compliance within the MDB’s required range.
This consolidated approach reflects a balanced, regionally aligned solution that maintains legal thresholds while addressing spatial and community concerns. Please see the summary of the inputs to be read in its entirety (please note that the voter base of Ward 61 = 15 583 voters):
- Reallocation of Mooiplaas Springs of Living Waters, VD 32980338 from Ward 61 to Ward 48.
- Removing (Mooiplaas) 1150 voters from Ward 61: 16 583 – 1150 = 15 433 (Ward 61
compliant). - Adding (Mooiplaas) 1150 voters from Ward 61 to Ward 48: 17 371 + 1150 = 18 521 (non complaint).
- Reallocation of Rosina Sedibane, VD 32980282 from Ward 61 to Ward 51.
- Removing (Rosina Sedibane) 655 registered voters from Ward 51: 14 761 – 655 = 14 106 (compliant).
- Adding (Rosina Sedibane) 655 registered voters to Ward 61: 16 583 + 655 = 17 238 (compliant).
- Reallocation of Monastery of the Descent (Gerhardsville), VD 32980327 from Ward 48 to
Ward 61. - Removing (Gerhardsville) 834 voters from Ward 48: 17 371 – 834 = 16 537 (compliant).
- Adding (Gerhardsville) 834 voters to Ward 61: 16 583 + 834 = 17 417 (non-compliant) – if Mooiplaas is included.
- If Mooiplaas is excluded, then Ward 61 is non compliant (16 583 – 1150 + 834 = 16 267).
These are the three inputs for Tshwane Ward 61, when read in conjunction with each other:
Ward 61 registered voters: 16 583
- Remove Mooiplaas (VD32980338) 1150 voters to Ward 48 = 15433.
- Add Gerhardsville (VD 32980327) 834 voters to Ward 61 = 15 433 + 834 = 16 267.
- Add Rosina Sedibane (32980282) 655 voters to Ward 61= 16 267 + 655 = 16 922.
Although the CCF’S input to the Municipal Demarcation Board was detailed and thoroughly motivated, the following is a brief summary of the key points submitted for consideration.
- Mooiplaas is better suited to Ward 48 due to its geographic connection to Sunderland Ridge, shared infrastructure routes, and similar socio economic characteristics.
- Ward 48 offers a more strategic and manageable environment for future development, including formalisation, service upgrades, and economic integration.
- In contrast, Ward 61 is already overburdened by the large informal settlement of Itireleng, failing infrastructure, high crime, and limited municipal resources. Adding Mooiplaas would double the informal population pressure, overwhelm basic services, and dilute representation—further destabilising the ward.
- For reasons of spatial logic, governance, and sustainable service delivery, Mooiplaas should be incorporated into Ward 48, where it can be more effectively managed and developed.
- The proposed split of the Rosina Sedibane Voting District is unjustified and problematic. Ward 61 already meets the required population norm, and the split introduces an artificial, invisible boundary through a socially and historically cohesive area that is functionally connected to Laudium, not Atteridgeville (Ward 51).
- A natural geographic barrier—a prominent ridgeline—already separates the two areas. The proposed change creates administrative confusion, weakens political representation, and disrupts community identity, placing neighbouring streets under different wards without valid reasoning.
We call on the MDB to reverse the split and retain the entire voting district within Ward 61, in the interest of fair representation, spatial logic, and governance clarity.
Since joining Ward 61 in 2021, Gerhardsville has become an essential part of the Ward’s governance, planning, and development. The community has built strong working relationships with neighbouring areas and plays an active role in service delivery and Ward decision-making. It is no longer an outsider — it is part of the fabric of Ward 61.
Removing Gerhardsville now would break growing community cohesion, disrupt progress, and set back integrated planning efforts. There is no spatial, geographic, or administrative justification for this change.
On June 29, 2025, the Ward 61 Councillor posted a message on the Ward 61 Service Delivery Group, outlining that his suggestion to the Municipal Demarcation Board (MDB) is to: maintain the current Ward boundaries with a minor adjustment. I suggest adding ONLY the farming area from the bridge outside Erasmia (before Jalapors farm) up to the Cheese Shop to our Ward. This addition would balance the numbers as required. The community was taken aback with this suggestion and the reference of potential new voters. Based on the open-ended and unclear message shared by the Councillor, several residents contacted the Concerned Community Forum (CCF) for assistance in raising a formal concern with the Municipal Demarcation Board (MDB).
In response, the CCF submitted an input—not as a counterproposal, but as a formal concern The core issue is that Hoekplaas is currently experiencing an active and unresolved land invasion crisis.
- Portions of land are being unlawfully occupied, with new structures appearing regularly.
- Residents have reported the situation repeatedly to the Councillor and City of Tshwane, including in multiple emails as well as in meetings with the MMC for Housing.
- To date, no protective action has been taken, leaving lawful landowners and families at risk.
- Expanding the Hoekplaas boundary under these conditions is reckless and unjustifiable, especially without consultation, clear maps, or service planning.
Additional concerns include:
- No clarity on whether Hoekplaas would receive services from Ward 61 or Ward 70.
- Existing infrastructure pressure in Ward 61.
- A complete lack of community engagement on a proposal with direct consequences for safety, governance, and service delivery.
Residents of Hoekplaas request that the MDB:
- Suspend the proposed expansion until the land invasion crisis is addressed.
- Conduct a formal impact study.
- Ensure that any boundary changes follow principles of transparency, planning logic, and constitutional fairness.
This submission formed part of the formal Ward 61 community input to Demarcation Proposal Draft 1.
Submitted by the Concerned Community Forum (CCF).