POWER GUZZLERS: Cape Town data centre developers say objectors misunderstand the hustle

Getting one thing straight about the data centres planned for opposite Cape Town International Airport is that the developer on record, which is handling all the wheeling and dealing and issued the formal response to the appeal, is a crowd called Planning Partners.They’re acting on behalf of King Air Industria (KAI, which is co-developed by Attebury) and Equinix. According to the 91-page response that could be obtained only via a Paia request, which Daily Maverick has now studied, Equinix’s involvement in the KAI project centres on a long-term commercial lease and infrastructure funding arrangement.Crucially, Equinix’s legal counsel (Baker & McKenzie) advised the company not to proceed with multi-hundred-million-rand investments unless the City of Cape Town provided explicit statutory certainty that data centres are legally permitted under municipal zoning rules. This legal warning directly prompted the City to amend its Municipal Planning By-law to explicitly include “data centre” under the definition of a warehouse.Now that we’re all on the same page, we can dive into the primary defence.All part of the packagePlanning Partners argues that the objectors misunderstand municipal planning law under Item 136 of the Development Management Scheme.They state that, under this framework, large precincts are developed in stages. The developer contends that the current application merely subdivides, consolidates and rezones land to create a buildable site (Erf 180451 for Data Centre 2).The argument is that granular operational details – such as building architecture, cooling mechanics, noise propagation, fuel storage and National Environmental Management Act (Nema) environmental triggers – belong strictly to the subsequent Site Development Plan and Building Plan stages.But while co-developer Atterbury publicly described the application as an “inconsequential” 280m² boundary correction and claimed Equinix’s involvement was purely speculative, the appeal response submitted by Planning Partners explicitly confirms Equinix as the primary party driving the development.“In August, Equinix’s South Africa MD said there was a ‘misnomer’ in the public perception of data centres’ consumption of critical resources,” Daniel Hartford, the South African lead for UK legal advocacy non-profit Foxglove, explained in response to Daily Maverick’s questions about the rebuttal.Foxglove and the Legal Resources Centre (LRC) made the Paia request for the document after the City decided to handle the appeal hearing behind closed doors.“Since then, his company’s response to Foxglove’s appeal has been revealed. It confirms – despite repeated denials to the press – that Equinix is indeed behind the planning application. It says this in black and white on the second page of Equinix’s appeal response. When the audience was the City, the site was Equinix’s data centre. When the audience was journalists and the public, it was 280 square metres of nothing in particular.”The game is afootIn October 2024, the City approved the site for the first data centre (Erf 180444) under General Industry 1 (GI1) zoning. At the time, the Development Management Scheme contained no mention or definition of a “data centre”. As Daily Maverick reported previously, the City treated data centres as a primary permitted right under General Industry 1 by interpreting digital data as “goods stored in a warehouse”.In 2025, Baker & McKenzie and senior counsel challenged this interpretation. They advised Equinix that categorising a data centre as a warehouse storing physical goods would not withstand legal scrutiny under standard statutory interpretation.Equinix formally notified the City that due to the multi-hundred-million-rand investment required, it would not proceed with the development without explicit statutory legal certainty.To resolve the legal concerns, the City initiated an amendment to the Municipal Planning By-law (read: Development Management Scheme). Passed by Council on 26 June 2026 and coming into full operation on 1 October 2026, the amendment inserted explicit definitions into municipal law:Definition of ‘data centre’: “ ‘data centre’ means a building or dedicated space within a building or a group of buildings used to store computer systems and associated components, such as telecommunication and storage systems;” Amended definition of ‘warehouse’: “ ‘Warehouse’ means a building used primarily for the storage of goods, except those that are offensive or dangerous, and includes property used for a data centre or a business of a retail or wholesale nature;” Amended definition of ‘business premises’: Explicitly updated to include “data centre” alongside shops and offices.By linking “data centre” directly into the definitions of “warehouse” and “business premises”, data centres automatically now became a primary permitted right across all General Industry (GI1) and Mixed Use (MU1) properties city-wide without requiring individual rezoning or consent use approvals.Wait, but what is the City’s stance?Good question. Upon reviewing the evidence and gleaning conversations with the main characters in Geordin Hill-Lewis’ administration, the City of Cape Town is operating under an investor-focused “open for business” agenda, seeking to establish the metro as Africa’s premier digital hub. To secure hyperscale tech investments, the City has demonstrated extreme responsiveness – amending municipal planning laws, facilitating land swaps, and accepting upfront infrastructure contributions.From an administrative perspective, it seems to be a done deal. Why? Because the record shows that:The City has already accepted R33.3-million in Shared Network Charges from Equinix.The executive mayor signed off on the underlying land swap in May 2026.The City proactively altered its Municipal Planning By-law specifically to remove legal hurdles raised by Equinix’s attorneys.The City has shielded Equinix’s appeal submissions from public scrutiny and held appeal advisory hearings in private.The City has already approved five data centres across the metro, with two more under assessment.Standing on businessThe wildest disclosure in the 91-page rebuttal, however, is how it deals with the environmental authorisation (EA) and water usage rights.KAI received an environmental authorisation from the Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning on 11 May 2018 for a generic mixed-use industrial park.The project Environmental Assessment Practitioner (Chand Consultants) asserts that data centres fit inside this broad baseline envelope.A new Nema Environmental Impact Assessment will only be triggered at the Site Development Plan stage if detailed designs exceed specific thresholds – such as backup diesel generator capacity exceeding 10MW under Listing Notice 2.KAI holds a General Authorisation issued under Section 21(c) and 21(i) of the National Water Act on 15 March, 2018 for watercourse and wetland alterations. The Environmental Assessment Practitioner confirms that constructing the data centres remains within this General Authorisation scope and requires no new Water Use License Application.The developer argues that detailed environmental, water, and energy assessments belong strictly to the future Site Development Plan stage under a “Package of Plans” framework. The Legal Resources Centre (LRC) counters that deferring these critical studies leaves communities unprotected while offering no legally binding commitments on green energy or water security.“On cooling and renewables it contradicts itself: air-source cooling is ‘confirmed’ and ‘not yet finalised’; renewable PPAs are ‘confirmed’ and ‘will be decided upon at a later date’… Nothing binds the applicant,” was what the LRC had to say in response to Daily Maverick’s inquiry.Where to from here?Following the conclusion of the appeal panel hearing, the appellants are awaiting the final ruling from the Appeal Authority (none other than City of Cape Town Executive Mayor Geordin Hill-Lewis).The LRC says that it is now focusing on the appeals process. Once a decision has been made, they will consider their options and determine the most appropriate route to take the matter forward.One option may involve a review challenge in the high court under Paja [Promotion of Administrative Justice Act]. However, their approach will depend on the decision of the mayor and other circumstances at that stage.“South Africa needs a discussion about digital infrastructure: about why it is needed, who it is for, who will pay the cost and how it will affect us,” says Foxglove’s Hartford.“It is disappointing that instead of being transparent about its plans... Equinix has chosen – through omission and contradiction – to deepen the very confusion it has complained about publicly. Capetonians deserve better.” DM