Residents go to court over Craighall mast
A GROUP of Craighall Park residents want the City of Johannesburg to demolish a 30m cellular mast and telecommunications tower they argue was erected unlawfully on the church’s property.
In their notice of motion filed in the High Court, they also want the City of Johannesburg’s decision in October last year to approve the mast under the National Building Regulations to be reviewed and set aside.
Colleen Fandam, one of the three applicants in the matter, said residents had a written agreement from the Old Apostolic Church that it would withdraw from its lease agreement with Atlas Tower, which it has now “reneged” on.
“Des p i t e nu mero u s requests, we are unable to find a copy of the current policy (on cell masts) and everyone you speak to has a different view as to what the necessary procedures are. The council has failed to respond to any requests for i n f o rmation, including submission documents as well as i nfor mation on what the prescribed processes are.
“The public participation process allows for the objections to be addressed, as well as for a tribunal. None of this happened.”
The council has failed to file an answering affidavit.
Fandam’s comments this week follow a recent statement by city spokesperson Virgil James, commenting on complaints about the lack of public participation in Craighall Park and Lonehill over the erection of cellular infrastracture.
“In the City of Johannesburg, residents in the northern suburbs have recently voiced their unhappiness with the installation of cellphone masts in their areas, citing cancer, devaluing of property, blocking of the vista and unsightliness among other reasons, even though these very same masts allow them to communicate at will.”
There was no statutory obligation on an applicant for a cellphone mast to embark on a public participation process before such an application may be approved by the municipality, he said.
“The only notice to be given is to the owner of the property... the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act regards masts as a building structure and requires that the applicant submit a building plan for approval but does not prescribe any public participation process.”
The council, James explained, would look at rescinding its cellphone mast policy that fostered a public participation process.
“The intention is to draft a new policy that takes into account all forms of communication installations and its impact on residents and the environment.”
“Is there a standard public participation process and is it different for cellphone towers? Do different towers have different regulations? Who monitors the construction? Who monitors the emissions?” Fandam asked.
In an unanswered email to the council in May t his year, another Craighall Park resident wrote h ow the “church are proceeding with putting a 30m-high cellphone mast on the property and somehow have approved City of Johannesburg plans, ir respective of for mal objections lodged by all neighbouring properties.”
The church did not respond to the Saturday Star this week.
Henco Pretorius, legal representative for Atlas Tower, which filed its answering af fidavit this week, said: “We fir mly adhere to the applicable rules, re gulations, and requirements that govern the proper siting and operation of communication facilities in all municipalities.
“With re gard to the Craighall Park tower, the City of Johannesburg has detailed guidelines for applications for the erection of tele phone infrastructure within the city in terms of the cellular mast policy for the city, which was adopted by its council on December 14, 2001, and as such all the prescribed processes were followed.”
See page 13