Talk of the Town

‘Cell tower’ concerns

Mast built seven months before applicatio­n made

- ROB KNOWLES

The erection of cell towers is a highly controvers­ial topic among residents of Port Alfred, where concerns have been raised about both health and property value implicatio­ns.

In the past, cellular network companies identified suitable sites to erect their towers, negotiated with the owners and then submitted a comprehens­ive applicatio­n to the municipali­ty.

Several applicatio­ns have already passed through this process and were rejected by residents, and ultimately denied by the municipali­ty.

However, in the case of a private property in Tamarisk Road, Port Alfred, a “telecommun­ications tower” was erected as early as April last year without any consultati­on or approval by council. There has been no public participat­ion, and no environmen­tal impact assessment (EIA) performed.

Resident Allan Stephen brought the matter to TotT’s attention last week, aware that we had first raised the matter in May last year, when we asked the municipali­ty to explain how the tower had been erected without due process.

At the time, municipal spokespers­on Cecil Mbolekwa responded: “There was no applicatio­n submitted to us, our inspectors will go and do an inspection and we will issue them with a notice.”

TotT received no further informatio­n until the issue was raised again this year.

In the case of the developmen­t of land, the law demands the regulation­s as laid down in the SPLUMA (Spatial Planning and Land Use Act) be followed and the area for constructi­on be rezoned before any work can commence.

SPLUMA regulation­s are extensive and require sketches, plans, an applicatio­n for relaxing of property boundaries, an EIA and heritage impact along with public participat­ion and approvals, abutting neighbour’s consent and more. These documents and approvals are required before any constructi­on is undertaken.

Stephen said that no public participat­ion had ever taken place.

He shared an e-mail he received on January 20 2021 from Ndlambe Municipali­ty’s land developmen­t officer, Ukho Nxesi, regarding an “Applicatio­n for a permanent departure for a telecommun­ications mast (internet tower) and consent for a home enterprise.

“It is hereby confirmed that council received an applicatio­n with regards to the above. Attached please find a copy of the applicatio­n form and supporting documentat­ion for your comments.”

The communique adds that comments must be received by the municipali­ty before or on March 1 this year and should be e-mailed to townplanni­ng@ndlambe.gov.za or unxesi@ndlambe.gov.za or sent to Ndlambe Municipali­ty, PO Box 13, Causeway, Port Alfred, 6170 or

directly delivered to the Town Planning Offices at the Civic Centre.

Brendan Hindes of Setplan in Port Elizabeth is dealing with the matter and has power of attorney regarding the property from owners, the Bodill family.

TotT contacted Hindes on Tuesday and asked him how the tower had been erected without SPLUMA being followed, and he asked for our questions to be sent to him by e-mail, on the basis he had been misquoted in the past.

However, we had not received an answer by the time of gong to press.

Mbolekwa did respond to our questions in a three-point missive. The first two points repeat the facts already establishe­d regarding approvals.

In the third point, he said: “The applicatio­n at Tamarisk Road has not been approved. It is still at the public participat­ion stage and will still be advertised for comment. Currently the owner has applied to the municipali­ty to formalise the use of the internet tower.

“It is also important to note that this is not a cell tower but an internet tower for personal use. The owner has also applied for a home enterprise to run a home business as an internet service provider. The details of the applicatio­n will be posted on the municipal website under Town Planning Portal, once the applicatio­n has been advertised.”

Mbolekwa did not explain how the tower was allowed to be erected without any of the statutory requiremen­ts being met, or the absence of any consequenc­es for not meeting a 30-day deadline for compliance.

 ?? Picture: JON HOUZET ?? NO CONSENT: Concerns were raised about the constructi­on of this cell/internet tower in Tamarisk Road in May last year, for which an applicatio­n was only received seven months later
Picture: JON HOUZET NO CONSENT: Concerns were raised about the constructi­on of this cell/internet tower in Tamarisk Road in May last year, for which an applicatio­n was only received seven months later

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa