The application for consent use of a portion of Excelsior Park in Highbury for a cellphone mast was refused at the Municipal Planning Tribunal (MPT) northeastern regional meeting held on Tuesday 11 July.
A lengthy report was tabled for decision by the MPT following objection by civic organisation Highbury Foundation. The application for the lease of a portion of the park was approved last year.
Excelsior Park, a large open space with some small trees is surrounded by houses (most facing towards the park) and two schools, Soneike High and Highbury Primary schools. There is also an Educare centre on part of the property being leased from the City.
A report for comment by the subcouncil for the lease of a portion of the land (Erf 7121) to SBA Towers was submitted at a council meeting on 29 March last year.
The summary from the meeting minutes note in terms of public participation that an advert appeared in Die Burger and Cape Argus on 8 October 2021 (five objections were received). It also states, “the subject property is regarded as nonviable land”.
Subcouncil 21 recommended approval listing motivational factors such as relieving the City of maintenance burden, market related rental income, better use of City land and improved telecommunication services.
Discontent
Highbury Foundation expressed its discontent to the subcouncil manager following the approval: “The proposed location of the tower will be a hindrance to our vision for the park. We fail to understand why it was identified for the tower but there are several other suitable undeveloped and unused open land owned by the City in Highbury and Highbury Park that could be explored for the tower.”
“The Highbury Foundation have submitted proposals to subcouncil 21 for improvement and upgrade of the park for the benefit of the community. These proposals have been ignored. It is ironic and disingenuous of subcouncil 21 to recommend the approval of the request to lease part of the property to a third party even though they were well aware of the proposed plans for improvement of the park, thus betraying the community’s trust.”
Minutes of a meeting (in 2021) with three representatives each of both Highbury Foundation and Highbury Ratepayers and Residents Association (Hirra) with subcouncil officials regarding proposals for future use of the park was included in the tabled report.
The summary of objections in the report included health concerns (with focus on learners, educare children), visual pollution, that the tower will inhibit movement and recreational activities, that the application is inconsistent with the City’s Telecommunication Mast Infrastructure Policy, the proposed location is not compatible with the adjoining land uses, and it will have a negative impact on property values.
With regard to health concerns the report mentioned the environmental health services department indicated the installation must comply with the International Commission in Non-ionizing Radiation Protection public exposure guidelines and these towers are generally deemed safe.
It suggested “considering the close proximity of the proposed location to adjoining residences, [in which] a cautionary approach should be adopted.”
The report noted “the telecommunications base station will bring socio-economic benefits to the community due to the increase in network coverage and easy access to emergency services via data or call connectivity” and that connectivity will assist with economic growth.
Eyesore
The MPT panel decided with three votes to two to refuse the application, mainly on the basis that a 15 m tower in the middle of the park will be an eyesore and more suitable sites are available.
The meeting minutes state it “is not in line with the City’s Telecommunication Mast Infrastructure Policy because it will have a significant negative visual impact. The proposed location of the 15 m high tree mast and associated structures will have a detrimental impact in terms of visual compatibility with the surrounding environment, as there are no other structures to effectively mitigate such impact; and there are other opportunities for co-location within 1 km radius, which obviates the need for an additional BTS at this proposed location.”
Dannie September, who resides next to Excelsior Park, is glad the application was rejected, but not convinced it’s the end of local residents’ “battle”.
”Cell towers are controversial,” he says.
“The City’s community involvement was shocking.”
He questioned whether the City has a clear strategy for the deployment of cell towers. “They are solely acting on behest of big business.”
September says there are four towers within a 1 km radius from the park. “Most people in Highbury have fibre. Why do we need towers 500 m apart from each other?”
He said the City followed process for the land-use application by sending registered letters to him and others who live next to the park, but this was not done for the land-lease application.
“Five people objected who saw the notice published (in the two daily newspapers on 8 October 2021). They put in comprehensive objections but the City failed to get back to them to tell them that their objections were rejected. They were denied the right to appeal.”
The current zoning of the park permits telecommunication structures.
September said this allows for more applications to come.
Opposition
Ahead of the MPT’s decision, Winston Middleton, vice-chair of Highbury Foundation, said the land-use refusal would be “a real victory for the foundation” as they don’t have the financial resources to challenge the company (SBA Towers) or the City in court.
Middleton said the foundation also collected objections for another cellphone tower application from residents in Highbury Park.
The public comment period for the proposed lease of a portion of Erf 14078 Highbury Park closed on Friday 14 July. This site on the corner of Highbury Road and Muir Street is less than a kilometre from Excelsior Park and therefore an alternative location.
Graham Raatz, a member of Highbury Foundation and ward committee member (civil sector), said there will always be opposition of those closest to the tower and the “NIMBY syndrome” (not in my backyard).
“A comprehensive analysis would have to be done of the whole of Highbury and immediately adjacent areas with all role-players to map out possible locations and put it to communities for their input through public participation,” he said.
“A strong motivation for rejection is that these towers serve only the business interest of the cellphone towers at the expense of property owners. There is no objection to these towers being erected in adjacent industrial areas.” Raatz emphasised his views are his own.
The applicant can still appeal the MPT decision.
