Environmental alliance objects proposed cell mast project
It was remarked by SDCEA that due to the already constrained nature of the Durban South Basin, this proposed development will add further and undue pollution to the area.
THE South Durban Community Environmental Alliance (SDCEA) is up in arms regarding the proposed construction and erection of telecommunications mast infrastructure at 865 Marine Drive.
Located in Treasure Beach, Bluff the location of this proposed development of the cell mast has been initiated by Atlas Tower Pty Ltd, an independent global wireless infrastructure company which develops and owns high-quality tower sites. The site is about 10km south-west of Durban central and has been proposed to lease a portion of the property for the construction and erection of a telecommunications tower. According to Ecourb Projects and Planning, a consulting company hired by Atlas Tower Pty Ltd to assess the area in question and to liaise with the community, the layout will include the tower and network service provider containers. “The entire site will be fenced off and locked at all times. The proposed site does not form an important corridor or linkage to other open space areas,” explained Willem van den Brink from Ecourb.
In terms of the amendments to the environmental impact assessment (EIA) regulation under the National Environmental Management Act, Act 107 of 1998, a basic assessment report is to be submitted to the Department of Economic Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs KZN (EDTEA), for assessment. This assessment is currently underway by Ecourb.
Although SDCEA maintains that the community was not clearly informed about the project, Willem shared that Ecourb did interact with the community on several occasions during this project. “The basic assessment was advertised and notice boards placed on 27 July 2018 giving respondents an opportunity to participate and comment based on detailed information.The latest round of communications was through circulation of a ‘Comments and Response Report’ dated November 2019. Initially the project was advertised, site notices were placed and letters were hand delivered to neighboring properties. From that all respondents were added to a Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs) list. The list was updated as the project progressed. Communications to date was mostly through email. Telephone conversations were minimal and respondents communicated mostly through email. There were a number of responses received. The community responded well in the sense that a large number of the community engaged in the process,” he said.
It was remarked by SDCEA that due to the already constrained nature of the Durban South Basin this proposed development will add further and undue pollution to the area as well as a host of health risks associated with cell masts for nearby residents.
Shanice Firmin from SDCEA noted the following concerns on the impact on health, on property values, on the visual impact as well as the concern about the cell masts vicinity to St. Monica’s Children’s Home. According to the South Durban Community Environmental Alliance (SDCEA), many members of the community were not clearly informed about this project and its health and environmental threats to the community.
Ward 66 Bluff councillor JP Prinsloo, said that he has objected to cell masts based on the three main grounds. Namely that, “The health standards/criteria used by the municipality issued by the World Health Organisation, on the effects of cell masts, are outdated. Numerous other studies conducted by equally as credible intuitions are more up to date and produce adverse findings to those of the WHO.
“The municipal property valuation role is an inaccurate measure of the effect of cell masts on property value (used to defend the negative effects of the establishment of cell masts). Comments by realtors and real estate professional have revealed that there are indeed effects on the property value of those situated on properties neighbouring cell masts. “The current objection process is exclusionary and does not allow appeals by those who cannot afford to pay the R5000 application fee. This is anti-poor and excludes the voices of the majority of residents in the city. This is not in line with the preamble of the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act (SPLUMA), which calls for a system of spatial planning and land use management (that) promotes social and economic inclusion. I do not believe that by excluding people from an appeal process is in line with the objectives of SPLUMA,” said JP.
Asked whether community members could still object to the project, Willem said: “We keep the process open up to the point of lodging the final report to the competent authority. Hence, yes comments can still be made should anyone wish to do so.” For more information contact Ecourb on 078-903-3930.
DID YOU KNOW?
Click on the words highlighted in red to read more on this and related topics.
To receive news links via WhatsApp, send an invite to 061 694 6047
The South Coast Sun is also on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Pinterest – why not join us there?
Do you have more information pertaining to this story?
Feel free to let us know by commenting on our Facebook page or you can contact our newsroom on 031 903 2341 and speak to a journalist.
(Comments posted on this issue may be used for publication in the Sun)
