Councillors meet about planned pylons
The reduction in property values of EMM land, as well as that of the residents whose properties will visually be severely adversely affected by the pylons.
A MEETING between community role players and different departments involved in Eskom’s planned pylons in Alberton took place recently.
Those present included the divisional head of specialist projects (city planning), divisional head (real estate), manager of property management division (Boksburg), Councillor Alta de Beer and Alderman Bruna Haipel.
“I opened the meeting by giving everyone the background of events as from the first meetings in 2011 and pointing out that right from then, residents were not in support of electricity cables spanning the centre of Alberton,” said Haipel.
“Since 2011, there were no further communications until 2014. On June 10, 2014, Pieter Grobler met with all departments to look at servitudes and all officials objected to the alignment and a presentation was arranged for August 11 where the DFC (Development Facilitation Committee) decided that a task team with officials from both sides find a solution.
“City planning then issued a report recommending further work to identify alternative routes as the route past Alberton central is not supported. In 2015, the item was served at the DFC, but was referred back by the chairperson for further discussions with Eskom. A new item was prepared reflecting all aspects of servitudes, but no agreement with Eskom regarding Alberton, so the item was referred to political structures. Then the item was served at the mayoral committee and referred again, etc, etc,” explained Haipel.
“We were told that there were many discussions with Eskom and Eskom is adamant that it has followed the correct procedures,” she adds.
The Environmental Authorisation granted by the Department of Environmental Affairs following an EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) states that the activity must commence within a period of three years from the date of issue. “When questioning this, I was told that although activities only started at Matla, this is acceptable. The validity of this is questionable,” Haipel said.
EMM asked for a legal opinion and were advised that the record of decision on Section 79, (18)(b) public participation is valid.
De Beer raised the following concerns:
*Section 79, (18)(b) provides that whenever a council wishes to grant servitude on council land, the council shall post public notices and advertise in papers (do public participation) and give the residents the option of objecting.
*Have the other hot spot areas of concern been resolved?
Haipel raised other concerns:
*Despite Eskom’s claims that public participation was effectively done, the Alberton Primary School headmaster was totally unaware that power lines would span the school’s playground. The Education Department is also unaware of this.
*The validity of the environmental authorisation is suspect.
*The reduction in property values of EMM land, as well as that of the residents whose properties will visually be severely adversely affected by the pylons.
*Council needs to do public participation.
*The residents have objections and concerns.
“In view of all the above, DA Councillors involved have requested a further meeting with Eskom, their consultants and EMM officials. This will take place early in 2017,” Haipel told the RECORD.
Spokesperson for the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality, Themba Gadebe, had this to say: “The City Planning Department is aware of and attended the meetings held on December 1 and 2. The second meeting concluded with a resolution by the city manager that the real estate item must be finalised to serve at the oversight committee.
“An item will serve at the oversight committee meeting for consideration before it will be presented to council again. The oversight committee withdrew the previous item from the November 2016 council agenda for the new councillors and committee members to obtain a better understanding of the issues involved with the processes leading to approval of a record of decision to install the Eskom power lines. Until the oversight committee considers the item again, there is no further explanation and decisions that can be communicated at this stage.”
