Update on Illovo LED Screen
ILLOVO – The LED screen on Galen House at Illovo Junction has given rise to controversies regarding the legality of the screen itself versus that of the screen showcasing adverts.
In response to residents’ complaints about the super-bright light coming from the LED screen in Illovo, the involved outdoor advertising company availed a few annexures. The Rosebank Killarney Gazette previously reported on the screen in the article, Outdoor advert havoc, Week ending 24 August, 2018.
The documents were supplied by Tomer Cohen, MD of Wideopen Platform, the outdoor advertising company, who invested in the digital screen with the property owners at Readam SA a few years ago.
The annexures gave details that related to interactions by Dudley van Wyk Architects on behalf of Readam SA and their attorneys’ proceedings against the City of Johannesburg.
The first few pages gave an account of the appeal by Van Wyk against the decision of the operations manager of outdoor advertising to refuse permission to flight an advertisement on the existing LED screen.
“The LED structure was erected in accordance with building plans approved by the City of Johannesburg. The purpose of the application in terms of the Outdoor Advertising By-laws was purely to obtain permission to display advertisements on this legally erected structure,” read the appeal.
The appeal was made on 29 January, 2018 and the decision by Jack Sekgobela, operations manager, City of Johannesburg Outdoor Advertising Department, as per the High Court order, had been made in December 2017. However, provided Annexure A, which is Sekgobela’s response to Van Wyk read, “The application to erect an advertising hoarding located on ERF 119 PTN 1, Illovo is refused.”
In the same response, Sekgobela had added that if Van Wyk wished to appeal against the decision, he should do so on or before 11 January 2018. However, this response never reached the Readam team and their attorneys until 18 January, 2018. This was when Sekgobela attached the aforementioned response and said after failed deliveries to the applicant, they had alternatively sent the response to the attorneys and stated that the matter had been ‘settled’.
Therefore, according to Cohen, “The Outdoor Advertising Department took the view that because the Appellant had constructed and erected the LED screen in accordance with approved building plans before obtaining outdoor advertising approval, that the structure was illegal. However, the High Court found that the structure was, in fact, legal, but Appellant was not entitled to flight advertisements on the screen till approval had been obtained from the City’s Outdoor Advertising Department, which the Appellant had and has been attempting to do for several years.”
Court documents to validate the mentioned findings were also made available.
In a recent update on the matter, senior legal advisor, Group Legal and Contracts from City of Johannesburg, Moagi Mmutlwane said, “We are proceeding with contempt of court proceedings against the owner of the illegal sign. The notice regarding the contempt of court proceedings are being drafted by counsel. The matter will be set down for hearing once we have received a response to the notice.”
Mmutlwane added that prior to drafting the aforementioned notice, the attorneys had served the owner of the illegal sign with a letter demanding them to cease operation of the sign, to which the owner had failed to adhere.
Details: Readam SA
Post your opinions on the Rosebank Killarney Gazette Facebook page
Related Articles:
