Businesses and residents of Parkmore are up in arms about what they believe to be the illegal erection of a Telkom Mobile mast on the property of 96 11th Street, Parkmore.
Residents on many of the surrounding properties say that the mast was erected on 13 June without public participation, saying that they had received no notification from Telkom about the erection of the mast.
However, a man who prefers not to be named and who works on site acquisition at Telkom Mobile has produced documents dated 22 May, showing that registered letters have been sent to property owners of 93, 94, 95, 97 and 98 11th Street, Parkmore.
Telkom executive for group communication Gugulethu Maqetuka said the tower height does not exceed 15 metres. “In accordance with the National Environmental Management Act, public participation is not a requirement for the erection of towers with a height of 15m or less… The formal procedure in this instance entailed lease negotiations with the land owner and a submission of building plans to the City Council for the site build,” said Maqetuka.
People working and living in the vicinity of the mast are also concerned about the devaluation of their properties and the potential health hazard they believe the mast may pose.
Maqetuka said the output power of this mast varies between 10 and 13 Watts. She added that Telkom is not aware of any health-related risks associated with living or working near the mast.
Gary Flax, a business owner at 98 11th Street, photographed the codes on the pole while it was being erected, and believes that the antenna’s frequency range is much higher than Telkom is letting on.
Flax’s employee, Kerry Falconer, said, “My biggest concern is the radiation emitting from the mast. I’m 21 weeks pregnant. No-one has bothered to hear if we are happy about this pole being erected… The last thing I want is for my child to grow up in a world where they are not afforded a full life.”
The resident of 95 10th Street (the residential property directly behind 96 11th Street) Lauren Oertli, who is seven months pregnant said, “The mast is a 15m monstrosity in the area. I have been in contact with the City of Joburg, who sent an inspector to assess the situation because the mast was put up before consent was granted. My concern about health has been widely documented. We bought the property six months ago and it will devalue now with that pole. I hope that we will come right with authorities.
“I haven’t done any extensive research, but my general concern is cancers. It’s hard to prove anything, but having something so powerful within 50m of you can’t be good for your health.”
Ellen Viglietti, who resides at 93 10th Street said, “I have been resident here for 15 years, and am not willing to allow such an immense interference in the quality of my life and my health to be determined by complete strangers who have no conscience, and without my legally required consent.”
Ward councillor Martin Williams said, “I am concerned about the lack of public participation, which would be in violation of the City’s Cellular Mast Policy. Clause 8.3 states that ‘Adjacent land owners, or any other land owner who in the opinion of the building control officer might be affected by the application, shall be requested in writing to comment on the application within 21 days of being requested to do so’. This does not seem to have happened.”
Explorers become creative and invite Bryanston community members to join the conversation
Williams said he asked the City’s chief plan examiner, Heather Trumble, whether the erection of the mast is legal and a building inspector has visited the site.
However, regarding health issues, Williams said the National Department of Health documentation concludes that there are no scientific grounds to support any allegation that adverse health effects might be suffered by a responsible member of the public’.
The owner of 96 11th Street, Parkmore refused to comment on the matter.
Talk to us by posting on our timeline, Sandton Chronicle or tweeting us @Sandton_News
