Fight over big satellite dishes in Stellenbosch winelands

A pair of Johannesburg-based businessmen have reportedly jumped the gun on their data farming project in Stellenbosch.

They have installed a field of 13m-high satellite dishes on the boundary of Winemaker Philip Myburgh’s property without authorisation from the municipality.

The Sunday Times reports that the project is to develop a 19-hectare satellite data gateway centre on agricultural land. However, Myburgh called for an investigation after spotting the antennas near his boundary fence.

“All work being carried out on the site is unauthorised,” Stellenbosch municipality spokesperson Stuart Grobbelaar told Sunday Times.

He added that the developer had ignored three formal notices from the municipality ordering them to cease work.

He also confirmed that the developer has not obtained any environmental authorisations from the Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning and that no environmental impact study is under consideration for the project.

Residents in the area are up in arms and launched a petition against the development.

“We urge everyone to stand together and sign this petition to halt the illegal antennas and data centre project,” it reads.

“They have acquired agricultural land to erect six 15-meter high antennas and a massive data centre, causing severe environmental and agricultural damage.”

One of the partners, David Borchardt, told the Sunday Times that the facility will assist maritime traffic rerouted around the South African coast, ensuring uninterrupted connectivity for vessels and support for global supply chains.

He added that the firm’s legal advisors will ensure compliance with the relevant legislation and local bylaws.

South Africa has strict regulations governing the erection of telecommunications infrastructure.

Some of South Africa’s mobile network operators have been in hot water in the past for installing cellular towers without residents’ permission in Cape Town and Johannesburg.

In April 2019, Constantia residents in Cape Town won a legal battle against MTN to have a “visually intrusive” cellphone mast taken down.

This followed a seven-year legal battle that cost the residents R2.5 million. It was centred around a five-metre mast “disguised as a chimney” in the area.

MTN reportedly asked residents for permission to upgrade the tower to support 3G technology in 2012, but the City of Cape Town never authorised the upgrade.

MTN upgraded the tower anyway. However, it was “more extensive and visually intrusive” than what the residents had agreed to.

The legal battle got off to a rocky start. The residents first won favour in the High Court in 2016, but MTN followed up by taking the case to the Supreme Court of Appeal, which overturned the judgement.

Residents then took the battle to the Constitutional Court, which ruled in their favour in April 2019.

“It should be noted that the decommissioning of the site, the removal of the equipment, and the rehabilitation of the area will take about a month to complete,” MTN told MyBroadband at the time.

“In the meantime MTN has switched off the site. Unfortunately, some customers within the vicinity of the site will be adversely affected by the reduced coverage and signal quality.”

In 2017, residents in Craighall Park, Johannesburg, fought the erection of cellphone towers and “4G street poles” installed without their approval.

These included a 30-metre cellphone tower on the property of the Old Apostolic Church in Craighall. Residents claimed the tower was built too close to their properties without consultation.

Lonehill residents had similar concerns about the erection of 4G cellular towers disguised as street poles erected in the area.

At the time the residents argued that the Lonehill Residents Association gave permission for the towers to be built, which it did not have the authority to do.

Although the motivations for some of the objectors were unsubstantiated fears over the health impact of cellular radiation, several residents were concerned about the aesthetic impact of the masts. Others simply wanted to ensure that operators followed the rules in their neighbourhoods.