Quinton Mtyala
THE man who owns the largest outdoor advertising agency in the city says third-party advertisers are getting a raw deal from the City of Cape Town’s “outdated” signage by-law.
Two weeks ago, the placing of a “Zuma Must Fall” banner on a billboard, owned by Brent Dyssel’s company, brought the issue of the City’s signage by-law to the fore, with the City insisting that the billboard on which it was placed, and the sign, were illegal.
While the banner was forcibly removed, and in its stead a South African flag was placed, the City has insisted that Dyssel’s billboard is still illegal.
He went to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), and ultimately lost his case in which he argued that the City gave more right to first-party advertisers – businesses whose signs attached to their businesses premises, as opposed to those who rented out commercial space.
This is the platform where his company Independent Outdoor Media (IOM) trades.
“The most fundamental limitation is that when it comes to first-party signs, the City will give approval in perpetuity, but when it comes to third-party advertising, it’s five years. Effectively, it’s a relicensing, re-permitting and annuity income source,” said Dyssel.
He said the City’s demand that he renew his right to advertise on a property which he already owned, was akin to owners of cars losing their vehicles because they had not been licensed to be on the road.
Dyssel said when the billboard’s plans were approved by the City in 2000, it was in perpetuity.
“As far as that SCA case goes, the City argued that they viewed a sign as a building, and the way that they do that is that when they look at a signage plan, it is looked at in terms of the National Building Act, so this approval that you get is in perpetuity.”
He said he had received no summons or notice from the City that his billboard was illegal, despite several comments from officials stating the opposite.
“What we have received is a very politely worded letter from the City’s legal department asking us to take it down, the structure. They have asked us to advise them on what basis we still have the structure up, and we pointed out that it was an approved building plan,” said Dyssel.
City spokesperson Priya Reddy said: “An approval was previously granted in 2000 and in terms of the previous Signage By-Law. That approval lapsed in 2005.
“Since that time, IOM has not applied for, or received any authorisation from the City for the sign structure, and it remains unauthorised. An Admission of Guilt to this contravention is on record, following a 2011 prosecution by the City.”
Reddy said the City sought to strike a balance between outdoor advertising opportunities and economic development on the one hand, and the conservation of visual, tourist, traffic safety, environmental and heritage characteristics on the other hand.
“The object of this by-law is to ensure that outdoor advertising respects the integrity of any site on which it is displayed, and complements the character of the locality in which it is displayed.
“The sensitivity of the proposed locality of a sign and its capacity to withstand the visual impact are the most important guiding principles for the control of outdoor advertising,” said Reddy.
@mtyala