Mall noise dispute between SA Corporate and community comes to a head

A dispute between the Morning Glen Mall – owned by JSE-listed SA Corporate Real Estate -, community members and the City of Johannesburg (CoJ) over noise and the centre’s extension being allowed to trade illegally for years appears to be coming to a head.

Makgafela Thaba, CoJ regional director for Region E, told a meeting between CoJ officials, area councillor Lori Coogan and community members recently that he would be writing to the CoJ building control officer that week to highlight all the issues raised at the meeting and request that the building plan approvals be reconsidered and, if possible, revoked.

A six-month investigation by Moneyweb confirmed that the centre in Morningside Manor was allowed by the CoJ to operate without approved building and site development plans for the new extension for at least two years.

This serious irregularity assumes greater importance in light of the building collapse in Ormonde in Johannesburg earlier this month, which claimed nine lives.

Reports said preliminary investigations into the Ormonde tragedy indicate that owners and developers failed to comply with city regulations, highlighting a systemic disregard for the rule of law in urban development and exposing the deadly consequences of unregulated development and neglect of municipal by-laws.

Plans approved

Without addressing complaints lodged by property owners living close to Morning Glen Mall related to noise from activities in the new extension and it operating illegally, the CoJ’s Building Development Management (BDM) approved the centre’s latest building plans on 18 November 2025, but only “after enforcement processes [were] undertaken by BDM”.

The latest site development plan (SDP) for the centre was approved by CoJ’s Land Use Management Development on 31 October 2025.

A manual occupancy certificate was issued on 19 December 2025 for additions only, it said.

It further emerged at the recent meeting that BDM approved the building plans without obtaining the approval of or comments from all other relevant municipal departments, including Environmental Health, which is responsible for noise control and noise nuisance.

Councillor Coogan said the fact is that the shopping centre was operating illegally, and the incongruous thing is why BDM approved the building plans.

She claimed the various municipal departments were not cooperating and collaborating because Environmental Health has been sitting with an issue with noise nuisance issues at the centre for about two years and has struggled to make any headway with the public prosecutor at the Randburg Magistrate’s Court.

Coogan said many promises about actions that are going to happen have been made to her and community members but despite the best efforts of, particularly Environmental Health, it ended with the centre getting their way and not even having to comply with the noise nuisance issue.

She said a very powerful and wealthy company is running the shopping centre and “it’s almost a Goliath against David” situation because they know how to go through various things.

It further emerged at the recent meeting that CoJ had to impose punitive rates on the centre as part of an enforcement measure to get the centre to comply with the mandatory approvals required for the new extension to be built and be allowed to trade.

However, the meeting was informed that the centre owners had not paid these punitive rates and have now launched legal action against the CoJ about the imposition of these punitive rates.

Coogan said the measures the CoJ was going to take against the centre owners for non-compliance were never enforced.

‘Cease operations’ directive refused

CoJ officials informed community members during a 2024 meeting that it had issued a directive to the centre to cease operations and trading in the new extension but the centre management had refused.

Garry Silver, a property owner who lives close to the centre, asked CoJ officials during the recent meeting why the new extension was allowed to trade without the necessary building and SDP approvals but did not receive a response.

Moneyweb sent a query to the city last year about why the new extension was allowed to operate and trade for so long without approved building and site development plans without any intervention from the CoJ.

In a response received last month, CoJ Building Development Management (BDM) and Land Use Management Development said the latest rezoning application was not seeking to introduce new land use rights, but to amend the parking ratios – and that the previous amendment scheme permitted uses that are approved on the SDP and building plans.

“BDM issued the necessary statutory notices during enforcement processes and these enforcement actions resulted in the imposition of penalty rates,” it said.

“From a BDM perspective, enforcement processes were initiated which ultimately resulted in plan approval on 18 November 2025.”

The CoJ further claimed referral of the non-compliance for further legal processes could not proceed due to financial constraints within the CoJ’s Group Legal and Contracts.

Penalty rates

The CoJ informed Moneyweb that penalty rates were imposed on the centre from 18 April 2024 for the erection and/or extension of a structure without prior approval from the local authority and for occupation of some internal shops without obtaining occupational certificates.

It said the penalty rates currently imposed are for the occupation of some of the internal shops in the main mall without occupation certificates having been obtained.

The CoJ declined to comment on the quantum of the punitive rates imposed on the centre, citing the Protection of Personal Information Act.

Moneyweb has however been unofficially informed that the centre was required to pay an additional R4 million a month in rates and the CoJ has to date charged the centre an additional R24 million in rates.

SA Corporate did not respond to questions from Moneyweb about the CoJ imposing punitive rates on the centre.

Morning Glen Mall property manager Penny Matsinhe merely said that “all directives received from CoJ have been complied with”.

“It is not uncommon for rates disputes to arise between a property owner and a local authority,” she added.

“In such cases, it is SA Corporate’s practice to engage with the local authority to resolve the dispute amicably.”

Litigation with former tenants

SA Corporate is also involved in litigation with some former tenants in the new extension over rental arrears, which is being opposed because these tenants were allegedly not informed prior to the signing of their leases of:

• A community boycott of the centre;
• The extremely low footfall in the new extension, which resulted in their turnover being insufficient to cover their rental obligations; and
• The lack of building plans and SDP approvals, which meant they could not obtain occupancy certificates for their premises.

These tenants declined to comment and did not want to be named.

Why the application went ahead

James Rammala, operations manager of Planning Law Enforcement Development Planning at CoJ, said the centre’s application went ahead because they did not receive any objections or comments, especially from Coogan and Environmental Health.

Rammala said if comments are not received within the stipulated time, any objections received are not recognised and the application proceeds.

“I can send all the correspondence that was sent to all municipal entities, the ward councillor and the neighbouring communities, including via newspapers and the Provincial Gazette,” he said.

However, CoJ Environmental Health manager Jokkie Viljoen said his department only received the centre’s building plans, which indicate the planned facilities, after the plans had been approved.

He said he sent several letters to CoJ Building Control Office deputy director Broderick Chiloane requesting proof that the building and other plans were sent to Environmental Health but has to date not received a response.

Viljoen stressed that in terms of the regulatory requirements, building plans should not be approved until all departments have given their approval.

He said noise control comes into play when his department receives the building plans and it should have been specifically noted on the building plans that the padel courts, street soccer and skateboard park could not be approved without structural changes to ensure there is no unnecessary intrusion into the neighbourhood.

Viljoen said this is important because once building plans are approved, it then forces Environmental Health into lengthy legal procedures instead of issues being addressed on the building plans, which assures the CoJ that all the regulatory compliance issues have been adhered to before these facilities are built.

Everybody being ‘frightfully polite’

Coogan said the centre owners told her they were unaware they were causing such an inconvenience and would investigate and come back to her.

“Everybody is frightfully polite but to this day I have never had a response back from them at all ever.

“I feel like it’s almost like they were trying to get in [approvals] on a technicality.

“I am very dissatisfied with what has happened.

“You now have people who cannot sell their residential properties because their quality of life is so impacted by this noise nuisance,” she said.

“I cannot believe that people can in good conscience try and construct a nightmare like this, which is not enclosed, which is right next to residential properties, and can morally defend it.”

Some property owners said during the recent meeting the various activities at the new extension at the centre has made their “living environment a nightmare”.

More (noisy) activities planned …

The property owners are angry that following the approval of the building plans and SDP, the centre is planning to establish further activities –  including street soccer courts and re-establishment of the skating park – in an unenclosed area where there is only a wire fence separating these activities from residential complexes and no security.

The property owners said they did not object to the centre extension because they were told an apartment building and parking facility was to be built on the site.

Mall property manager Matsinhe told Moneyweb last year that allegations the centre was operating illegally because of an alleged failure to the necessary approvals “is false”.

“A site development plan was submitted to the council and approved prior to the commencement of construction. All documentation required by CoJ has been submitted,” she said.

Matsinhe added that noise levels emanating from the centre, including the padel courts, have been measured by an independent acoustic engineer and found to be within regulated levels.

She said despite this finding, SA Corporate has made various interventions, including acoustic attenuation of standby generators, increasing the thickness of certain glazing and re-tenanting to minimise any noise experienced by adjacent neighbours.

Matsinhe said these measures also included vacating Urban Playground, cancelling the lease of Golden Tee and replacing the operator of Blueberry Beacon restaurant.

However, Viljoen said during the recent meeting that the centre owners can do the necessary noise impact assessments but this will not resolve the issue.

“They might be within the noise limits but the main issue is in terms of the noise nuisances they create,” he said.

“We are talking about noise attenuation and mitigation measures that should be taken at those places, including construction.

“Those facilities should be completely enclosed so that we don’t have any horrible sounds on the boundary of the premises.”

This article was republished from Moneyweb. Read the original here.