Merchant Shipping (Safe Containers Convention) Bill [B 31B - 2010] - Act No 10 of 2011 (assented to and signed by President on 13 July 2011).
Appropriation Bill [B 3 - 2011] - Act No 11 of 2011 (assented to and signed by President on 13 July 2011).
Progress report dated 29 June 2011 on the provisional suspension from office of Magistrate M T Masinga, a magistrate in Umlazi, tabled in terms of section 13(3)(f) of the Magistrates Act, 1993 (Act No 90 of 1993).
Progress report dated 29 June 2011 on the provisional suspension from office of Magistrate L B Maruwa, a magistrate in Daveyton, tabled in terms of section 13(3)(f) of the Magistrates Act, 1993 (Act No 90 of 1993).
Progress report dated 29 June 2011 on the provisional suspension from office of Magistrate D Jacobs, a magistrate in Clocolan, tabled in terms of section 13(3)(f) of the Magistrates Act, 1993 (Act No 90 of 1993).
Progress report dated 29 June 2011 on the provisional suspension from office of Magistrate C M Dumani, a magistrate in Graaff Reinet, tabled in terms of section 13(3)(f) of the Magistrates Act, 1993 (Act No 90 of 1993).
Progress report dated 29 June 2011 on the provisional suspension from office of Magistrate I W O M Morake, a magistrate in Lichtenburg, tabled in terms of section 13(3)(f) of the Magistrates Act, 1993 (Act No 90 of 1993).
Progress report dated 29 June 2011 on the provisional suspension from office of Magistrate L Skrenya, a magistrate in Cala, tabled in terms of section 13(3)(f) of the Magistrates Act, 1993 (Act No 90 of 1993).
Progress report dated 29 June 2011 on the provisional suspension from office of Magistrate T R Rambau, a magistrate in Limpopo, tabled in terms of section 13(3)(f) of the Magistrates Act, 1993 (Act No 90 of 1993).
Legal Aid Guide 2011 (12th edition), including proposed amendments approved by the Board of Legal Aid South Africa, tabled in terms of section 3A(2) of the Legal Aid Act, 1969 (No 22 of 1969).
The President of the Republic submitted the following letter dated 06 July 2011 to the Speaker: National Assembly, informing Members of the Assembly of the employment of the South African National Defence Force for service in co-operation with the South African Police Service in the prevention and combating of crime and maintenance and preservation of law and order within the Republic of South Africa in order to ensure safe and secure local government elections.
This serves to inform the National Assembly that I have employed one thousand four hundred and eight (1408) members of the South African National Defence Force (SANDF), for service in co-operation with the South African Police Service in the prevention and combating of crime and maintenance and preservation of law and order within the Republic of South Africa to ensure safe and secure local government elections. This deployment was for the period 04 May to 23 May 2011.
This employment was authorised in accordance with the provisions of section 201(2) (a) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, read with section 19 (1) of the Defence Act (Act 42 of 2002).
I will communicate this report to members of the National Council of Provinces and members of Joint Standing Committee on Defence and wish to request that you bring the contents hereof to the attention of the National Assembly.
In terms of South Africa's Constitution of 1996 as well as parliamentary rules, the Portfolio Committee on Human Settlements has a responsibility to conduct oversight over any executive organ of state that falls within its portfolio. In line with this mandate, the Committee undertakes provincial oversight visits to evaluate progress and identify challenges encountered in respect of the implementation of programmes and projects. Furthermore, the Committee seeks to promote and enhance intergovernmental relations and co-operative governance principles in the delivery of human settlement services. To give effect to its strategic plan, the Committee conducted an oversight visit to the KwaZulu-Natal Province during the second term of the parliamentary programme, ie 27 February - 4 March 2011.
The objective of the visit was to conduct briefing sessions with the provincial department and other stakeholders in relation to the implementation of human settlement strategic plans, projects and programmes. In addition, the Committee recognised a need to conduct site visits.
Use of alternative technologies in construction.
The delegation consisted of Hon BN Dambuza (ANC) as leader of the delegation, Hon MR Mdakane (ANC), Hon GM Borman (ANC), Hon TMA Gasebonwe (ANC), Hon JM Matshoba (ANC), Hon NA Mnisi (ANC), Hon D Dlakude (ANC), Hon AM Figlan (DA), Hon AC Steyn (DA), Hon T Botha (Cope) and Hon KP Sithole (IFP). The delegation was also accompanied by the following officials from the national Department of Human Settlements: Mr L Jolobe, Mr C Mazubane, Ms N Thembani, Ms T Mabalane and Ms M Pine, as well as Ms K Pasiya (Committee Secretary), Mr L Tsoai (Researcher) and Ms N Mnyovu (Committee Assistant).
The delegation was also accompanied by members of the following standing committees of the legislature: Mr SJ Vilane, Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Human Settlements; Mrs MC Frazer, Chairperson of Standing Committee on Works; Inkosi NB Shabalala; Rev NW Ngcobo; Mr SV Naicker; Mrs LL Zwane; Mrs H Ngxongo; Mr G Mari; Inkosi MZN Madlala; Mr DN Khuzwayo and the Committee Secretary, Ms S Sibisi. Mr SN Mtetwa, the House Chairperson, joined the delegation at the Dannhousser Municipality.
Day 1: 27 February 2011 4.
Hon Dambuza, Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Human Settlements and the leader of the delegation, introduced the delegation provided an overview of the delegation's expectations from the presentations. Amongst others, the delegation was interested in how effect is given to the priorities identified in the state-of-the-nation address, the newly-transferred sanitation function, the role of the private sector and traditional leadership in the province, as well as the possibility of a performance agreement between the MEC and Head of Department.
The national Department of Human Settlements did not allocate funding for rural housing development.
The province had restructured the awarding of contracts to a maximum of four contracts per developer. This was necessitated by past experience where contractors would be awarded up to 16 contracts. Contractors subsequently issued sub-contracts, which compromised the delivery of quality houses.
The province was committed to rural development and would allocate about 60% of its budget in favour of rural communities. However, water remained a challenge. Each rural house constructed would be fitted with a Jojo tank to harvest water.
Rural land was largely administered by the Ingonyama Trust, while urban land was privately owned. The province was engaging with the Ingonyama Trust, which had yielded positive results to date.
The allocation of disaster funding was discontinued, and future disaster projects would be included in the conditional grant.
Beneficiaries living in CRUs could only afford rental of R20 per month, since most residents are elderly and vulnerable.
The province has since May 2009 not approved any projects not registered with the National Home Builders Registration Council (NHBRC). The lack of skilled personnel was hindering the delivery progress. Most senior members of staff were in acting positions, like the Chief Financial Officer, however, department was undertaking a process of developing a retention strategy and appoint permanent staff in strategic positions.
Social housing showed good quality housing projects, but the challenge remained the collection of rent.
The R1 million guarantee fund was not yielding results due to the failure of banks to co-operate.
The province proposed that military veterans use the People's Housing Process (PHP) model to construct their houses. To date, 5 000 serviced sites have been allocated in this regard.
A successful CRU project was located in uMhlatuze.
Ethekwini Metro: 55 000 units in (Cornubia project) and the project is the biggest spender in human settlements.
Blaaubosch: in Newcastle with 2001 units. However, the project was faced with land claim challenges.
Amajuba: 2500 units.
Nyoni Greenfield in Mandeni: with 3 000 slabs land rezoning blocked.
Driefontein in KwaDukuza: with 15 000 units.
Ntokozweni: 46 projects inspected and cost R26 million and was stopped due to inferior work and reappointed to rectify and do the same work.
Refurbishment of transferred houses in Msunduzi.
The province was experiencing capacity challenges, especially in regard to rare skills such as project management, surveying and in other technical fields.
The province has exceeded its targets in relation to informal settlement upgrading, serviced sites, affordable rental units, as well as supply of affordable housing finance.
Access to land and densification remained a challenge. The province has the largest housing backlog, as well as the basic services infrastructure backlog.
In line with Outcome 8 that seeks to create sustainable human settlements and improved quality of life (2009-2014), the province has committed itself to progress towards the national target.
In regard to Outcome 8 targets the province stated in the provincial report that in cases such as the informal settlements upgrade, the target was 76 200 units but the province made a commitment in respect of 140 000 units. . In respect of serviced sites and transferred, the target was 28 000 units but the province made a commitment to achieve 40 820 units for the period 2009 to 2040. In respect of affordable rental units, the target was 15 240 units but the commitment was 38 168 units. In respect of the supply of affordable housing finance, the target was 114 300 but the commitment was 28 200 units but access to land and densification 1200 hectares. However, the land issue has been singled out as one of the challenges with which the province is grappling.
The Committee, however, wanted to verify the information provided in relation to Outcome 8 as the difference between the targets and commitments were confusing.
An allocation of R120 million was received from the national budget for rectification. A service level agreement (SLA) has been signed by the national Department as well as the National Home Builders Registration Council (NHBRC), which will drive rectification programmes. The assessment of 45 projects had already commenced, but there were concerns regarding the high costs of these particular assessments and rectification which ran into billions of rand.
A total of 17 municipalities had informal settlements, which were plotted using a geographic information system (GIS). A strategy for the eradication of slums in the province was in place and needed to be rolled out in a cocoordinated manner to avoid a recurrence of these informal settlements.
The programme has not been significantly popularised by the Department, but there was a working relationship with the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform to approach the process holistically. This programme will form part of the rural housing delivery targets. However, the issue of land and bulk infrastructure remained a challenge.
To address the bulk infrastructure challenges, the Department resolved to install gutters and water tanks in all rural houses to be constructed. In municipalities where there was a general drought, Water Services Authority (WSA) would be required to transport water to households. In this regard, the NHBRC was tasked with designing models to ensure safe and hygienic processes.
A strategy was in place to drive rural housing, and the iNanda project could serve as a best practice example. It was acknowledged that PHP produced better housing products.
EThekwini continued to experience challenges in the upgrading of hostels due to poor maintenance, as well as legal disputes over ownership that remained unresolved between the two spheres of government. To address these challenges, the province proposed that all occupants move into lowcost housing and convert hostels into family units. Consideration was being given to alternative options aimed at reducing maintenance costs.
The Department was in the process of establishing an innovation hub to exhibit alternative building technologies. Various stakeholders have been engaged to assess their products. The Department was considering green and water conservation technologies. The NHBRC was assisting with the evaluation of the quality of these innovations.
The rehabilitation of partially destroyed houses was being implemented through the voucher system, and those that had been completely destroyed were being rebuilt. A comprehensive database, verified with COGTA, has been compiled. Backlogs dating back as far as 2008 have been incorporated to ensure proper costing and planning. A panel has been established through the supply chain management process which will immediately respond to disasters and which will be extended to all districts by June 2011.
Specific information was not provided on the number of blocked projects and the plans to unblock them. However, a total amount of R77.4 million would be required for bulk infrastructure services in all 11 district municipalities. When considering the land acquisition and finalising the environmental impact assessments (EIAs), an additional R122.7 million would be required. In total, an amount of R200 million would be required for both bulk infrastructure and land acquisition. It should be noted that the amount for bulk infrastructure and land acquisition in some districts had not been stipulated (e.g. Amajuba, iLembe, uMkhanyakude, uThukela, uThungulu, and uMgungundlovu).
The sanitation function has yet to be transferred from the national department to the province. This is linked to bulk infrastructure and services backlogs, which is part of Outcome 9's outputs for COGTA. The department is awaiting a directive from the national department on the rollout of the programme and future targets.
Cornubia in EThekwini - 55 500 units.
Driefontein in Kwadukuza - 15 000 units.
Vulindlela in uMsunduzi - 25 000 units.
Blaaubosch - 25 000 units.
Nyoni - Green field Mandeni - 3 000 units.
A proposal was drafted which sought to motivate for the 10% top slice from the conditional grant to be allocated for bulk infrastructure. The proposal would also be pursued with National Treasury, the provincial treasury and the national Department of Human Settlements. This process will involve leveraging the municipal infrastructure grant (MIG) funding and crafting appropriate conditions for the grant.
The provincial department has developed a system called "tripartite agreements" that seek to ensure proper co-ordination and co-operation between the three spheres of government. The municipality will only be limited to its planning mandate, while the province will appoint, monitor and manage implementing agents and ensure accountability. The national department will continue to provide a monitoring and supporting function.
The NHBRC has established close working relationships with the provincial department, and was continuously rethinking ways to reduce costs while fast-tracking delivery. The NHBRC assisted with unblocking projects that were stalled due to poor workmanship. It was committed to supporting and training emerging contractors, while also steering rectification programmes.
The department was in the process of establishing an M&E unit to improve monitoring, intervention and evaluation mechanisms. The unit would also serve to strengthen the co-ordination of reporting across the three spheres of government. The unit was meant to come into operation during March 2011.
While the housing development conditional grant increased exponentially, the equitable share of the provincial department remained unchanged.
Cost-cutting measures hampered service delivery.
Resources and tools of trade could not be accessed.
If challenges were experienced with the current funding formula, rural municipalities would continue to be disadvantaged in favour of bigger municipalities and the metropolitan municipality.
The funding intended for land restitution has been exhausted and unless the province obtained appropriate land for human settlements, delivery would be threatened. The ongoing competition for land between government and the private sector was also not assisting service delivery in the province.
This has been identified as a challenge for both bulk infrastructure and land acquisition, with the effect that the province is unable to achieve implementation of identified projects. It is further suggested that unless municipalities have adequate capacity to deliver bulk services in a structured manner, service delivery will be compromised. Further, the land expropriation court challenges add additional strain to the delivery momentum.
The provincial department is significantly under-capacitated, and seeks to attract highly skilled, knowledgeable and capable technical staff. The temporary nature of contract positions undermines the department's ability to attract skilled personnel (lack of security). In this regard, the department intends to strategise, motivate and train existing staff.
There are 14 water services authorities in the province and sanitation forms part of the cycle. The progress towards adequate sanitation has been very slow and the province will not be able to meet the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in this regard.
The total number of households amount to 2,6 million with 10,6 million people.
The sanitation backlog in the province is 21%, which constitutes 527 000 households in need of adequate sanitation.
The water backlog amounts to 394 000 households.
The quality of tap water is good, with only 14% not at acceptable quality standards.
Infrastructure development is costly due to the topography and dispersed rural settlements. It currently costs the province R18 000 per household to connect water pipes. However, the cost varies depending on the slope on which the house is situated. In some areas a water connection costs up to R42 000 per household.
About 42% of water is not adequately treated, since treatment plants are decaying. The province spent more on water purification, and there was a need to invest and build more treatment plants.
Financial constraints (cost increased by almost 40% in three years and has affected budget allocations).
Capacity (only 11 engineers are employed, and value for money has been compromised due to the appointment of consultants).
Planning (lack of bulk infrastructure and dispersed settlement patterns).
There was no funding for infrastructure maintenance and services. Infrastructure planned for 15 years deteriorates in six to seven years. The bucket system was eradicated in 2007 and was completed in uMzimkhulu in 2009.
The Ugu District represented the highest water backlog (with 33% of households without water) while Uthungulu represented a 41% sanitation backlog - the highest number of households without sanitation. EThekwini had 18 traditional councils, including a high number of households that lacked adequate sanitation. This would pose a great challenge in years to come if sanitation and water were not adequately and urgently addressed. In addition, some Water Service Authorities lacked the capacity to run their own affairs, including the maintenance of treatment plants.
Why a single contractor was awarded so many projects which could lead to failure in achieving its mandate?
Clarity was sought on the number of houses that were completely destroyed by the by disasters.
How far has the department gone in addressing disaster backlogs in the province?
What support is provided by the department in ensuring that housing chapters which are developed through Integrated Development Plans (IDPs) processes are credible?
What measures were adopted by the department to address contractors who performed poorly?
The delegation further requested an explanation with regard to R200 million which was reallocated.
The extent of housing support provided to child-headed families.
The current administration inherited the projects with challenges from the previous one. In an attempt to address this concern, a decision had been taken to reduce the number of projects allocated per contractor from 16 to four projects per contractor. However, a further challenge experienced by the department related to contractors operating under different names and thus being awarded multiple contracts in different municipalities. It was difficult for the department to trace such contractors.
The department indicated that a team of service providers was appointed to conduct an assessment in all areas affected by disasters. The department undertook to make the report, which will indicate the number of houses partially destroyed and those that were completely destroyed, available to the Committee at a later stage.
The department informed the delegation that the province's disaster backlog dated back to 2008 and that those figures continued to increase as disasters continued to hit the province. More than R133 million had been allocated to deal with disasters.
The department used shared services from COGTA and the national Department of Human Settlements in ensuring credible housing chapters.
The department had commissioned the Special Investigating Unit (SIUs) to verify matters when issues relating to fraud and corruption were raised.
It was indicated that this might have been due to the time frame within which the national Government expected the province to have spent the funds. The EIA was reported as one of the obstacles in the delivery of houses. However, some of the latter challenges had been resolved in February 2011.
Some of the delegation's concerns and questions were not answered.
Day 2: 28 February 2011 4.
The municipality had a population of 4 million. It was 60% rural, 30% urban and 10% informal in its form. The current employment rate ranged between 18 - 24%. About 382 of the 500 informal settlements in the city of Durban had been identified for in-situ upgrading. The Urban Settlement Development Grant has been earmarked to deal with the issue of bulk infrastructure. A total of 171 shack settlements were upgraded and 417 remained to be upgraded. Approximately 20 000 families were set to be relocated.
The number of houses built per year had increased from 16 000 to 23 000. The estimated housing backlog was 379 000 houses, which included informal settlements, backyard shacks and traditional dwellings. Approximately 440 000 people were in need of accommodation in the city and 42 % of the population were living in inadequate housing. The municipality had provided 145 000 houses over a period of 10 years. Water was provided within a radius of 200 metres from where a family resided. Basic services stand pipes and ablution blocks were being rolled out. A total of R24 million had been set aside to pilot the installation of services in seven informal settlements in the city. Approximately 240 000 families were in need of water and sanitation in informal settlements. In relation to the Kennedy Road informal settlement (established in the early 1980s) there were about 3 000 shacks and the majority of the population was poor and could not afford rental accommodation where services would be required to be paid. Kennedy Road had developed along a dumping site and people were looking for food in this place, which posed potential health hazards.
There was continual migration to the city due to the infrastructure developments, such as the construction and upgrading of stadiums, ports and other related facilities that were used during the 2010 World Cup. The city contributed R300 million towards the provision of housing from its budget in addition to the R800 million annual budget allocation from the provincial government. Due to the terrain, the city was unable to upgrade the roads, specifically in the surrounding rural areas where the landscape was mountainous. During the period when the Inanda Dam was constructed, people were temporarily accommodated in tin houses. There were people who still continued to live in these tin houses, as they were used as temporary relocation areas (TRAs).
The city raised a concern about the very slow accreditation process as the city believed that it had the capacity to deliver. A total of 293 old houses were collapsing. These houses were built prior to 1994 and had been handed over to the beneficiaries. A process of densification in areas such as Phoenix was underway. A number of housing projects had been taking place around the city.
Lamontville project (a hostel conversion). People had been promised by the department that renovations would be made. However, the subsequent policy reviewal had excluded rectification for houses allocated before 1994. The houses were in a dilapidated state.
The delegation sought clarity on how the city was managing the beneficiary list.
Clarity was sought on how the city was assisting poor people who were not able to pay rates and pay for services An amount of approximately R1.5 billion was still outstanding from the province to be paid to the municipality. Furthermore, an amount of R150 million was returned for rectification by the national Department of Human Settlements?
What were the plans to eradicate informal settlements?
The Extended Public Works Programme had benefited a large number of small contractors in the construction sector, for example the construction of a dam costing R1.2 billion.
On the question of whether the municipality had housing cooperatives, it was mentioned that co-operatives were in place and were piloted in the past 10 years. These were mainly located in the parks and recreation sites.
The city had an indigent policy in place. Households with a property valued at less than R190 000 were exempted from paying municipal tariffs. Such families received free basic water and prepaid electricity meter boxes were installed in each household. The city did not have an influx control policy to regulate the movement of people moving into and out of the city.
The eradication of informal settlements was the main focus of the municipality despite the fact that they were growing rapidly. The Cornubia project was a preferred site for the relocation of people who would be provided with low-cost housing during the slum clearance.
The delegation requested the city to forward the outstanding report on the beneficiary list management.
Cornubia was regarded as KwaZulu-Natal's first integrated sustainable human settlement. It formed part of the eThekwini Municipality's slum clearance programme that would promote higher densities, with a focus on work, play and live. The project would use housing as a catalyst for sustainable economic growth and accelerate housing delivery and improve the quality of housing products and environments to ensure asset creation. Housing had been indicated as an instrument for the development of sustainable human settlements in support of spatial restructuring. Cornubia was a strategic land holding situated within the northern corridor of Durban. It represented a public-private partnership between the city and Tongaat Hulett.
It was envisaged that the project would accommodate more than 50 000 units and house 200 000 people. It is also envisaged that there would be 15 000 units to cater for households earning less than R3 500 per month and 7 000 to 10 000 units for households earning between R3 500 and R15 000 per month (gap market). The estimated project value was R25 billion. During phase 1 of the project, 500 government subsidy units would be constructed to unlock the wedge of the development in duplex style. The project was expected to create 43 000 new permanent jobs and 140 000 to 280 000 construction jobs sustained over a 15 to 20 year period. A total private sector investment of approximately R17 billion was also envisaged.
Key challenges included the funding of bulk infrastructure at a total cost of R2.59 billion. Subsidised units (15 000) amounted to R2.3 billion and nonsubsidised ones to R2 billion. In addressing this challenge, an intergovernmental relations (IGR) forum had been established within the housing development sector. IGR protocols met on a monthly basis.
The project which formed part of the Slums Clearance Programme comprised in-situ upgrading. This project was inherited by the eThekwini Municipality from the Cato Manor Development Association in 2004. The project had been conditionally approved upon the municipality submitting a relocation plan of beneficiaries that would not be accommodated within the project. The department subsequently withdrew the approval due to the municipality's failure to provide the relocation plan.
The delegation was informed that there were approximately 4 500 shacks in the area and approximately 20 families had been relocated to a transitional camp. The original site had 1 500 sites according to the town plan layout. The process of densification had begun and the department had built double-storey houses due to insufficient space. The building of double-storey houses was costly as each house needed an additional amount of R20 000 because of the decking that had to be fitted between the lower and upper floors. One hundred and eighty double-storey houses were built. A challenge was experienced with the subsidy amount that had not changed. Communities were co-operative even though the rate of delivery was slow.
The ward councilor informed the delegation that a challenge was experienced with backyard dwellers that could not be properly quantified, as their number continued to fluctuate. There were people in the gap market, such as nurses and teachers, who were not accommodated in the low-cost housing programmes. Therefore, there was a need to disburse R1 billion that had been set aside to serve as a guarantee to banks when people from the gap market applied for home loans. The councilor also stated that it would be appreciated if the employers could play a meaningful role in assisting their employees to access housing finance.
The transition camp was established in 2003. Families in the camp were temporarily accommodated from various areas, and the camp currently hosted 600 families. Some families were relocated due to construction of their houses and others due to unsafe living conditions in their informal settlements. The camp accommodated people only for an 18-month period, but some people had been there for over three years. There was no electricity installed at the camp. Ablution facilities were available and in good condition. The units were constructed from corrugated iron, which was very hot in summer and very cold in winter. An amount of R7.5 million was set aside for cleaning of ablution facilities and cutting of grass.
The delegation visited one of the units, where an old man had been staying for more than three years. There were no windows; the room was extremely hot and dark. The occupant indicated that in 2008 he was promised that windows would be inserted. However, this did not materialise. The ward councilor informed the delegation that the room used to be a storeroom. For this reason, it did not have windows.
The residents alleged that there were rats and wild pigs that were biting infants and destroying their groceries. This was due to garbage that was all over the area. The garbage was not collected regularly, the place was dirty and the grass was very long.
The delegation cautioned the municipality to seriously consider the lives of the people. The restoration of the people's dignity was very important. The municipality was requested to urgently install windows, address the issue of the wild pigs and clear the area of long grass.
The project was spear-headed by First Metro Housing Company, which was the first social housing company in the city of Durban. The company was involved in the development and management of social housing in the eThekwini (Durban) metropolitan region of South Africa. The company's primary purpose was the development of quality, affordable residential property for low to middle-income households.
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS NO 88â2011 established on 2 December 1998 as an independent section 21 company (non-profit organisation) and was managed by a board of directors. The organisation was initiated by the eThekwini Municipality out of the twin city relationship with the city of Rotterdam.
The entire project had 261 units. The first metro houses constructed were 48 units, with two bedrooms. The project accommodated people earning up to R3 500. An amount of R125 000 per unit was received from the national department and R53 000 from the province. Similar projects were replicated in other areas in the province. Applicants were screened upfront, and the company conducted its own rent collection.
Kennedy Road informal settlement had been established during the early 1980s as a transit camp, with approximately 3 000 shacks. This number later increased to 9 000. The majority of the population was poor and could not afford rental accommodation where services had to be paid for. Kennedy Road had developed along a dumping site, and people were picking up food from the site which posed a potential health hazard.
The area was in the process of being densified and planning was due for completion within two months. Communities in the area were classified according to their needs, and it was confirmed that approximately 90% of the population was unemployed. About 577 families would be relocated to the Cornubia project once it had been completed. The issue of the beneficiary list still had to be addressed by the municipality.
The project has 916 flats, each measuring 60 square metres in size. The flats contained two, three or four bedrooms, and those people who are sharing a flat were paying R58.70 for a bed, while families were paying R370 towards rental. It was stated that the community residential units (CRUs) used to be under the administration of the province, but were later transferred to the municipality in 2007.
Lack of a maintenance budget.
Street lights were connected, but were not functioning.
Water pipes had burst and water had been running uncontrolled. There was a need to replenish the old pipes in order to stop the water from running in order to reduce waste.
Drains were blocked and during rainy days water flowed into houses.
One of the houses had damp on the walls, which was due to the leakage from the house above.
The grass along the edge of the storm water drainage was long and needed to be cut to allow water to flow.
The delegation advised the municipality to cut the grass in the area.
The project comprised 604 units. People started to move into the houses during July 2010. Each house had two bedrooms, a toilet and a shower, but was without a washing basin. The delegation was informed that the solar heating system would be implemented in the near future. The municipality was advised to assist with the installation of basins in bathrooms.
A section 21 project was constructed adjacent to this project, where 16 square metre-sized houses were built. This particular project required rectification. The community raised concerns that the houses were too small to accommodate large families. The ward councilor also confirmed that the living conditions were unacceptable. The municipal management advised the delegation that the project was also identified for rectification.
The project was part of the pilot projects funded by the province and had been identified for implementation under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed between the national Department of Human Settlements and a non-governmental organisation (NGO) called the Federation for Urban and the Poor (Fedup). Fedup looked after the interests of unemployed communities, as well as people who did not have proper housing. It was indicated that 96 sites had been set aside to be developed by Fedup of Utshani through PHP as a pledged subsidy. Utshani would build houses of 50 square metres on its sites. It was reported that 30 houses were completed out of the envisaged 96. The delegation was informed that members belonging to Fedup used their savings to enhance the subsidy amount provided by the government towards a PHP house.
The uMfeladawonye wa bahlali baseMjondolo briefed the delegation about a range of issues that had been taking place in their organisation. Mr Patric Magebula, President of Fedup, indicated that the organisation was established during the period when the late Minister of Housing, Hon Joe Slovo, had still been in office. Fedup had committee representatives throughout the nine provinces. It was stated that provincial governments gave funding towards the development of housing projects, while the Free-State and KwaZulu-Natal provided upfront subsidies for houses that were administered by Fedup. However, other provinces (North West and Mpumalanga) required that Fedup construct houses before the subsidies were released. This has proven to be a challenge as Fedup was a nonprofit organisation. However, the key characteristic of the organisation was to save (ie a saving scheme for building houses).
Furthermore, there had been a lack of policy shift, which demonstrated that people were still struggling to access proper housing. During the tenure of Minister Mahanyele, the former Minister of Housing, the organisation was institutionalised and turned into a section 10 housing project. Fedup started to build 10 houses in 2004. The organisation was given a R10 million revolving loan fund, and uTshani fund was established. Almost 16 000 houses were built by the Federation under uTshani nationally through cooperatives.
Fedup as an organisation trained and built its own capacity by training people and giving them skills in construction. However, the period for houses to be built took a little bit longer and in the process one would find that project members were always mobile as people were always looking for jobs. This made it difficult to retain skilled members and hindered progress. There had been complaints that the Cornubia project was not communicated. Fedup would have liked to become part of this big project by being given the sites on the green field for their housing developments. The challenge was that some councillors did not believe in the PHP. There were no sites set aside nor serviced land available for the organisation. Technical assistance was provided by Government. Fedup was also engaged in other social activities such as indentifying people who did not have identity documents and enabling them to receive tenure.
The delegation enquired whether Fedup was a registered construction company, how it generated income, and whether there were stipulated criteria for people to join. On the issue of land ownership, the delegation wanted to understand who the landowners were and how the organisation accessed land. The issue of accountability, especially in relation to finances, was also raised.
Fedup informed the delegation that to generate a sustainable income for the organisation, it planned to develop the recycling of refuse material. Members also contributed towards the monthly savings. Fedup had not been registered as a construction company but the uTshani fund was registered as a section 21 company. The organisation also received international donor funding.
With regard to the structure of the organisation, the uTshani board consisted of the President (Mr Magebula), a Secretary based in the Free-State province, and two committee members in each province.
The presentation by Mrs Nxumalo from kwaSiyanda informal settlement claimed that the community had been residing in the area for 22 years. During the construction of the MR 577 road, people were removed to create space for the construction of the road. There was a concern that road construction led to a situation where many people were forcibly removed from their shacks. People joined the aBahlali baseMjondolo in 2009. These were people who had been unemployed and who had little or no source of income. The area did not have proper services (lighting, water and sanitation and access roads) but eventually the municipality started interacting with the community. This interaction had since ceased. There were 614 families in the informal settlement. Mrs Nxumalo pleaded with government to assist them. The municipality had started the discussion on upgrading the informal settlement, but this was suddenly stopped. The community was trying to engage with province to chart a way forward.
The community raised concerns that there was neither water nor access to roads. Children had to cross the MR 577, and this could pose a danger to them. The municipality promised people land, which was later sold to a private buyer. There were four informal settlements that had been planned for piloting, but this did not materialise. It was reported that there are also transit camps in the area that were being misused.
The community observed that government perceived them as the opposition, and yet they needed assistance with service delivery. There was no consistency in delegating officials to work closely with the community. It was stated that officials continually changed. At some stage the community would be informed that the officials had resigned, which resulted in progress being compromised. Councillors convened meetings as political gatherings. The community later discovered that issues discussed in such meetings were addressing issues of development. NGOs and faith-based organisations (FBOs) were perceived as organisations that were taking over the duties of government officials when the intention was to assist with community development.
The community suggested that people should be involved in the initial stages of developments that took place in the community. They also indicated that they found it difficult to secure meetings with the municipality. However, the province had begun a process to interact with communities involved, which was led by Mr E Cele who confirmed that the matter was being addressed. Mrs Nxumalo informed the delegation that the effort undertaken by the province gave hope and encouragement that their frustrations could be addressed.
The delegation emphasised the importance of community participation in its developments. Self-build was also part of the option that the department should consider. It was also important for government to honour commitments made to people to limit unrest. The delegation confirmed that it understood the challenges faced by the community. The delegation thanked the community representatives and advised them that the Committee would communicate their report to the province and would receive the feedback from the provincial department.
Day 3: 1 March 2011 4.
Sisonke District Municipality comprised five municipalities in the district, namely Ubuhlebezwe, Ingwe, greater Kokstad, uMzimkhulu and kwaSani. The area is 70% rural, 20% urban and 10% farming and informal settlements, which placed challenges on its development.
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS NO 88â2011 the houses were of poor quality and some were collapsing. The municipality's intention was not only to provide low-cost houses, but middleincome housing was also critical to accommodate middle-income earners who do not necessarily reside within Ixopo, but who resided and worked within the entire jurisdiction of the Sisonke District Municipality.
The municipality was of the view that housing and bulk infrastructure should be aligned. There was a concern about poor planning, such as the poor alignment of housing plans within the district. Land acquisition in Ixopo was a major challenge and was limiting potential investment. In Sisonke landowners were reluctant to release land. There was also a shortage of skilled personnel in the area.
The municipality has a sanitation backlog of 25 000 toilets, of which 4 000 had been built in 2008. The next phase would be implemented in the following financial year. The municipality was at high risk of floods and disasters. The district inherited two major housing projects from the Eastern Cape that had challenges in respect of bulk infrastructure, ie Ibisi and Riverside. The latter had been blocked. The municipality also inherited 59 collapsed water schemes from Alfred Nzo District Municipality, which required rehabilitation.
The municipal manager indicated that the municipality had a backlog of 9 000 toilets in rural areas that required funding in the amount of R58 million. Thubalethu village was experiencing challenges related to water and sanitation. Mariathal experienced challenges related to water. Land had been donated by the Roman Catholic Church for housing development but it had water challenges. Mziki Agri village, the water project, was planned incorrectly.
The Mahehle Housing Project was located in the Ubuhlebezwe Municipality. The project was initiated by a group young people in the area during the period prior to the 1994 national democratic elections - during period of political instability. Following the death of 16 young people as result of instability during the election campaign in the area, the community had an opportunity to interact with the former President Mandela on concerns around issues of service delivery in the area. These issues included the lack of water supply, electricity, better quality of housing and job creation.
During the start of the project, land availability for housing development was a challenge. However, negotiations were initiated between the municipality and landowners. The major breakthrough was made when Mr Dlamini agreed to avail his land for the project.
However, there were additional delays before the project could be kickstarted, including the introduction of wall-to-wall municipalities in 2000 and the limited capacity of newly-elected councillors. The project also had to be implemented within the legislated framework of the Development Facilitation Act. As a result all these factors, including the lack of political will, led to the delay of the project, which only commenced in 2004. The construction of phase 1, comprising 500 units, started in September 2005 and has since progressed very well.
The Mahehle project delivers 1 500 square metre stands with a 45 square metre top structure, with additional 15 square metre floor slab (to be completed by households themselves) to make the complete foundation floor slab 60 square metres. This was done to encourage the PHP initiative. The roof construction was designed in a manner that allowed the extension into the 15 square metre area and made it very easy should the owner wanted a complete 60 square metre house. Each site was serviced with road access, metered water supply, and a VIP toilet. The project has been prioritised for the Local Electrification Plan. The Committee would follow up on the figures presented by the municipality on the delivery of stands.
150 completed toilets;.
In terms of the civil engineering infrastructure construction, the work was almost 95% complete with the total length of road being 5,24km and the total length of bulk water line being 9,4km.
To date, 491 community members had been directly employed. The labour pool was being rotated on a 13-week basis to enable people to be exposed to work opportunities and enhancement of their skills. The wage bill was currently R2.5 million. The workforce comprised 130 women, 150 men and 150 youth. Persons with disabilities also formed part of the project.
The people's entrepreneurial talents have been unearthed by the project, with one reported case of a Mr Khumalo who owned a close corporation, MC Construction. The company manufactured the VIP toilets and supplied the sites. More than 200 toilets have already been supplied and the company employed six people on a full-time basis.
The project manufactured its own concrete blocks from the block yard established by the implementing agent, Net Project CC, which was an inhouse supplier. A total of 24 well-trained individuals produced a minimum of 2 400 blocks daily. The block yard ownership was earmarked for transfer to the community once phase 1 (500 units) of the project had been finalised. The municipality has since secured the commitment from the implementing agent that phase 2 of the project would be supplied by the same block yard, even after ownership has been transferred to the community.
In Underberg an amount of R120 million was needed to eradicate the sanitation backlog. An additional R20 million was needed for a small treatment plant. The theft of livestock was a challenge. In Gqumeni, the sanitation backlog required R5 million.
The municipality had a backlog of 15 000 toilets, however 5 000 units have been delivered to date. In Bulwer a project plan to construct a dam was in progress, while Tarsevalley and Donny Brook experienced challenges in terms of water and electricity.
Infrastructure was collapsing due to population growth in the town. Farmers continued to evict farm workers, and almost 40 000 workers had been evicted to date. The situation placed more strain on the municipality as these communities were vulnerable. Some workers had been recruited by farmers from neighbouring countries. Therefore, the municipality found itself under pressure to provide shelter, of which resources are very limited.
Makhoba was a farm area with 15 to 20 farms and situated on communal land. There was a settled land claim, but the Agri-village development plan had been delayed due to bulk infrastructure approval. A business plan had been approved but funding from the municipal infrastructure grant (MIG) was awaited. The amount of R25 million was approved by the Department of Water Affairs (DWAF) to start a water project by April 2011.
In Franklin, land had been offered by Transnet for the slum clearance programme. The process of transferring ownership to the district was currently underway. There was also the challenge of farmers who destroyed graves. It was reported that the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform was not providing assistance in this regard.
the status of the presidential project that was started in 1996 in Mahehle.
Concerns were raised about the housing backlog in the district, projects due for rectification, the settlement of land claims, social housing, the upgrading of informal settlements, job creation initiatives, land acquisition and the role of the Housing Development Agency (HDA).
It was reported that the annual capital budget was R220 million, funded primarily through the conditional grant and equitable share. Kokstad Municipality had also applied for a R13 million loan from the Development Bank of Southern Africa for upgrading of Kokstad's infrastructure. The interaction with the HDA has not yet been effected. With regard to social housing, it was reported that state-owned land was not available. However, urban regeneration plans were in place. The Riverside phase 1 was a blocked project and the NHBRC had been appointed to assess the houses. Umzikhulu phases 5 and 6 were being implemented. Both projects were due for completion early in 2012/13. All other projects in the area were not able to proceed to implementation or resuscitation due to challenge with land availability and bulk services.
The challenge with water was that water resources developments were limited, and the present government had not built dams in the area. In terms of job creation, all projects were labour intensive. When awarding contracts, there was a clause which catered for job creation and utilisation of small contractors through sanitation projects. Small contractors also played a role in the maintenance of small schemes and were supported by established contractors.
The DBSA was invited by the municipality to make a presentation on progress and initiatives in collaboration with the Sisonke municipality. It was reported that there were two types of funding, ie loans and development funding. Since the DBSA did not pay tax, it did not charge any interest on its loans. There were two divisions: (i) Sustainable Community Division which dealt with community facilitation and (ii) Rural Development - this programme involved communities to participate in the development and planning stages. The DBSA also funded planning and facilitation. In terms of the cycle, development was characterised by the involvement of various stakeholders which finally promoted and enhanced Integrated Development Plans (IDPs). The DBSA had introduced a number of programmes for municipalities by employing specialists.
The DBSA had been involved in housing development programmes, such as in Grabouw in the (Western Cape) and Elliotdale rural housing where 50 housing units were built using the concept of integrated human settlements. In the Kokstad municipality, the informal settlements continued to spiral out of control, and there had been a motivation for the municipality to pilot a project to eradicate informal settlements.
Frustration was experienced at national government level due to the fact that clear objectives, legislation and sound policies had been developed and significant financial resources had been made available, but were not adequately utilised by municipalities.
Inadequate level of involvement by and expertise of public and private institutions in developing and implementing models for integrated sustainable development.
Facilitating integrated interaction with key government departments and agencies through concrete partnership projects.
The increased competition for development finance and the need for the DBSA to carve its niche within that space very early during project development and create a comparative advantage.
The delegation emphasised the critical element of integrated planning which involved the provision of social and economic amenities. To address the issue of water shortages, water harvesting was regarded as crucial. The Mahehle housing project required urgent attention. The availability of land was not only a problem in Sisonke. However, it was time to effect the Expropriation Act in order for government to fast-track development to its citizens. While there was legislation that protected workers, farmers continued to evict workers from their land and destroy ancestral graves for purposes of commercial farming. Such acts demonstrated disrespect for these farming communities.
The delegation indicated that it would request the Portfolio Committee on Human Settlements to interact with the Portfolio Committee on Rural Development and Land Reform to further investigate the issue in Kokstad.
It was reported that the DBSA seconded officials to municipalities to assist in addressing issues of incapacity. The delegation was concerned about the limited information provided by the district as it was only focusing on bulk infrastructure and projects that were currently not active. The delegation, therefore, required an overall picture of all current and active projects, including the number of upgraded informal settlements and those due for upgrading, as well as projects due for rectification.
The project was initiated in 1997, with the aim of constructing 2 000 units. During this period, the housing subsidy was R16 000 per unit. A total of 1 000 units were to be constructed in two phases. However, in 2006, the project became blocked due to a lack of funds. To date, a total of 270 units have constructed, of which 30 are not suitable for habitation. In the past, a number of residents were employed at a nearby timber factory, which has since closed down.
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS NO 88â2011 community. This required that the beneficiary list had to be revisited to identify the actual number of people who were in need of housing in the community.
It was reported that despite several attempts by the KwaZulu-Natal provincial department to access documentation from the Eastern Cape province, it did not yield positive results. Currently, the KwaZulu-Natal department remained unaware of who the project developer was. A service provider was appointed to conduct rectification, but the NHBRC had to be consulted first in order to assess the extent of the damage. Most of the houses would have to be demolished and 378 families would have to be relocated. While the beneficiary list was available, it required updating.
In 2005, approval was granted for the construction of 900 units. These units would be developed as a PHP initiative. Units were 40 square metres in size and included two bedrooms and space for a toilet, but the toilet bowl and doors were not installed. It was observed that units were poorly constructed and the majority of units were without sanitation facilities. In some instances, occupants installed their own sanitation facilities, which are inadequate. The delegation raised a concern about the absence of doors leading to bedrooms, which ultimately compromised the occupants' sense of privacy.
The province informed the delegation that the NHBRC had conducted an assessment of 608 units, of which 529 houses would be demolished. The provincial department confirmed that houses that would be demolished would be reconstructed according to the current housing specification of 40 square metres.
The township register was established and about 529 transfers had been registered with the Registrar of Deeds. More than 200 sites had been affected by land invasions and in some instances a single beneficiary had invaded up to five or more sites.
The delegation did not visit the project as it was informed that the Ibisi project had similar challenges as those identified in Clysdale and had been earmarked for rectification. The project started in 2004 with the construction of 636 units. The units were 40 square metres in size. A sewer system was not installed, and the project was blocked during March 2007. In order to install the sewer system, as well as house connections, the district municipality should first attend to upgrading the existing bulk sewer line, which had collapsed.
To date, none of the sites have been transferred to beneficiaries, since the location of the Eskom power line servitude that run across the farm prohibited the individual transfer of the sites from the province to the beneficiaries. The town register was not yet opened.
Day 4: 2 March 2011 4.
The Umgungundlovu District Municipality comprised seven local municipalities, namely Msunduzi, uMshwathi, uMngeni, Mooi Mpofana, Impendle and Richmond. The municipality's total population was close to a million.
An overview of projects was provided. There were considerable delays in the implementation of projects, at times for periods exceeding 10 years.
Impendle village consisted of 500 units. However, it required bulk water and sewerage upgrades. The budget for the project was R11.5 million. Once the record of decision (ROD) was finalised, the Planning and Development Act (PDA) application would be lodged with the municipality. The estimated costs for bulk infrastructure had been submitted to the district.
Mpofana (Craigiebum) consisted of 850 units. It required a bulk sewerage treatment plant with an estimated budget of R5.5 million. An implementing agent was currently attending to the ROD and PDA application. Cost estimates for bulk water supply, rising mains, treatment works, and a storage reservoir amounted to R26 million.
Vrystaad Farm consisted of 100 units. It required the installation of a sewerage pump station (estimated at R4.5 million) and a storm water system (estimated at R3 million). The project received stage one approval on 18 February 2010. The implementing agent was exempted from a full environmental impact assessment (EIA) and was attending to the PDA application for verification.
Sierra Ranch/Ekujabulani required pump rising storage (estimated at R2 million) and a water purification plant (estimated at R5 million). The project had received stage 1 approval. The implementing agent was in the planning process, the EIA public hearings had already taken place, and the PDA application was being packaged. The project was a public/private initiative with an integrated development approach.
uMshwathi (Dalton/Cool Air) consisted of 437 units. An outfall sewer connection was required, since the existing sewage system did not have adequate capacity. The cost implication was about R1 million. The Less Formal Township Establishment Act (LFTEA) application had been submitted to COGTA during August 2010. The municipality was awaiting approval for services and the construction of the units.
The uMshwathi Slums Clearance project consisted of 3 000 units. The first phase required the installation of bulk services and the construction of sewer pump stations and sewerage works (estimated at R20 million). The bulk link pump station and storage reservoir required R5.5 million, while funding for the taxi route was estimated at R15 million. The general status of the uMshwathi project was at the feasibility stage. This initiative would address the clearing of the slums within the municipality. The EIA public participation process had been undertaken, while the application for the ROD was in the process of being drafted.
Richmond (Zwelethu) consisted of 120 units. The project required bulk services which included reservoir upgrading, a pump house and a rising main (estimated at R2.5 million). The status of the project was that the installation of services had been completed and the certificate in this regard had been issued. A confirmation letter for JoJo tanks was still awaited, while an application for top structures would be submitted to the Department of Human Settlements.
Amanda's Hill consisted of 40 units. The project required bulk water estimated at R2 million.
St Bernard consisted of 360 units. The project required bulk water estimated at R4 million. Stedone was appointed as the implementing agent and was in the process of planning.
Mkhambathini (Poortjie) consisted of 481 units. The project required bulk water and a sewer upgrade estimated at R10.7 million. The MEC had approved the expropriation of land, but it was subjected to a legal challenge by the owner. Feasibility studies were in the process of being conducted.
Stockdale consisted of 250 units. The project required bulk water and a sewerage upgrade estimated at R6.6 million. The acquisition of the Stockdale project land was transferred by the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform to Mkhambathi municipality and was awaiting approval.
Ward 7 Premier Flagship programme. A planned 25 000 housing units would be constructed over the next five years, starting in 2011/12. The project required bulk water supply, as well as ventilation improved pit (VIP) toilets for the area. The cost implication for the project had yet to be finalised.
Umngeni (Khayelisha) consisted of 1 575 units. The project required an upgrade of the Mphophomeni sewerage works in order to accommodate phases 2 and 3 of the project. DFA Tribunal made part of the ROD for only phase 1 to proceed. Phase 2 and phase 3 were intended for an upgrade. The entire project required R40 million. The project site was assigned to the contractor on 19 January 2011 and the civil infrastructure construction was currently in progress.
Sewer pump station: the site required R4.5 million.
Bulk storm water and pump station: the project required R3.5 million.
Cedara consisted of 1 000 units. The reservoir needed to be constructed and was estimated at R2.5 million. The link main required R4 million and the upgrade of sewer treatment works required R5.2 million. The status of the project was at the planning stage. The implementing agent was awaiting the ROD. The DFA had given an inprinciple approval, subject to the ROD approval and the resolution of the outstanding issue of the access road.
KwaNxamalala: VIP toilets were required for the Nxamalala or Inanda area. The cost associated with the VIP toilets would be determined in accordance with the norms and standards of the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF). The project had received stage 1 approval. Planning activities were underway.
Since 1996, the Msunduzi Municipality had delivered approximately 25 000 housing units and upgraded 12 500 properties to free-hold title in Edendale. The municipality transferred considerable hectares of state-owned land for housing development. It was embarking on a large land acquisition programme of privately-owned land for housing in the following areas: Dambuza, Machibisa, Caluza and the greater Edendale. In its delivery, Msunduzi had encountered many challenges and delivery targets were subsequently compromised. Between 2006 and 2010, the municipality delivered 17 523 sites and 5 769 units.
Breaking New Ground (BNG) projects currently planned included 6 423 sites. There were also 3 2000 flagship projects and an additional 7 500 rental and private units. A total of R43.3 million, however, remained unspent for various reasons. The application for 2 500 units has been submitted for conditional approval. A total of 1 000 units was submitted to the Department of Human Settlements in November 2009, but the project did not appear in the Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF). A further 1 923 units were awaiting EIA approval, while 1 000 had received a response on conditional funding and another 1 000 had been planned for the future.
The municipality managed a total of 32 000 flagship projects, which included a rural housing project in Vulindlela (amounting to 25 000 units). The application was submitted to the Department of Human Settlements in June 2010.
A total of 7 500 sites were planned for rental and private accommodation, of which 5 000 were planned as future projects. About 1 500 sites were reported to be administered by the Municipal Housing Association (MHA) for rental housing projects. The remaining 1 000 sites located in the central business district (CBD) were currently under discussion.
Unspent funding as at 30 June 2010 constituted approximately R43.4 million, which accounted for 16 projects. The projected completion date of the projects was between 2011 and 2014.
Lack of co-ordination between the Department of Human Settlements and the municipality.
No responses on rectification projects, particularly in the Wire-Wall projects.
The reports prepared by the NHBRC on rectification projects were not available to the municipality. No consultation took place on the role of the municipality and the deadlines for projects.
The Housing Demand Database was driven by the Department of Human Settlements, while provincial database had been superseded by the national database. The municipality is waiting on the Department of Human Settlements to provide access to the database for evaluation. Access was necessary for registering people with housing needs.
Informal settlements were in most cases located on land that was not suitable for development, and maintaining a database for people residing in these settlements has proven to be a challenge. Settlements were densely populated and if upgraded, the land could not accommodate the entire community. Some of the people would require relocation.
Beneficiaries residing on the land intended for development were refusing to move.
Illegal occupation of houses.
Unavailability of beneficiaries during the time of allocation.
In response to concerns raised about the number of blocked projects, rectification, poor spending and inadequate co-ordination between the province, district and the local municipality, it was indicated that the presentation by the municipality was not a true reflection of the situation. For example on the issue of non-cooperation by the province, it was indicated that most of the projects were approved. However, it was discovered that those projects were not incorporated in the IDP. Meetings with the Umsunduzi municipality were held monthly to deal with issues of legislative requirements, etc. Unspent funding affected about 54 municipalities and the province was in the process of consulting with each one individually. The unspent funds needed to be transferred to areas in need of funding.
The site previously served as a hostel, accommodating males working in nearby factories. Hostels were dilapidated, and people were moved in without any measure of control. There was a lack of information in respect of who occupied which unit and where monthly rent payments were made. There was some concern about unemployed people occupying the hostels.
The delegation visited a unit occupied by a woman who was critically ill and bedridden. The unit she occupied was previously utilised as an office, but she was accommodated by a sympathetic councillor. The occupant indicated that she had been living the unit, together with her nine children, for a period of nine years.
The delegation observed that the family was socially vulnerable. As such, the occupant required support from health and social service practitioners. Home-based care workers should be assisting in this regard. The provincial department committed itself to interact with the municipality to find adequate shelter for the family as a matter of priority.
The delegation also encountered a group of residents who raised grievances about the hostel units they were currently occupying. The units' function changed from single male shelter into family occupancy. Some people were given title deeds, but another person would come along to claim ownership and force the family to vacate the unit.
Another resident indicated that his father used to live in one of the houses for more than 20 years, but people came with a gun and forced his family to evacuate the house. Some houses were illegally sold without even notifying the occupants of such sale. The price paid for some units amounted to approximately R55 000. Occupants reported paying rent of R7.50 per person per bed, and furnished the delegation with receipts as proof of payment. Copies of these receipts would be made by Dr Bheki Shabane from the provincial department, while original documents are to be returned to the owners. The provincial department was further requested to safeguard copies of receipts for further enquiries.
The delegation was dismayed by the selling of such dilapidated units and recommended that the Special Investigating Unit conduct an investigation into this issue.
The project started in 1997 as a flood relief programme. There were 450 double-storey units, and four families were accommodated per block. The original project was a wire-wall project, but was phased out due to a number of challenges. The project experienced financial constraints and was refinanced in December 2010.
While the delegation was informed that the completion of the project was due on 31 March 2011, it was evident during the site visit that there was no contractor on site and structures were left incomplete. The community indicated that the site office was closed during October 2010 after the contractor (Amawela) left. The delegation was not furnished with an adequate explanation for the closure of the site office. Residents were relocated to transit camps constructed by Amawela. However, the transit camps were vandalised, which left many families with no alternative than to illegally occupy the partially finished units. It was alleged that the contractor was not paid and that this had resulted in the project being abandoned.
The delegation requested a comprehensive report from the provincial department, detailing what happened with this project and why the contractor was not paid.
The Registrar of Deeds formed part of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform. The Office's function was to maintain a public register of land, preserve all the records and provide information to the public. The duties of the Office were derived from the Deeds Registrar Act (No. 47 of 1937). The Registrar of Deeds used a land registration system known as Casadral, which entailed the identification of land parcels and the registration of ownership.
A major challenge to maintaining an accurate and updated system related to the fact that transfer of ownership only took place on registration. Information was not automatically updated when an individual's marital status or marital regime changed, for example. In December 2001, the Registrar of Deeds launched an electronic system, ie the Deeds Office Tracking System (DOTS), which enabled the Office to scan deeds into different tracking points. The data preparation took six days to finalise, unless there was a document missing and rejected. Governmentsubsidised houses were processed in three days. The conveyancers dealing with subsidised projects should apply to the Deputy Registrar of Deeds prior the registration in order to be awarded priority. In such instances, a red stamp is affixed onto the deeds indicating state-subsidised housing, and consequently expedited.
The Housing Act (as amended) was not considered by the Registrar, since the province had not requested it. This could be a challenge, since statesubsidised houses were sold almost every day, despite such transactions being illegal.
The challenge was poor conveyancing with regard to state-subsidised housing, hence there was no indication that the house was in compliance with an eight-year or pre-emptive clause. The missing information in a batch ruined the entire process of registration.
The Committee advised that in future, the province pro-actively inform the Registrar of upcoming projects to allow for proper planning.
Councillor Dladla of ward 34, an area under Msunduzi Municipality, informed the delegation that communities in that area were moved from other areas and were relocated in Tamboville. A total of 300 shacks were built. Communities were sharing a few toilets which were not in a good condition and which were difficult to access, especially at night. Water taps were located far from residents, and there were no access roads. There was only a primary school and the children were struggling to get to the secondary institution because of the long distance they had to travel.
The project was located in ward 18 and was established more than 10 years ago. The following observations were made: walls were cracked, water pipes had burst and water was flowing freely down the street for more than two years, and drains were blocked. It was also evident that the community was sharing a single tap. Toilets had been installed, but were not connected to water. Given these circumstances, the community was obliged to carry buckets of water in order to flush the toilets. When the outside container was filled, residents were obliged to hire people with chemicals to disinfect it, while those who could not afford this would empty containers in nearby bushes.
The delegation was informed that owners sold their state-subsidised houses, while others were renting for approximately R150 to R200 a month. It was alleged that the councillor was forging eviction orders to defaulters and selling their houses. The councillor had circulated a fraudulent letter to evict one of the occupants. The letter was handed over to the province for safe keeping.
The owners of state-subsidised houses were not known and the tenants were tired of paying rent. The rent ranged from R252 to R500 a month. Some tenants seemed to have no idea nor understand that there was a waiting list in the municipal offices where they could submit their names. Residents asked the municipality to transfer the houses to them so that they could effect renovations.
Day 5: 3 March 2011 4.
The district comprised five municipalities, namely: eMnambithi, Umtshezi, Okhahlamba, Imbabazane and Indaka. The following water and sanitation programmes were approved and funded to the value of R252 million by DWAF as well as through the MIG.
eMnambithi LM - The municipality consisted of 25 wards, with a total population of 236 746. The number of households totalled 50 259. The water backlog in 2006 stood at 2 750 households, and since 2010 a total of 1 713 households were in need of water. The municipality was implementing seven water projects, of which four have been completed and handed over to the communities. Two projects were still in progress (about 95% complete). Thirteen reservoirs have been completed and handed over the municipality.
There were four sanitation projects: two have been completed while the rest were still in progress. Eight new sanitation projects have been introduced to the value of R7 million for the 2011/12 financial year. The sanitation projects were funded by DWAF. The Zakheni sewer project has been put on hold.
Okhahlamba LM - The municipality consisted of 13 wards, with a total population of 151 446. The number of households totalled 28 508. The water backlog as at 2010 was 6 413. There were three water projects: one has been completed while two were still in progress. Two sanitation projects were still in progress while another was awaiting AFA approval. With respect to new sanitation projects, a contractor has been introduced in one project while in the other remaining four a contractor has yet to be introduced.
iMbabazane LM - The municipality consisted of 12 wards, with a total population of 140 747 and a total of 24 559 households. The water backlog as at 2010 stood at 12 161. The Ntabamhlophe project was in progress and was divided into 13 phases. Phases 1 to 4 have been completed, while phases five and six bulk infrastructure has been completed. The reticulation would commence soon. Phase nine bulk, as well as reticulation is soon to commence.
A total of five sanitation projects have been implemented: three have been completed and two were still in progress. There were three new sanitation projects. A contractor has been introduced for one project, while contractors for the other two would be appointed in the near future, The municipality was still awaiting new business plans.
Indaka LM - The municipality consisted of 10 wards with a total population of 101 555. The number of households totalled 21 081. The water backlog as at 2010 stood at 3 390. Two water supply schemes were awaiting handover. Two sanitation projects were in progress. Six new sanitation projects had been introduced. A contractor has been introduced in four of the projects, while a contractor still needed to be appointed for the remaining two projects.
Umtshezi LM - The municipality consists of seven wards, with a population of 83 906. The number of households total 15 232. The water backlog is determined at 2 520 households. One project is currently in progress, and will include water and sanitation in Thembalihle. There are three new sanitation projects at a planning stage; for two of the projects contractors have already been appointed, while a contractor is still to be appointed for the remaining project.
The district was experiencing a drought, ie about 50% of boreholes were dysfunctional and dams had dried up.
Water and sanitation infrastructure had been vandalised by the residents.
Power supply was interrupted as a result of lighting that struck one of the power stations.
The municipality was located in a storm belt corridor, which made it susceptible to storm-related disasters. The 2006-2011 IDP focused on urban renewal, of which an application was made to the department in 2007. Confirmation of R50 million was received and the project was earmarked to be a presidential project. However, the province subsequently reported that there was no policy to allow the funds to be released. In 2007, the President visited Zakheni and emphasised that the urban project would proceed. In 2008, the area was struck by floods and storms, and in 2009 a business plan was submitted to the Department of Human Settlements. An amount of R18 million was released for immediate relief by the province, but this amount was inadequate. The storm struck the area repeatedly and the situation deteriorated considerably. The municipality was in the process of reviewing its business plan.
The municipality has a slum clearance programme in accordance with the MDG targets. The department has only approved 1 500 beneficiaries for this propramme.
In 2007, a business plan was submitted to the province. In 2010, the MEC announced that R300 million would be released to deal with relief housing and storm damage. Since then nothing has happened. The NHBRC demanded that projects be registered with it by the province or municipality and indicated that late registrations would be rejected.
Most towns and villages were affected by disasters. Seven people had lost their lives and 534 houses were smashed to the ground. An amount of R35 million was set aside for disaster-affected areas. The area was susceptible to lightning, and therefore lightning conductors should be installed in order to alleviate the problem.
In most areas, landowners were not residing on their land while others were deceased. This made it difficult to trace the owners. Tenants were also negatively affected.
It has been a challenge to deliver rural housing since most of the land in the area was managed by the iNgonyama Trust. However, the situation was improving since discussions to release land were in progress.
Farmers had contributed land for housing developments.
A concern was raised about the number of business plans presented.
The HDA should be involved in issues relating to land, and assist in tracing the landowners.
An amount of R300 million made available by the MEC should be followed up.
Conditions should be stipulated to consultants in respect of projects and should include time frames for completion.
An update was required on the R2.6 billion identified in the state-ofthe-nation address intended for water and services in KwaZulu-Natal and Limpopo.
Clarity was required on the R800 million that was readily available for disaster relief.
The project was located in a peri-urban community and consisted of 3 000 units. However, an additional 500 units were still required. The project was divided into two sub-projects: the first one related to in-situ upgrading, while the second one was in regard to green field development. One aspect of the project was rural in nature (sites are larger in size), while the urban component consisted of smaller sites. It was reported that people originating from outside the area benefited first, while the initial beneficiaries were still on the waiting list. The area was located far from social amenities. However, the Department of Arts and Culture provided a mobile library.
A community centre, which was completed during October 2010, was situated in close proximity of the project. To date, the centre had not been made available to the municipality and there was some concern that it faced the risk of vandalism.
The project originated as an emergency project and consisted of 642 units. The dwellings were constructed from mud, and bulk infrastructure had yet to be established. There was also no running water available. The site was properly planned and included access roads.
The delegation advised the municipality to construct an apron to prevent rainwater from penetrating.
There was no bulk infrastructure and the area was not considered suitable for human habitation. Mud houses had been washed away while others had collapsed.
The district consisted of the following local municipalities: New Castle, eMadlangeni and Dannhauser. The estimated budget for water and sanitation programmes in both eMadlangeni and Dannhauser totalled R836 million. New Castle was a water services authority and relied on the MIG. An amount of R50 million has been allocated for water and sanitation services for the municipality.
Thirteen informal settlements were located in the area. The housing waiting list at the time constituted 34 000 beneficiaries. Provision was made for a total of 20 housing projects.
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS NO 88â2011 additional nine were planned for the future. The slum clearance project was intended to deliver 1 400 houses, but instead delivered 1 388 units.
Phase 1 project - All 450 units were delivered. Section F phase 2 - All 500 units were delivered.
Mopheme - A total of 500 units were planned but none were delivered.
Standsfordhill - A total of 5 000 units were planned and 4 169 were delivered.
Emadadeni - A total of 1 141 units were planned and 1 140 were delivered.
Amehlesizwe Phase 3 - A total of 670 houses still have to be delivered.
Amathukuza rectification - The NHBRC was appointed to assess houses, and R175 million was allocated.
Khatide - A total of 1 000 houses required rectification.
Charlie's Town - A total of 1 500 units had been planned.
Siyahlala la - A contractor for the 1 000 houses had been appointed.
Emawozeni - A total of 200 houses had been planned. It was a project for people with disabilities. The project was run by the Department of Social Development and specific programmes were put in place to specifically serve their needs. They also needed to be placed in an area where they were able to access their places of work and other activities in which they were involved.
JBC housing project - The municipality purchased land for R5 million. The challenge was that the project was still awaiting the title deed from the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform.
Ingogo project - A total of 7 500 units had been planned.
Viljoen Park - The project was in the preliminary stage.
No green fields.
All projects were slum clearance projects.
Unresolved land claims.
Deceased beneficiary delays.
Bureaucratic tendencies stifled progress.
The feasibility study for bulk infrastructure has been finalised and phase 1 was approved at a cost of R13 million. A total of R1 million was allocated in the middle of the 2010/11 financial year. The objective of the project was to eradicate the water backlog in an estimated 4 312 households in the municipality.
It was estimated that a total of 17 235 households would be served at a cost of R85 million. A total of 600 VIP latrines were planned in areas such as Clerafarm, Eastbourne, eMafuathela, Fulathela, Mafahlawane, Phillip Farm, Shepstone Lake, Drangaan and Eitlek. To date, a total of 376 VIP toilets have been completed. The estimated cost for infrastructure refurbishment was R5.7 million.
Existing infrastructure was deteriorating, resulting in significant water losses.
Limited functionality around water conservation and demand.
Pollution of rivers and dams.
Inadequate maintenance of all infrastructure.
Inadequate institutional arrangements (lack of municipal institutional arrangements, lack of suitable and trained staff and limited or no service quality monitoring).
Funding and financial challenges (lack of revenue, indigent policies and enforcement, private sector investors and lenders not attracted to invest in infrastructure roll-out).
MIG constraints which were attributed to the adverse implementation of the water sanitation projects.
In response to questions raised, the municipality indicated that social housing had not been planned and that this was an area that required future focus. On the management of the waiting list, it was previously differentiated according to race. There was a list for Coloureds, Indians and Blacks. However, since 2009 there had been a single list for all beneficiaries that was reviewed every two years. To minimize poor workmanship, the province was not allowing any project that was not registered with the NHBRC.
On the issue of land, owners were reluctant to allow the community to bury their relatives on privately-owned land. Some owners were reluctant to release land to the Department of Human Settlements for development. Two separate cases were reported where the department had to expropriate land for development.
Day 6: 4 March 2011 4.
The project was initiated in 2000. The private developer had constructed houses of poor quality and would frequently disappear from the site. The land used to be owned privately by smallholdings. While the deed of sale was signed and paid for, the land had yet to be transferred. The municipality recommended that the developer's contract be terminated. The MEC decided to offer the developer a second opportunity, but closely monitored the situation. However, due to continued poor workmanship the developer's contract was terminated. After litigation, the developer won the case on technical grounds. Since then the infrastructure has continued to deteriorate.
A total of 247 houses has been completed and handed over without any electricity. There was no intention to develop the remainder of the units. Water plans would be rolled-out in within two weeks.
The delegation expressed concern about the land technically still being under private ownership. In this regard, the municipality should fast-track the transfer of the land. The delegation articulated its concern about the conditions of access roads and required further clarity on the role of the Extended Public Works Programme (EPWP) in the area.
Approximately 1 300 houses were due to be demolished. The EIA was a challenge in the area.
4.32 Meeting at uPhongolo Local Municipality uPhongolo was one of the five municipalities in the district of Zululand and consisted of 14 wards. The municipality estimated the population size to be 11 900. The housing backlog stood at 55 000 units.
Housing delivery was initiated in 1997 and resulted in the Incotshane Housing Project with 215 units completed in 1998. These units were 32 square metres in size and included two bedrooms and a kitchen/lounge. The toilet was located on the outside and all units were equipped with a waterborne sewage system. Building blocks were produced by the local community under the supervision of a project manager. The material used was sub-standard. The Nu-Tec roofing was too light and could not withstand hailstorms.
The beneficiaries had been occupying the houses for a period of about 13 years without such houses being transferred. The reasons for this were that the opening of the township register and mineral rights had not been resolved. The municipality communicated with the Ingonyama Trust on several occasions without any success.
The Ncotshane project was initiated in 2001/2002. The project initially provided for 1 100 sites, but it was later reduced to 1 054 sites due to the rocky land topography. To date, 250 units have been completed and a further 32 units were in varying stages of completion.
The project started in 2005 and was later put on hold in 2006 due to the disagreement between the implementing agent and the uPhongolo Municipal Council. The council obtained bridging finance in the amount R3.2 million to finalise the 250 houses that were not completed in order to prevent them from being vandalised. A new implementing agent was appointed to package the application for submission to the Department of Human Settlements. The council reported that there was a severe hailstorm that hit the municipality and most of the houses were severely damaged. The beneficiaries of the housing project were approved and were ready for their houses to be built.
The municipality was preparing for the new project in ward 1, which was the result of the land restitution and land redistribution programmes from the following areas: Candover (350 houses), Cottlands (70 houses), Bethel (70 houses), and Hlamanyathi (70 houses).
The above-mentioned communities have displayed an interest in having state-subsidised houses constructed. Consultation was ongoing with the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform to determine the ownership of the land. This was critical for ensuring that the correct instrument of the subsidy would be used in these projects. The project was in the preparatory stage.
Land availability, in particular limited state-owned land.
Some of the land in existing settlements was not suitable for housing purposes.
Farmland was privately-owned and expensive.
Influx of people into the urban areas of uPhongolo.
Availability and reliability of data that highlighted exact backlogs in relation to the number of applicants who qualify for housing.
Housing need in rural areas has not been quantified.
Certain tribal by-laws restricted access to housing.
Poor services in most areas despite the existence of infrastructure. This also affected the provision of free basic services and payment of services.
Some areas, for example farms and informal settlements, had no access to services.
Financial arrangements and access to funding, for example access to credit, were limited due to land ownership issues and low income levels.
The municipality was urged to attend to an open drainage system and to cut the grass for children's safety.
There was limited adherence to IGR (lack of synergy) and co-operative governance. The delegation was able to draw together various stakeholders from different spheres of government, which enhanced the oversight experience. Various stakeholders were able to respond immediately to critical issues and clarify issues where a collective response was required.
There was no consistency in the reporting system on projects by the province, districts and local municipalities.
A few municipalities had initiated new projects, but most of the projects were due for rectification.
Proper co-ordination between the districts and local municipalities were still lacking.
Responses to post-disasters did not convince the delegation that municipalities were capable of responding to disasters.
The management of beneficiary lists was still a major challenge in many municipalities: only one municipality gave the delegation confidence in its management of the beneficiary list.
Stakeholders were not taking full advantage of the support that could be provided by the NHBRC and the HDA. It was suggested that not all stakeholders were well informed of the role of these two important stakeholders in terms of ensuring the achievement of sustainable human settlements.
The Cornubia development was still not clear and the participation of other stakeholders' roles was not clearly defined, but the challenges still remained. Stakeholder forums had been established and met monthly, but did not resolve issues on the ground.
Municipalities were struggling to cope with the impact of disasters. The province should give support to such municipalities.
Some municipalities and province did not show an interest in accessing opportunities offered by DBSA on capacity building support.
Public participation remained a challenge in many municipalities.
Families were relocated from one site to another and people were left for many years before their housing needs were attended to. Transit camps were made of corrugated iron sheets and the time frame of 18 months was not adhered to.
The provincial department did not work closely with the Office of the Registrar of Deeds, despite the fact that such co-operation would significantly reduce the time frames for the transfer of title deeds to beneficiaries.
The farm worker assistance programme was still very weak.
Hostel upgrading and the payment rate of monthly rentals remained a challenge.
Land challenges hindered progress in the delivery of houses.
The lack of skilled and adequate personnel, particularly technical employees, was a concern.
Some of the municipalities were not accredited, but continued to appoint contractors to build houses.
It was alleged that some engineers signed fraudulent geotechnical assessment reports.
Projects did not have time frames for delivery to which contractors should adhere.
Municipalities did not clearly indicate in their reports how much was allocated to a particular project and how much was spent on that project.
Water, sanitation and issues of settlements were inseparable; therefore cooperation between the departments is very crucial.
The use of consultants delayed progress. For instance, the municipality would report that there was a scarcity of water. However, during site visits the delegation found that water was available. All that was required were finding ways to pump the water.
Rectification projects faced considerable delays.
Allegations of corruption and maladministration continued to plague the delivery process.
The Special Investigating Unit should urgently be commissioned to investigate the Imbali phase 1 hostels and phase 13 double-storey houses (wire wall). The department should report back to the Committee by June 2011 and submit a comprehensive report explaining exactly why contractors were not paid, which resulted in them leaving the site unattended. Progress report on Imbali Phases should reach the Committee by August.
The HDA should focus on addressing the land situation in KwaZulu-Natal and report to the Committee by June 2011.
The Department of Human Settlements should visit all areas visited by the Committee in KwaZulu-Natal where the delegation undertook oversight and provide a progress report to Parliament in August 2011.
Engineers who signed fraudulent geotechnical reports should be investigated and prosecuted.
In all state-subsidised housing, the materials used should comply with the standards of the South African Bureau for Standards (SABS) in an attempt to stop contractors from using low-quality building materials.
The provincial department should address the issue of sanitation in Impumelelo settlements within the next two months.
The province should be requested to release the state-owned land in Tin-town for housing development.
The department should be assertive in addressing poor workmanship and regularly report to Parliament on how it dealt with transgressors.
The issue of disaster management must also be prioritised by the province.
The People's Housing Process must be promoted by the province and housing co-operatives should be afforded priority.
The period of 18 months of hosting people in transit camps must be adhered to by both the municipality and the province.
The UThukela Water Board must address the issue of water shortages. The municipality and the eThekwini municipality should interact with uThukela to address the water challenges.
Municipalities should undertake initiatives to make provision for adequate temporary relocation units.
The Portfolio Committee on Human Settlements should convene smaller groups to conduct follow-up visits on a quarterly basis.
The Department of Rural Development and Land Reform should address the issue of farm evictions and the destruction of graves in Kokstad.
Report has been considered and adopted by the Committee. Therefore, the Committee recommends that the report should be considered by the House.