National Housing Code 2009 & Farm Residence Housing Programme: Departmental briefings

Meeting report

National Housing Code 2009: Department of Human Settlements (DHS or the Department) briefing
Officials from the Department of Human Settlements gave a presentation to the Committee on the National Housing Code of 2009. Section 4 of the Housing Act provided for the establishment of the Code. The 2009 National Housing Code (NHC) contained two volumes: volume 1 dealt with the policy context of the development of the Code itself, whilst volume 2 comprised the technical guidelines and the details of the entire Code, which the Ministry of Human Settlements must follow in fulfilling its mandate. Some of the core programmes contained in the Code included the Integrated Residential Development Programme (IRDP), Upgrading of Informal Settlement Programme (UISP), and Social Rental Housing Programme (SHRP).

Under the IRDP, the main emphasis was on provision of fully subsidised, low to high income ownership, and rental housing choice options. The key to this project lay in understanding the needs and lifestyle of the communities concerned, in order to provide services that were most desired by the communities. One other critical aspect of this project that was contained in the 2009 Code had been the manner in which beneficiaries would be identified. In the past, beneficiaries used to be identified before construction work had commenced. Under the new Code, beneficiaries would only be identified once the housing construction had started.

Under the UISP, the main aim was to keep in line with the United Nations Millennium Goals of improving the lives of 100 million slum dwellers worldwide by 2020. The programme involved what was termed as ‘in situ’ upgrading of informal settlements, and included the provision of essential services such as water, sanitation and refuse collection to the communities concerned. The manner in which this programme would evolve would include provision of emergency interventions, where necessary, to these areas as a first step. Issues such as the choice of housing options such as rental or options to buy would be available in the last phase.

The Social Rental Housing Programme would involve a mixture of government grants, private sector funding and equity to provide affordable rental accommodation, managed by social housing institutions. Examples where this project had already begun included the Walter Sisulu Square – Kliptown Development Project, which aimed to upgrade the Kliptown area. This would also see the provision of bulk services such as building of roads, transport facilities and the setting up of a viable commercial area in the township.

Farm Residence Housing Programme: Departmental Briefing
The Department tabled and went through a presentation on the Farm Residence Housing Programme. This programme aimed to provide a housing solution to poor farmers who resided on commercial farms. It was a Government programme, carried out in collaboration with the Farm Workers Unions. The focus of this project would not only be confined to the provision for housing ownership, but would also facilitate low-cost rental options as well. The success of this programme was largely dependent on the working-together of all stakeholders, including the cooperation of farm owners. It was important to note that this programme did not and would not affect current land tenure rights. Although this project was run by provincial governments, there was nothing preventing the MEC responsible for Human Settlements from delegating to municipalities, where this was feasible.

Discussion
Ms M Borman (ANC) asked whether the new Code was still in its draft format. She also wanted to know how the new Code would tackle the challenge of corruption often associated with the process of allocating houses.

Mr A Steyn (DA) asked if the Code had been completed and, if so, when it would be approved and adopted so that it could come into force. He also asked if there was any room to make further input to the code before it was finally adopted.

Mr Von Bromsen, representative of the Department of Human Settlements, said there was and would always be an opportunity for the Members to review and make some input to the code.

The Chairperson was concerned about the work done by the Social Housing Regulating Authority (SHRA), and suggested that it was time for the Committee to act proactively and strongly in order to ensure the effective functioning of SHRA.

Mr Mziwonke Dlabantu, Acting Director General, Department of Human Settlements, said that there was an investigation into the work of SHRA, and the team tasked with this investigation would compile a report in that regard.

Ms Borman wanted to know the extent of the housing backlogs, and how the new Code was going to address this problem of backlogs. She also expressed her appreciation about the Code in general but was concerned whether the implementation of the code would be as effective as the policy seemed on paper.

Mr Martin Maphisa, Deputy Director General, Department of Human Settlements, responded to the issues of implementation and monitoring of the programmes highlighted in the presentation. He said there were monitoring units in eight of the provinces and these were already doing a good job.

Ms Borman wanted to know what the Department was doing to ensure that the code was easily accessible to the public.

Mr Von Bromsen said the Department was in the process of taking measures to ensure that the Code was easily accessible to the public. He said this could include posting the Code on the Department’s website.

Mr Steyn asked for some clarity on the issue of finance. He specifically wanted to know if an allowance for most of the programmes was provided for in the current budget.

Mr T Botha (COPE) asked if the law was strong enough to protect either the interest of the tenant or that of the landlord. He said he was referring in particular to the Prevention of Illegal Eviction and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE), and asked if this Act protected all the parties adequately in cases of either unlawful occupation, or eviction from the land.

Mr Dlabantu acknowledged that the current legislation (PIE) was weighted in favour of tenants and not the landlord.

Mr Botha asked what the Department was doing to address the issue where, for instance, people might register as beneficiaries, but could not be found when the time came for them to be allocated houses.

Ms Borman asked what the department was doing in regard to the massive influx of people to the cities, which inevitably caused the creation of informal settlements. She wanted to know if there were any plans to move out some of the people from these cities.

Mr Steyn asked what criterion was used in the allocation and appointment of beneficiaries.

Mr Dlabantu said the issue of beneficiary management had been reviewed, and the Department had departed from the old methods to a process of identifying beneficiaries only once the houses had been built. This, he said, would go a long way towards solving the problem that Mr Botha had identified, where people could not be found once the projects were completed. In addition, he noted that the previous method had posed the danger of corrupt practices being set up by some officials.

Ms Borman asked how the Farm Residents Housing Programme would work and sought clarity as to whether the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (as it was now named) would buy the land concerned from commercial farmers. She also questioned how feasible this entire process would be.

Mr Steyn wanted to know what the department of Human Settlement was doing to market the Farm Residents Housing Programme. Mr Steyn also sought some more clarity on the depreciating costs of the property, especially in cases where a farmer abandoned the property or became insolvent. He wanted to know specifically how the Department was refunded under the model of depreciated costs, considering that property would tend to appreciate in value, rather than depreciating over time.

Mr Dlabantu addressed the issue of depreciation of the value of land in relation to what a farmer may need to pay in replacement costs. He said this was a cost that looked to replace the asset at that particular stage, taking current inflation measures at the time.

Mr M Mdakane (ANC) also raised a number of questions regarding the Farm Residents Housing Programme, asking for clarity on the issues of unpaid rentals, child headed households, and migration of people to the cities.

Mr Dlabantu welcomed the input from Mr Mdakane on child-headed households, and promised to address the issue to see what best could be done.

Mr Botha asked what would happen to the houses built on farms if the farm owner decided to change his or her business model to something else which may necessitate demolition of existing structures on the farm, such as houses built under this Farm Residents Housing Programme, and whether the farm owner would be allowed to effect such changes on his land.

Mr Von Bromsen said that in the case of conversion of a farm to another purpose, such a demolition might conflict with what was initially agreed in the contract entered into between the farm owner and the State.

Mr Botha enquired about the relationship between the Department of Human Settlements and the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform. He noted that there was a clear overlap of roles and a serious need for the two departments to work closely with one another.

Mr Steyn asked whether a farmer, who occupied a farm on a rental subsidy basis, and who at a later stage might decide to retire to his or her place of birth, would also qualify for low cost housing in other cities.

Mr Dlabantu responded that such a person would qualify for low cost housing as well.

The meeting was adjourned.