Western Cape response to Committee recommendations; Scottsdene; Cape Town Urban Settlement Development Grant; Groot Brak River Municipality

Meeting Summary

The Committee received detailed feedback from the Western Cape Provincial Department of Human Settlements about the 21 recommendations made by the Committee on its oversight visit in January 2010. These recommendations dealt with matters such as Farm Worker Housing Assistance; rectification of old stock; Enhanced Discount Benefit Scheme; selling of subsidy houses; Beneficiary List Management and Backyard Dwellers Policy; environmental impact assessment; land challenges in Knysna Municipality; and the People’s Housing Process (PHP).

The National Department of Human Settlements briefed the Committee on the state of affairs at the Groot Brak River Municipality. The Committee had visited the area and had requested a report in response to the concerns raised by the community.

The City of Cape Town report-back on the Scottsdene Self-Help Housing Project was rejected as unacceptable by the Committee and so it did not consider the numerous recommendations and requests made by the Committee as the community was not included in the steering committee. The Chairperson said that since the community was not involved, the report could not be accepted. The Committee ruled that the next step was that the Housing MEC and a politician from the City should be present at the next meeting. The matter had to be resolved as a matter of urgency. The lack of seriousness from the officials was one of the reasons why government policies were being blamed by the people and it had to stop.

The City of Cape Town presented on the Built Environment performance plan and the Urban Settlements Development Grant. The presentation gave a general overview of the current state of affairs about human settlements and spatial population density in the City of Cape Town, current and future human settlement projects of the City and the financial status of the Urban Settlements Development Grant.

Numerous questions were asked by Members which included the lack of commitment by City of Cape Town’s officials in resolving the problems at Scottsdene; rectification of subsidy houses; how realistic were the figures of the City’s achievements because presentations always had promising figures but what was on the ground was not as good; with regards to the huge immigration influx into the City, were the migrants from other parts of the country or from other African countries. The comment was made that it was a good thing that the City was encouraging private sector involvement in its developments. 

Minutes
Introduction by the Chairperson
The Chairperson said the report back from the Western Cape Provincial Department of Human Settlements on the Committee recommendations after its Western Cape oversight visit in January 2010 was long overdue as the Committee usually did follow up six months after the visit. The Department of Human Settlements (DHS) to make it a practice to provide feedback within three months. The DHS did not have to wait for Parliament to request feedback as the Committee was occupied with many other matters. The Committee would also receive a report from the City of Cape Town on its Urban Settlements Development Grant (USDG) performance, expenditure, challenges and progress.

Mr S Mokgalapa (DA) said that during the previous meeting, the Minister of Human Settlements had promised the Committee that he would attend the current meeting with a Sanitation Task Team report but that was not on the agenda for the day. Did the Minister communicate with the Chairperson on that subject or had any apology been received? It was contemptuous of the Minister to make such an undertaking in Parliament and not keep his word. It was unacceptable if he had not sent an apology with an explanation.

The Chairperson replied that the concern was valid but the Committee was to get a confirmation first from the Minister that the report and the team were ready for the presentation. That confirmation had not been made. In the last meeting, the matter was that the report was not yet finalized. After the meeting, the Chairperson would make a follow up call to find out the situation.

Western Cape Provincial Department of Human Settlements feedback
The Head of the Western Cape Provincial Department of Human Settlements (WC-DHS), Mr Mbulelo Tshangana, provided its responses to the recommendations of the Portfolio Committee.

Besides the specific interventions to address the matters which were raised by the Committee, the WC-DHS had made some broader interventions to improve oversight over projects. The Department had created professional Resource Teams which consisted of professionals in the built environment sector who were to ensure that municipalities had clear human settlements plans and that the projects linked to the plans were ready for implementation. The Department had also created a Portfolio Management Unit which was a permanently staffed unit and was utilizing specialist portfolio and project management software to improve project management and reporting. The Department was entering into Service Delivery Agreements with municipalities to hold them accountable for delivering on targets they had agreed to in their business plan.

During the oversight visit in January 2010, the Portfolio Committee had made twenty one recommendations and the WC-DHS had come up with responses to each of the recommendations.

The Portfolio Committee had made a recommendation for the compliance with the National Housing Code on Farm Workers Assistance Programme, including the management of farm evictions in consultation with the respective departments. In response, the WC-DHS had established an inter-departmental task team to formulate a Provincial Transversal Strategy on Farm Worker Housing Assistance. The department also planned to host a Farm Worker Housing Summit to discuss funding streams and strategic intervention. Farm workers had also benefited from municipal projects.

There was the recommendation for the rectification of old stock especially in Mandlenkosi, Rustdene, and part of Hillside 1. In response, the 512 houses were constructed in accordance with the specifications applicable at the time and no rectification was required. In Rustdene, the houses were occupied by elderly people and had no internal toilets. The rectification programme was not aimed at assisting in this case and funding had to be gotten from somewhere else.

In response to the request for a report on the Enhanced Discount Benefit Scheme (EEDBS), Mr Tshangana said that qualifying beneficiaries had to apply for the discount to the relevant municipality. Thereafter, the municipality had to assess and forward to the Department to register it against the National Housing Database. He said that 95% of the properties were in Cape Town and not all rental stock qualified for the discount. The biggest challenge was with transfer costs but the Department had decided that it was going to be more cost effective to cover the costs that were not covered by the EEDBS.

The Committee had recommended that the Housing Act should be enforced to prohibit the selling of subsidy houses. WC-DHS had submitted inputs on the amendment of the National Housing Act. It made recommendations such as: the abandoning of the pre-emptive right for provision in the National Housing Act; allowing of beneficiaries to sell their properties but discouraging sale for short term gain; the introduction of a claw back clause and investigating alternative conveyancing practices.

In response to the request for progress on the Beneficiary List Management and Backyard Dwellers Policy, Mr Tshangana said that the Provincial Housing Demand Database was developed in November 2011. The Housing Demand Data Improvement Programme had been implemented in 24 non-metro municipalities. A municipal support strategy had been rolled out in support of the programme and qualifying backyard dwellers formed part of the housing databases of municipalities. The functionality of the database included processing new registrations, updating existing records, and generating waiting list reports.

With regards to the feedback on the request made by the delegation on environmental impact assessment, the Provincial Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning had developed a process where the planning and environmental legislated processes ran in parallel thereby reducing the process time.

On the report on land challenges in Knysna Municipality, the municipality had indicated that the private land owners had done needs analysis on the four private villages but that no needs analysis had been done on the three state villages.

On support to the People’s Housing Process (PHP), the identification and approval of the PHP projects had to be in line with criteria such as linkages to human settlements plans or Integrated Development Plans (IDPs) of the relevant municipality. Guidelines had been developed and were already being implemented. All business plans for PHP projects were only accepted for approval if submitted by the relevant municipality and was accompanied by a letter of support clearly specifying that the identified project fell within its planning and had been budgeted. Mr Tshangana said that Housing Consumer Education was to be strongly linked to the facilitation process within a PHP project and beneficiaries were not going to be allowed to access their keys unless proof was given of their having undergone the full syllabus of the education programme and attendance at all scheduled workshops. Contractors and other service providers were to be appointed in the PHP projects in collaboration with the Department or relevant municipality in a process that was going to allow for quality, record of performance and fairness of allocation to be regarded as eligibility criteria. Guidelines had been developed and were in the process of being implemented in all newly approved projects. The use of private accounts administrators was no longer going to be allowed. The relevant municipality was going to act as the accounts administrator to manage and disburse the necessary funding on a project. This revised PHP process had been in effect since April 2011. Agreements with contractors were going to be concluded between the Department, the municipality and the appointed contractor or service provider for the implementation of the identified project.

The Committee had requested a full report on the Scottsdene Self Help project. There was a trilateral meeting between the national, provincial and local governments on the 7 March 2012. Archives relating to the project were examined and verbal interviews were held with some of the officials who remembered the project. A file was received from the Kraaifontein Community Economic Development Forum (KCEDF) and a meeting was held with the KCEDF on 30 May 2012 in Scottsdene. All tenders issued on the Scottsdene project were executed and no further loan funding was approved. No unfulfilled sale agreements could be found and no unfulfilled contractual commitments could be found.

The WC-DHS had provided the Committee with details on the Housing Development Agency report on land acquisition within the province.

On the compliance with equity and integration policies when allocating houses, the Department had developed a Draft Provincial Framework Policy for the selection of housing beneficiaries in ownership-based subsidy projects and a Municipal Selection Template. All municipalities were due to have a workshop on the template by the end of September 2012.

In giving feedback on the enquiry and full report on the allegations around ASLA Construction, Mr Tshangana said that the department had met with ASLA and the standard ASLA house design had been adjusted. The beneficiaries of houses that had been built according to the previous design had all been given the choice by ASLA whether they wanted their existing house configuration revised. Where the changes were required, the changes were made by the contractor.

The Committee had received feedback on the progress report on Debt Management of Community Residential Units, the intensification of public education and strengthening of public involvement in all delivery programmes, and the enhanced capacity building of qualified local municipalities for the purpose of accelerating accreditation processes.

On the mobilization of funds to address the question of topography, the introduction of funds for rehabilitation allowed for the construction of services in adverse geotechnical conditions.

The Committee also received feedback on the plans in place and time frames to develop 1000 sites in De Doorns and a report on the Izinyoka informal settlement’s dispute in Mossel Bay around removals of residents by the Municipality. An update was given on the recommendation that the Committee should visit respective deeds offices to oversee and ascertain challenges that hindered or delayed the processing of Title Deeds Offices registrations of the state subsidy houses.

The Committee was of the opinion that the contractors needed to be investigated and should pay back government funds. For the past two years, all allegations of corruption or misuse of funds had been referred to the Special Investigating Unit. Several risk mitigating measures had been proposed for the PHP programme.

The Deputy Director General: Strategy and Planning at the National Department of Human Settlements, Mr Neville Chainee said that on the matter of the projects that were included in municipal budgets and that ended up in the IDP of the municipality, it was important to note that in community driven projects the municipality did not have the discretion to force a type of process upon the community. It had to be agreed upon by both the municipality and the community. He stated that the government and municipalities were not at war with communities so dialogue was always an important element in development.

National Department of Human Settlements response to Groot Brak River Municipality concerns
Ms Julie Bayat, Chief Director: Programme and Project Planning at the National Department of Human Settlements noted that in February 2010, the Portfolio Committee undertook an oversight visit to the GrootBrak Municipal area. Thereafter, in a letter to the Minister of Human Settlements, the Committee Chairperson had indicated some matters which needed to be addressed. These matters included: flouting policy, interpretation and implementation of policy, lack of public participation, communication breakdown between certain councilors and municipal management, exploitation of workers by contractors in human settlements development, lack of transparency in areas of procurement and the need for a response team.

The processes which had been followed to address the matters included the holding of an intergovernmental relations meetings in February 2010 and meetings with the MEC, the response team and the community in February 2012. On 22 February 2012, there were meetings with the Council of the Mossel Bay Municipality and the Great Brak River Community. The representatives included the community leadership, the municipality, the contractors and the response team. The terms of reference had been prepared and follow ups and assessments were underway.

Discussion
Mr S Mokgalapa (DA) asked how the signing of service delivery agreements with the municipalities enhanced intergovernmental relations (IGR) and what would happen if the deliverables agreed upon were not delivered. In linking the PHP to IDPs of municipalities was the department sure that the IDPs were credible enough to incorporate and execute the PHP. Was ALSA Construction being used by all of the municipalities and was it not a monopoly which could lead to poor delivery of houses.

Mr Tshangana replied that there were regional forums where IGR matters and service delivery agreements were discussed. At a political level, there were meetings between the Ministers and the Mayors to discuss performance by sector and there was the Premiers Coordinating Forum for strategic matters. The signing of the agreements was more of a technical exercise to make the municipal officials account for poor performance and also to be rewarded for good performance. The essence was to ensure general performance. The rationale for linking the PHP to IDPs was that the municipalities could take cognizance of where the beneficiaries wanted the PHP programmes to happen. On the matter of ASLA, the department was going to submit a report from the Auditor General with the update on the situation.

Ms M Njobe (COPE) asked that in a situation where beneficiaries wanted to build their own houses and dictate changes to be made, how was the norms and standards for building houses going to be observed and ensured? What was going to happen to backyarders who did not qualify to be allocated houses?

Mr Tshangana replied that it was up to the municipalities to include the rectification of the houses in consultation with the communities. It had been programmed for the next financial year and the municipalities, through their IDPs, were handling the situation.

Ms A Mashishi (ANC) asked how many farm workers had benefited from projects in municipalities. How many units or houses were rectified in Mandlenkosi? What did the claw back clause mean and why did not all rental stock qualify for the EEDBS?

Mr Tshangana said that the Province was only making a recommendation but the functioning of the claw back clause was mastered by the National Department. It had to do with the fact that if an individual sold a subsidy house, the individual had to pay back the subsidy. This was the practice in Brazil. It was however still a proposed recommendation.

Mr Chainee said that the claw back clause simply meant that when there was a sale of the house, the government was to get back its portion. It was a good proposal but the problem was that there was no capacity to enforce it. The objective was to protect the poor and the beneficiaries from exploitation.

Ms M Borman (ANC) asked if there were any details about the number of farmworker projects. Were the rectifications which had to do with the homes of the elderly given priority? On the demand database, what was the position of the Department in getting the communities to report on the changes in the field? What was the total backlog for title deeds registrations?

Mr Tshangana replied that there was no specific database of the farmworkers who had been accommodated. Some municipalities had the details of the farmworkers but the information was not stored in a systematic way but there was the indaba on farmworker housing in October and the details were going to be obtained and the situation improved.

Mr K Sithole (IFP) said on the rectification of houses, what were the figures in Mandlenkosi, Beaufort West, Joe Slovo and Khayelitsha. When the square meters of houses was reduced from 56 square meters, how small are the new houses? Was there any database for backyard dwellers in the Western Cape?

Ms J Sosibo (ANC) asked if it was true that the community in Mandlekosi voluntarily asked to be given smaller houses. Were there old houses that needed to be demolished or refurbished? On the sale of subsidy houses, could an individual, who had benefited from the programme and later sold his house, be allowed to apply for another house?

Mr Tshangana replied that the housing policy and funding only allowed for a house of 40 square meters to be constructed. If an individual needed a bigger house, they would have to bring the additional money up front so that the house could be completed. There were houses which were dilapidated and they needed to be rebuilt. The sites were not big enough so the demolition was aimed at creating space. An individual could only qualify once for a house.

Ms D Dlakude (ANC) asked for clarity on the matter of the 50 houses in Mossel Bay which were not covered for the financial year and the meaning of ‘village revival’. What were the reasons for the blocking of the project in Joe Slovo? How many informal settlements had the Department upgraded in the province? What was the rationale for demolishing bigger houses to build smaller ones in Mandlenkosi?

Ms Rika van Rensburg, an Acting Chief Director at the WC-DHS, said that there were 233 informal settlements in the Western Cape. The information was available and was going to be provided to the Committee.

Mr J Matshoba (ANC) asked if all the information and data which was submitted was obtained from the field or was done by desktop research.

Ms P Duncan (DA) asked at what point was the tender for development released. What was the remedy for the homes of the elderly which were not covered by the PHP fund?

The Chairperson said that in Knysna there were no toilets and that was a basic service – what had been done by the Department? What were the developments and progress at the Izinyoka informal settlements? What was the percentage that was supposed to be contributed by municipalities for housing needs? There could be no excuse that municipalities did not have money. Did the beneficiaries of the EEDBS know of the progress?

Mr Tshangana replied that the matter around business plans was to ensure that the items that were included in the business plan of a particular year were executed during that same financial year. It was also important to ensure that the projects were realistic. There were about eight municipalities that had received funding from the province for the provision of basic services. Knysna was one of these municipalities and their business plan had been approved a long time ago by the Department. It was up to the municipality to prioritize the provision of basic services.

Mr Rod Smith of the WC-DHS said that with regards to the EEDBS, the programme had been on for some time and most of the tenants of the houses under the project had become owners. There was still some stock in the City and around the province. It was just about three or four thousand beneficiaries who were still in the process of becoming the owners of the houses they previously rented.

The Chairperson said that it was important for the Department to have a database of the backyard dwellers in the Province.

Scottsdene Self-Help Housing Project: City of Cape Town briefing
Executive Director: Human Settlements at the City of Cape Town, Mr Seth Maqetuka, said that the City was committed to resolving the matter in Scottsdene and that the solution was in the parties moving away from their rigid positions and reaching an amicable solution. The report was prepared by Mr Jens Kuhn and the report contained the City of Cape Town’s recommendations.

The Chairperson said that the report had been read by the members of the Committee and it just a mere explanation of events. The Committee was disappointed at the report and it was a display of a lack of commitment on the side of the City of Cape Town. After the very constructive meetings which were held, the City was still not committed to solving the matter.

Mr Jens Kuhn of the City of Cape Town introduced the report and said that the three levels of government had met on the matter and the history of the project had been examined. The investigation was focused on the self-help project and not the transfer of stock. The report consisted of the findings of the investigation and the recommendations from the City.

Mr Kuhn said that in a meeting with the Kraaifontein Community Economic and Development Forum (KCEDF), the City had proposed that the names of the people submitted as part of the forum be taken and a check be done if they were on the Council waiting list. This was meant to ensure coherence with the lists. That was the major recommendation that the city had put in its report.

The Chairperson said that the recommendations by the City as explained by Mr Jens Kuhn were totally unacceptable. The Committee had noted that the City had committed itself to resolve the problem amicably but the recommendation was not an amicable solution. The Committee wanted the City to provide the original list of beneficiaries. The Committee also requested the City to make sure that in the process, the community should form part of the development committee in assisting the community. There was the need for community participation. The Committee asked the City to check if there were any deceased people who were no longer on the list so that the list could be updated and their beneficiaries identified. The Chairperson said that the City was derailing the process so that it could finish the land according to its plan and to the exclusion of the community. The Committee had asked that the City should prioritize elderly people. None of the requests of the Committee was considered in the report. The report was just useless and was not helping the situation.

Mr Matshoba said that the Committee was just wasting its time with the people from the City of Cape Town. They were not serious and were pulling the project backwards. It was important to get the political head who was the MEC to address the Committee and not “unserious” officials. If the City was not serious about helping the people, Parliament was serious. The City was playing games and it had to end.

The Chairperson said that the City had always been bringing a particular position before the Committee and it was time to stop the games.

Ms Dlakude said that the City was not taking the Committee serious and were not doing anything to assist the community. The Committee should not receive the report from the City of Cape Town.

Ms Duncan asked if the Committee could be provided with the minutes of the meeting of the steering committee so that both sides of the matter could be gotten.

Mr Mokgalapa said that the relations had been dented and the City had been acting in bad faith.

Ms Sosibo said that it was better to get a political head to account for the situation.

Ms Borman said that the slow pace at which the project was moving was a great concern. Was the community part of the steering committee? It was important for the MEC to get involved as it was not good for the matter to take a more serious dimension.

The Chairperson asked the community if they were part of the steering committee.

The chairperson of the KCEDF, Mr Wilson Daniels, said the community was not part of the steering committee.

The Chairperson said that since the community was not involved, the report could not be accepted. The report was unacceptable. The next step was that the MEC should form part of the next meeting and a politician from the City. The matter had to be resolved as a matter of urgency. The lack of seriousness from the officials was one of the reasons why the government policies were being blamed by the people and it had to stop.

Mr Maqetuka said that the report was going to be taken back to the City and consultation was going to be done with the political principals. The City wanted to see the matter resolved and there were certain decisions that the officials could not make. The point had been reached where the intervention of a political head was required. The officials had done their part and they were guided by policy requirements. The City had a database and policies which had to be adhered to. The officials were guided by these policies. Any deviation from the policies could not be the decision of the officials.

The Chairperson said that policies were meant to assist development and not to discriminate and victimize the people. The government existed to serve the people and not to reign over them.

Mr Chainee said that the National Department was willing to support in any areas where support was needed.

The Chairperson said that the City had another chance until the week of 11 of September and there was going to be another meeting where the MEC was going to be invited. The matter was going to be finalized on that day.

Built Environment Performance Plan and Urban Settlements Development Grant
Director for Housing Finance and Leases at the City of Cape Town, Mr Wayne Muller, outlined the City’s total population, the net in-migration index, the size of the City and the number of households. There were 350 000 households which were inadequately housed with a housing backlog of 400 000 households. The City had 222 informal settlements with about 900 000 people in these informal settlements. The City was an international and national tourist destination. With regards to the infrastructure status, there were maintenance challenges and mass expansion of bulk infrastructure and transport was required.

On the financial aspects, the City had achieved unqualified audits and had a healthy financial status.
In outlining the current spatial layout and population density of the City, the Committee was told that the majority of people in the City lived around Imizamo Yethu, Masiphumelele, Nyanga, Hanover Park, Khayelitsha, Wallacedene, Lwandle and Nomzamo. With regards to City planning and direct growth and infrastructure, the City was managing growth in phases. The major challenge was that infrastructure urgently needed to be rehabilitated and/or upgraded. On the current bulk infrastructure status, the City had a comprehensive array of studies and interventions aimed at identifying and targeting actions associated with its bulk infrastructure requirements as aligned to its IDP and Informal Settlements Upgrade imperatives.

In the City of Cape Town, 89.7% of the households were receiving electricity, 100% had access to refuse removal, 99.2% had access to piped water and 93% had access to toilet facilities. Mr Muller showed the Committee the high and very high risk areas with regards to electricity and storm water. On wastewater investment prioritization, he said that in the past, it was not necessary to spatially align as spare capacity existed. Currently, prioritization needed to be aligned with human settlements programme and approved private sector development. The Committee was also briefed on the long term integrated transport network.

With regards to what was required for human settlement development, there was the need to appropriately locate land, enhance densities, provide community facilities, ensure governance, provide private sector involvement, cross sectoral commitment, education, community safety, work opportunities, infrastructure, financially viable growth models and the matching of all financial resources. The City’s funds had to be matched with the Urban Settlements Development Grant (USDG) and the Human Settlements Development Grant (HSDG).

On integrated housing delivery, the Committee was told that the development of integrated human settlements took many different forms and was not only the function of the state. To be successful, sustainable and innovative human settlement development had to involve all sectors of society and business. Private sector involvement and partnerships did not mean that the private sector was to merely act as a developer or builder of subsidy housing. Private sector involvement meant the private sector adding its own resources and influence to the development of integrated human settlements.

The Committee was provided with a partial list of projects currently under construction. These included projects such as Bardale Phase 4, Happy Valley Phase 2, Pelican Park Phase 1, Pelican Park Bonded and Scottsdene. The partial list of projects in the planning stage to commence in 2012/13 included Atlantis Kanonkop Phase 1, 2, and 3, Bella River, Delft the Hague, Dido Valley, Driftsands and Garden Cities. The Committee was also told of projects in the planning stage such as Green Point Phase 3, Gugulethu Infill, Heideveld Duinfontein Road, Imizamo Yethu Phase 3, Macassar, Mannenberg Infill and Valhalla Park Infill. The challenge was that the City was going to have to defer further developments in the high density areas unless the upgrade programme was in place and funded. The City was addressing the challenge through City funds, the USDG, the HSDG and other forms of funding.

Mr Muller briefed the Committee on the City of Cape Town’s response to the USDG. The USDG was acknowledged as an innovative programme. On USDG implementation, the Built Environment Performance Plan had been submitted to the Department of Human Settlements incorporating linkages to the IDP and City strategies. Council had approved a comprehensive governance process linked to project assessment and the project review Committee. The Office of the Auditor General had reviewed the City’s USDG approval processes and the City was presenting monthly reports to the National Department of Human Settlements and the Portfolio Committee on Human Settlements.

With regards to the USDG investment plan and based on the Division of Revenue Act/USDG framework allocations, the USDG funds were allocated for land acquisition, pre-planning and project pipelines, infrastructure, integrated housing, informal settlements upgrade, sites and service for informal settlements, community facilities, governance and project management capacity. The immediate benefits of the USDG included a massive integration process linking the HSDG to the USDG and the City’s funds, utility services aligned to human settlements programmes, private sector interest, launching of major human settlements projects, inclusion of USDG imperatives in IDP, informal settlements upgrade and community facilities. Mr Muller said that the role of the State had to change from being a mere regulator to being an opportunity driven entity by setting by-laws, planning and time lines.

Discussion
Ms Borman said that the presentation was showing the “Breaking New Ground” that was launched in 2004 coming into action eight years later. The City needed proper planning. How realistic were the figures of the City’s achievements because the presentations always had promising figures but what was in the field was not as good. It was a good thing that the City was encouraging private sector involvement in its developments.

Mr Maqetuka replied that the figures in the presentation were based on national norms with regard to the provision of basic services. There were certain settlements which were very dense and it was very difficult to provide certain basic services.

Mr Mokgalapa said that the presentation was good and encouraging. He said that it was a good thing the USDG, HSDG and the IDP were linked. In the areas where there was saturated growth and development, what were the plans of the City in terms of future growth?

Mr Maqetuka replied that the City had several units which had the duties of managing growth and those were technical matters which were dependent on the particular circumstance and situation at hand.

Ms Dlakude asked that with regards to the huge immigration influx into the City, were the migrants from other parts of the country, from other African countries or from around the globe. What did the City have as a plan to address the urban influx?

Mr Maqetuka replied that the source of the data was the national census and community census and the City had been working closely with the University of Stellenbosch and the University of Cape Town on migration figures. The figures in the city referred to both domestic and international migration.

The Chairperson said that the planning was good but it needed to be aligned with the Department. The Departments had to bring in the necessary funds. Why was the City not sourcing funds from the various departments? The budget of the City needed to be improved as it could not depend on the USDG. Integration meant including every department in the plans and budgeting. The USDG was for infrastructure and not for other amenities.

Mr Chainee said that the National Department of Human Settlements was reviewing the frameworks and it had been narrowed down to focus on the specific matters around human settlements.

The Chairperson said that the Department was there to give direction to the City and it was good that both parties were present. The ultimate goal was service delivery.

The meeting was adjourned.