Urban Settlements Development Grant 3rd quarter spending for 2012/13 by Johannesburg, Tshwane and Ekurhuleni Metros

Human Settlements, Water and Sanitation

19 June 2013
Chairperson: Ms B Dambuza (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Committee heard that the City of Johannesburg’s population had grown as a result of urbanisation, and that had influenced the decisions as to where the Urban Settlement Development Grant (USDG) would be spent. The metro had an ever-increasing young population. Between 2001 and now, the growth had been remarkable, with an increase of about 38%.  The City had developed a deprivation index and there were pockets of areas – Alexandra, Diepsloot, Ivory Park, Orange Farm, and Soweto - where people were more deprived. Indicators used to measure the extent of deprivation included employment, housing, education and the general living environment. The highest densities within the City were almost synonymous with those areas that were most deprived. These were the key things that the City wanted to change in the future.  The City wanted to focus development around these areas through interventions like regional development centres, and making transportation work for all. Transportation encompassed all forms of movement including walking, cycling, public and private transportation. The City was concentrating on public transportation. The Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), as a backbone programme of public transportation, was focussed on this aspect of development. The intention and the approach was to build nodes around the BRT stations and use them for development.

Johannesburg wanted a better range of housing to be provided, especially in the rental market. An analysis had indicated the rental market was the key if urbanisation were to be dealt with in a proper way. Walk-ability within the City became a key issue for development, as well as using different housing typologies. A crucial part of the development strategy was to phase out the areas of deprivation, and develop in a far more sensible way around the public transportation system.  The City had plotted every informal dwelling, and it had been discovered there were 165 000 informal housing units, based mainly in the south. The study pointed out that there were twice as many informal shacks found in the backyards of formal dwellings.
 

The City of Tshwane indicated there had been an increase in the population figures because of the incorporation of the former Motsweding District Municipality in 2011. There had also been a lot of rural migration of people seeking better economic opportunities.  There were water and sanitation backlogs of about 43 000 and 53 000 households respectively, and the City had gone into each informal settlement to understand what infrastructural services were required. All of the informal settlements were linked to the draft municipal housing development plan. The presentation indicated those townships where in situ upgrading would be done, and those that would be relocated to new housing developments. It also showed areas where the people would be moved and the number of units. Most of Tshwane’s informal settlements were in Atteridgeville, and people in that area had occupied road reserves, which made it difficult to improve the roads. All the informal settlements in this area would be relocated because of their geological condition. The soil in that area was dolomitic.
 

Members voiced dissatisfaction with the presentation. The invitation had been sent to the metro a while back and the executive authority had chosen to send a lone official with a shabby presentation. There was nothing that Members could engage on with the presenter, as she was not making sense.  Key officials, especially in the political leadership, needed to be in Parliament. Although not requiring a big delegation, someone senior should have come, even if the council was sitting. The political leadership took the resolutions, and they were the ones who ought to be interrogated.  Those who had sent the presenter should have come themselves. The official was asked to go and relay the message to the City’s leadership.

The Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality said its infrastructure backlog challenges were mainly focussed on roads and storm water drainage, and this was the area where most of the USDG budget had been allocated. As the metro created new settlements, the backlog increased because the settlements had to be provided with road infrastructure. The metro was made up of too many towns, and urban renewal was prioritised around Kempton Park.  The metro had developed a human settlement development strategy that would guide it over the next financial year. The strategy was pinned on two pillars -- infill development areas and densification. Some of the mines around the metro just needed to be filled and then used for development. There were new developments earmarked around the fire station precinct, accommodating 400 units, and Pirrowville residential precinct, which would accommodate over 4 000 units.

There were still communities receiving water from pipes because they were too far from the grid and could not be connected. Much of the interim services were financed through the municipal budget, but that had changed with the introduction of the USDG. Some communities still used chemical toilets, but the metro was in the process of doing away with them. Some families still used pit latrines by choice.

Members’ questions focussed on issues such as the metros’ quarterly spending patterns and delays in starting projects, the spending of USDG grants outside of the mandated areas, the challenge of relocating backyard dwellers, the impact of protest action on infrastructure development, and the need for providing improved sanitation facilities to impoverished communities.

Meeting report

Opening remarks
The Acting Chairperson, Ms J Sosibo (ANC), apologised on behalf of the Chairperson who had been delayed at a strategy meeting, and would be joining the meeting later.

City of Johannesburg presentation
Mr Herman Pienaar, Director Planning, City of Johannesburg, said the population of Johannesburg had grown as a result of urbanisation, and that had influenced the decision as to where the Urban Settlement Development Grant (USDG) would be spent. The metro had an ever-increasing young population. Between 2001 and now, the growth had been remarkable, with an increase of about 38%.

The City had developed a deprivation index and there were pockets of areas – Alexandra, Diepsloot, Ivory Park, Orange Farm, and Soweto - where people were more deprived. Indicators used to measure the extent of deprivation included employment, housing, education and the general living environment. This was where people were mostly concentrated. The highest densities within the City were almost synonymous with those areas that were most deprived. These were the key things that the City wanted to change in the future.

The City wanted to focus development around these areas through interventions like regional development centres, and making transportation work for all. Transportation encompassed all forms of movement including walking, cycling, public and private transportation. The City was focussed, though, on public transportation. The Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), as a backbone programme of public transportation, was focussed on this aspect of development. The intention and the approach was to build nodes around the BRT stations and use them for development. The BRT had provided opportunities for better use of space around the stations.

The City tried to be less distinctive between formal and informal economies, and wanted to ensure connectivity with centres of economy outside the city. Johannesburg wanted a better range of housing to be provided, especially in the rental market. An analysis had indicated the rental market was the key if urbanisation were to be dealt with in a proper way. Walk-ability within the City became a key issue for development, as well as using different housing typologies. All of this could be done with as small a carbon foot print as possible. Over the next three decades, development would have a far greater density.

A crucial part of the development strategy was to phase out the areas of deprivation, and develop in a far more sensible way around the public transportation system. Another piece of work done around urbanisation was to define the housing demand, looking at the current need and affordability. The important thing that came out was that the City had plotted every informal dwelling, and it had been discovered there were 165 000 informal housing units, mainly based in the south. The study pointed out that there were twice as many informal shacks found in the backyards of formal dwellings.

A significant number of these were located in the Soweto area. The City saw this as a viable market for rental stock. There was a process with a number of projects, on how the “backyard economy” was legitimised. The analysis had indicated a need to build a billion housing units within the next 30 years. More than half of this would be in the low income housing sector. The City had gone into the strategic areas within the city and had sought to understand what other housing infrastructure would be required within the nodes and inner city.

The City had about seven housing typologies and each of them addressed the income level of people and the funding options. There were three different kinds of investment strategies that the City looked at. Investment options for the City related to asset management, backlogs, and future growth. There were asset management plans for the entire infrastructure, and in each of these a detailed analysis had been carried out.  About 25% of the Johannesburg water budget, and 42% of the roads and storm water budget, went into the deprived areas. Johannesburg Road Agency (JRA) had received a huge increase in their budget because roads and storm water were critical issues that the City had to deal with. A lot of money had been invested in projects situated in the deprived areas, with Soweto receiving about 11% of the City’s budget.

Soweto had changed over the years and was far more stable. A large part of it could no longer be classified as deprived. The corridors of freedom were critical for the future growth of the city. The programme that got the bulk of the budget was the Soweto Development Corridor. The Turfontein and Louis Botha Corridors got little money for 2014, but in the years following, the allocation picked up a bit.

Mr Walter Melato, Director of Housing, City of Johannesburg, said in line with Outcome 8, the City had managed to deliver 3 741 housing opportunities. Access to basic services had been given to more than 12 000 families. The City had hoped to procure about 143 hectares of land. At the end of March 2013, about 70% of this target had been achieved; 42.1 km of road had been built, and about 9 000 units would be achieved when the projects were complete.

Ms P Duncan (DA) interjected and said expenditure on 2012/13 was not reflected in the presentation, and the Committee could not be dealing with outcomes for 2013/14.

Mr Moabi, Programme Manager, City of Johannesburg, explained that the presentation had recently been tweaked. The slide was more of a demonstration of deliverables on the projects’ details.

Mr K Sithole (IFP) wanted to know why the presentation was updated only the day before, and said that apart from not seeing the fine print of the presentation, he could not make sense of what was being said.

Mr Moabi explained that the City had looked at the expenditure to date, as it was important to reflect on expenditure to date. This allowed the City to provide a clear picture of where it was. This was also the requirement of the template provided to the City by the Department of Human Settlements (DHS).

Ms G Borman (ANC) said the Members preferred it if they received the presentation much earlier than the meeting day. Making last-minute changes made things difficult for Members. The Committee had to follow the money. The decision of the Committee to receive documents the Friday prior to the meeting needed to be resuscitated. Members would love to do their work diligently and sadly, how they had been dealt with by the City of Johannesburg, did not allow for that.

Mr Moabi said the comment had been noted and would not happen again. He continued with the presentation and said Turfontein was a project allocated, based on the corridor. Nothing had been implemented, however, as town planning had taken longer than expected. Full attention had been given to Orange Farm and it was allocated R26 million and expenditure was in line to date. Considerable amount had been allocated for the improvement of sanitation and sewer plant upgrades around Ennerdale, Ivory Park and Alexandra. A portion of the Urban Settlements Development Grant (USDG) was used to improve facilities and parks, as part of having sustainable human settlements.

The DHS had closely interrogated the expenditure by the City and had visited the projects. The Department was assured that expenditure would be met. The City was looking at the projects around the inner city, but the impact had not actually been realised. The expenditure had started slowly on projects but picked up dramatically when in the implementation phase. The current expenditure sat at around 72% and the City was hopeful it would spend the total allocation at the end of the financial year. He said challenges in carrying out projects included delays in the delivery of materials, lengthy procurement processes, community protests, rain delays and the formalisation of procurement processes.

Discussion
Ms Borman requested that the missing slides in the presentation be forwarded to the Committee. The USDG grant was availed for infrastructure so that houses could be built. Although the use of the grant on clinics and beautification programmes was welcomed, the Committee would rather see the money spent on infrastructure.

Ms Borman sought clarity on why the City had started so slowly on expenditure – around 4% in the first quarter - and yet expenditure had increased by up to 60% in the last quarter. She doubted the expenditure figures, and requested that the percentages be broken down. The City should also  make available backlog details on sanitation, as it was central to human settlements.

Ms Borman asked what the beneficiary criterion was. Given the thoroughness of planning by the City, it should know the beneficiaries.

Mr Sithole asked how much of a challenge capacity was, in so far as spending was concerned, but also if some information could be shared on the loans amounting to R1.4 million. The City was behind on informal settlements, especially in Kliptown and Alexandra. He asked why this was the case, given that the Committee had raised the matter in the previous years.

Mr Sithole wanted to know why the presentation was silent on the illegal occupation of houses in Diepsloot. Were there any unblocked projects in the City, and if so, could more information be shared with the Committee?

Ms D Dlakude (ANC) commented that the spending of the USDG on the third quarter looked rather suspicious and wondered if it was a true reflection of what had been delivered on the ground. She sought clarity on the portion that was allocated for cemeteries. The statement on “housing opportunities delivered”, contained in the missing slide, should be elaborated on.

Ms Dlakude requested that the City clarify the matter of sanitation as it pertained to an informal area visited by the Committee last year, where people used plastic bags to relieve themselves. Since the visit, how many informal settlements had been upgraded?

Ms P Duncan (DA) requested that the City prepare a separate report to indicate in detail how the USDG had been spent. She sought clarity on the backyard shacks city-wide assessments, and whether they were part of the Spatial Development Framework (SDF).

Ms N Njobe (Cope) commended the expenditure on the projects, especially where the focus of the City was directed. The backyard phenomenon was important for the Committee and the talk of upgrading the backyards was not clear. She asked if there was a plan in place for moving them, given that there were more backyarders than informal shacks. As the population of the City grew at an unbelievable rate, it meant informal dwellings could never be done away with. This gave further credence to the Committee’s call for new towns.

Ms Njobe said that like other Members, the issue of about 60% expenditure in two months looked very unrealistic, and more like fiscal dumping. The City should avoid that situation, and should not be spending money for the sake of doing it; value for money had to be prioritised. She admired the emphasis on rental accommodation, but was still troubled about the City’s attitude towards greening.

Ms Njobe found it unacceptable that the City would highlight delays in the supply of materials as a challenge for progress on projects. This should not apply to Johannesburg, as suppliers were concentrated there. She requested an update on the Lenasia matter, where the provincial Department of Human Settlements had demolished people’s property in 2012.

Ms N Mnisi (ANC) commented the presentation was silent on job opportunities, and asked how many job opportunities had been created through expenditure of the USDG. This was the grant that could also be used to benefit local communities in reversing poverty. The expenditure pattern did not appear to be consistent.  When did planning for the USDG happen?

Ms Mnisi asked that the City of Johannesburg clarify the extent of the sanitation challenge. How far had the City gone with sanitation in areas like Ivory Park?

Mr R Bhoola (MF) said the Committee took note of the fact that the City had some destabilising factors on expenditure of the grant and implementation of the projects. He sought clarity on the urbanisation plan, and asked if it had had a buy-in from various other departments. There seemed to be a lack of upgrading in the informal areas; he asked if in-situ development happened at all.

Mr Bhoola wanted to know if targets had been met on land acquisition, as spelt out in Outcome 8. There had to be correlation with the delivery of projects; had the City acquired the land for projects, and could it be indicated whether the City had received assistance from the Housing Development Agency (HDA)?

Ms A Mashishi (ANC) sought clarity on backyard dwellers and community protests in so far as they impacted on the progress of construction projects. Were there any plans to try and minimise the impact of the protests?

Mr J Matshoba (ANC) sought clarity on the inter-departmental working relationships. A number of areas had been mentioned in the presentation, which were not in the area of mandate for the USDG. The building of clinics, using the USDG funding, had been mentioned as though there was no Department of Health. He asked if officials ever went out to conduct physical oversight on projects.

Ms Dlakude said information should be shared on the hostels that had been refurbished for staff using the USDG. Which staff was this, and was it fair?

Ms Sosibo sought clarity on the amount of the USDG spent on transport systems. The City of Johannesburg received in excess of R1.2 billion -- how much of that money was used on transport? She requested that the responses be brief, because the Committee was pressed for time.

General responses
Mr Melato replied the reason the City started slowly on spending was that the municipality could not acquire services before the council approved it. That had been addressed by the introduction of the multi-year planning. Plans would sometimes be in place for the following year, but the council approved them only in May; another couple of months would be lost during the procurement period. The council had resolved that planning would be done, based on the Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF). In future there would be a significant improvement in how the money was spent.

There was no available subsidy to upgrade backyards. Emphasis in the modelling was to produce a large number of affordable rental stock. This would create the opportunity for people who were in backyards to go and stay in cheaper rental houses owned by government. This was one of the ways the City would consider in the long term, to address the phenomenon of backyard dwellings in the future.

The City had realised there was a trend in informal settlements of people who did not qualify for low cost housing, locating there. Emphasis had now shifted to mixed integrated developments in all the projects the City undertook. In all housing developments, the City ensured it created different typologies so that those who might not qualify for low cost housing would have an opportunity to rent, or at least take advantage of the Financed-Linked Individual Subsidy Programme (FLISP).

The reason Johannesburg experienced challenges of materials supply was because of the competition among private developers in the construction industry.  Whoever paid the suppliers quicker got a better service. The City had put in place a system where it had started using its buying power, and where it went to suppliers and indicated it was one of the biggest clients and would not accept a shoddy service.

The City did not use the USDG money to create cemeteries, but it was important that in the process of building human settlements, dignified burial land be identified. He commented that burial sites were a little more expensive than housing sites, and that the City had to ensure that they were found as part of a comprehensive human settlements programme.

The challenge with sanitation was the result of reaching capacity in terms of the sewer works that the City had. There was a project under way with national government to rebuild the Sebokeng sewer treatment works. Once completed, they would alleviate some of the challenges with regards to creating more waterborne sewer points. The City was also upgrading the sewer works plant in Diepsloot. In situations where people in informal settlements did not have waterborne sewerage, the City had a programme of rolling out VIP toilets. There were projects where in-situ upgrades happened.

There were challenges with land acquisition in the northern areas, where the value of land had increased substantially. There were a few portions of land that the City followed, and it had worked with the Housing Development Agency (HAD). There was a project in Nasrec that had been earmarked and the HDA and the Department of Public Works (DPW) were assisting in that process.

Political leaders assisted with community protests and engaged communities. The truth nevertheless was that precious time for construction was lost during protests.  Job creation was paramount in all projects.  All the City’s projects were done in line with the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) motto. He said 4 000 job opportunities had been created in the current year.

Mr Pienaar explained that the City had upgraded the Spatial Development Framework (SDF) on an annual basis, and the one that was there was a 2011 approved framework. It had been updated in the Integrated Development Plan (IDP), and was due for a review in 2013.  However, because there was a new growth developmental strategy, it was thought to be futile to try and do spatial planning at the same time. The plan was the official approved plan of the City; it was high level, and informed everything done in terms of the IDP. The more detailed work was contained within the regional framework as well.

The City had launched a backyard settlement programme, with emphasis on health and safety. No one stayed for free in Johannesburg; there was a whole economy involving backyard shacks, and if they were eradicated it would mean a stream of income for property owners would disappear. The City thought if it could guide that process and provide the necessary assistance, it would help that market to grow and become established as legitimate. But the living conditions needed to comply with those prescribed by the City.

Mr Pienaar said the City of Johannesburg had a budget of about R7 billion, and R2.5 billion of that money came from the national government in the form of grants.  The rest of the money came from the City’s coffers and loans.

Mr Moabi replied that the City had underlined its programmes, looking at the cash flow. A task team had been dispatched from the National Department of Human Settlements to help with under-expenditure. The recovery plan, especially in the second quarter, when under-expenditure had become apparent, had been drawn up. The City had even takenthe task team on site to see progress. The hostels had not been upgraded using the USDG, but the funding had been sourced. Redevelopment of the project had been funded by the City.

Ms Dlakude said the Committee realised the time pressures, but specific answers were required and not generalised responses. She would have preferred a pointed answer with regard to Madelakufa, where people relieved themselves in plastic bags. Had toilets been provided to that community? She disputed the statement that the hostels were not upgraded using USDG money.

Ms Duncan requested that the City took the issue of the SDF seriously. It was important to ensure public participation, as it was an imperative in terms of the SDF process. A buy-in from the people was crucial, or at least allowed them to be part of how the City of Johannesburg developed.

Ms Mnisi insisted on an indication of how much of a challenge sanitation was in Johannesburg.

Mr Neville Chaine, Deputy Director General: Strategy and Planning, DHS, replied the Department was waiting for the Human Rights Commission to sign the agreement on Lenasia. This had stalled all the processes, but the MEC and the Minister had an agreement. There was a dispute about the Human Rights Commission and the consultation process. There was a scheduled meeting for 24 June; the province had indicated it was ready to proceed with some of the action it had undertaken, and a report could be presented to the Committee if it so wanted.

The Department had interrogated 2013/14 spending patterns for all the metros. The issues of the “wild swings”, like the bloated spending in the last quarter, had been interrogated. It indicated either poor planning or dumping of money -- or even poor outputs and outcomes. The Department should guard against that happening; it should guard against the abnormal becoming normal. The DHS had also raised the issues of lags in the provision of sanitation in the Gauteng municipalities. Access to sanitation and interim services was paramount; Gauteng should copy the eThekwini metro on interim services. There were interventions indeed, but those were insufficient and a substantial amount of work still had to be done.

When one upgraded a backyard, there was a principle that one was upgrading the individual’s property. For this reason, the DHS had asked that the USDG should be used to purchase land to provide persons living in backyard shacks the ability to gain access on their own. He said the Department accepted there were densification issues with the three metros present, but they still had to find land for the purpose of human settlements.

The Chairperson said there had to be a policy that would specifically address the matter of backyard dwellers. The Committee had discovered there was no standard way of dealing with this matter. Provinces did as they pleased and the Department should help the Committee with such a policy so it could hold the metros accountable.

The Chairperson said given the metros’ accreditation on human settlements provision, they now had to start reporting on this aspect before the Committee, and somehow had to relate delivery to the State of the Nation Address. Metros should start reporting comprehensively, especially around the grants provided by different departments that impacted on human settlements provision. She cited the roll-out of solar geysers, and said funding for that could be sourced only from the Department of Energy (DoE), and that would necessitate that the metro approach DoE.

The Chairperson proposed that the Committee consider visiting Johannesburg’s Orange Farm. That area had to be prioritised; when the Committee was there, the situation had been very bad.

City of Tshwane presentation
Ms Amolemo Mothoagae, Acting Senior Director: Housing, City of Tshwane (CoT), indicated changes had been effected to the presentation -- not in terms of the content, but rather the flow. The presentation had already been delivered to the National Department of Human Settlements in the previous week. The first part of the presentation would focus on the debt, in preparation for 2013/14, and the last part of the presentation dealt with the USDG.

The City’s metropolitan area had about 2.921 million inhabitants on a land mass of about 6.298 kilometres square. There had been an increase in the population figures because of the incorporation of the former Motsweding District Municipality in 2011.  There had also been a lot of rural migration by people looking for better economic opportunities. A significant portion of the USDG had been spent on relatively poor regions, although the movement of people had been to established economic centres like Centurion.

Gungwini had about 43 000 households with a population of over 124 000. The water and sanitation backlogs in that area were at about 13 000 connections, for which the City was responsible.  The figure was for 2009, but not much had changed as there had been only about 0.5% increase. The City had water and sanitation backlogs of about 43 000 and 53 000 households respectively.

The City had sought to understand the extent of the challenge as it related to townships in and around Tshwane. It had gone into each informal settlement to understand what infrastructural services were required. All of the informal settlements were linked to the draft municipal housing development plan. The presentation indicated those townships where in situ upgrading would be done, and those that would be relocated to new housing developments. It also showed areas where the people would be moved and the number of units.

The City had undertaken the work of ascertaining who would be relocated to which development. With informal settlements, the City had looked at the services backlogs -- like how many kilometres would be required in each informal settlement. In Ga-Rankua, the backlog figures were much better; there was not that much of a challenge. There were about seven informal settlements in Ga-Rankua, and a number of projects were on the go. Most of the informal settlements would be relocated.   The reason the City had opted for the in-situ upgrades, was that it had discovered the stands in townships that were formerly in North West, were too big. The City had been able to divide some of the stands to accommodate two households. Soshanguve was a flagship project, and as a result had received a lot of the City’s budget, and not only the USDG. This was where most of the City’s money would go in the next financial year, but also because the developer there had assisted the City with the building of houses. Social housing would soon be introduced in that particular area as well. The City had not done well in social housing, but it was beginning to make strides.

Most of Tshwane’s informal settlements were in Atteridgeville, and people in that area had occupied road reserves, which made it difficult to improve the roads. All the informal settlements in this area would be relocated because of their geological condition. The soil in that area was dolomitic and the City was unable to develop in that area.

Electrification accounted for about 2% of the USDG, and most of it went into the electrification of the informal settlements. A lot of work had gone into the transport infrastructure. Another consideration was to introduce social housing in the CBD. The City had found there were a lot of people in the CBD area, and yet social infrastructure was lacking.  There was also a serious challenge with regard to storm water drainage. A lot of money was being spent to improve the situation.

The Mayor was keen in greening the city, and the area the City looked to improve was the landfill sites. Most of the landfill sites were getting filled; the City looked at issues like separation at source. It had now decided to consider using one of the informal settlements to understand how separation at source could work.

Ms Mothoagae said on 6 June, the expenditure of the USDG had been at about 85%. Like the City of Johannesburg, a bit of the USDG had been used for cemeteries. The programmes funded by the USDG included housing, water and sanitation, transport, electricity, and environment. About five percent of the grant was used for technical assistance, where the City reserved the money for professional fees on all the USDG-related projects. Much of the 38% allocated for human settlements went into the eradication of informal settlements.

Tshwane presentation rejected
Ms Dlakude interjected and voiced dissatisfaction with the presentation. The invitation had been sent to the metro a while back and the executive authority had chosen to send a single official with a shabby presentation. There was nothing the Members could engage on with the presenter, as she was not making sense. This was the waste of time.  Under the USDG, various departments like agriculture, public works and sport were listed -- where did they fit in the Grant?

Mr Sithole concurred, and said the presentation was indeed the waste of time. Most of the presentation lacked information about Tshwane.

Ms Duncan differed with this view, and said in terms of human settlements oversight there was enough information on the document that the Committee could engage on. She cited an example that the City had spent 85% of the grant; the metro had to indicate how it would spend the rest of the money before the end of the financial year. She requested that the presenter be allowed to continue. The presentation dealt with the USDG, and other areas of concern.

Ms Borman commented it was not a clear presentation for Members to follow. The figures on the slides were very disorganised and mixed up. The figures that were there were poorly presented.

Mr Matshoba urged the Ms Duncan not to politicise the matter.  There was nothing in the presentation. The City should go back and prepare a proper presentation.

The Chairperson commented that the presentation contained information that could assist Members when on oversight visits, but the document lacked the information that was required. The Committee would struggle to make sense of the presentation when it prepared its report to Parliament. A number of good things had been raised by the presenter, but these were not in the presentation. The presentation did not match up. 

The Chairperson said it was good that the City had been honest about where it had spent the money, including the portion spent on other portfolios like sports and arts and culture. This would allow the Committee the opportunity to correct such a situation. She was shocked that the City continued to spend the USDG on things that were not meant for the grant, despite having been discouraged from doing so.

She said it was very wrong for any metro to send a sole representative. She hoped the DHS would go to the metro and rescue the situation. Key officials, especially in the political leadership, needed to be in Parliament. Although not requiring a big delegation, someone senior should have come, even if the council was sitting. The political leadership took resolutions and were the ones who ought to be interrogated.

The Chairperson said the metro should have postponed the council meeting and come to Parliament. Those who had sent the presenter should have come themselves. The official was asked to go and relay the message to the City’s leadership.

Ekurhuleni presentation
Ms Fikile Ndlovu, Director Human Settlements, Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality (EMM), said the metro had been asked to present on quarter 1-3 expenditure of the USDG, the recovery plan and the plans for 2013/14. A slide had been inserted on the presentation about a study that the EMM had undertaken on backlogs. The information had changed, but the backlog was revised after every two years, depending on the changes in the metro. Backlogs on community facilities were not that huge, but crèches were the main area of challenge.

Infrastructure backlog challenges were mainly on roads and storm water drainage, and this was the area where most of the USDG budget had been allocated. As the metro created new settlements, the backlog increased because the settlements had to be provided with road infrastructure. The metro was made up of too many towns, and urban renewal was prioritised around Kempton Park. The demand for housing was increasing in the area due to the airport, and the metro sought to take advantage of that.

The area incorporated Kempton Park, Boksburg and Germiston, and it was high-density residential programmes that the metro pursued. Most of the informal settlements were around the three areas because people wanted to be closer to job opportunities. The metro also took access to economic activity into consideration when it built projects, as it could not keep people away from centres of economic activity.

The metro had also mapped the income geography for the municipality. This was crucial in terms of the capital investment framework, because one had to understand where the people were located in relation to opportunities. It was found that even the low income groups were located closer to areas that generated a lot of income. Townships – Thokoza, Katlehong, Vosloorus, Tsakane, and Duduza – still fell within the category of deprived areas. Improvements had been notable in the northern townships like Tembisa. The overall vision was to develop a caring, sustainable and delivering city.

The metro had developed a human settlement development strategy that would guide it over the next financial year. The strategy was pinned on two pillars -- infill development areas and densification. Some of the mines around the metro just needed to be filled and then used for development. There were new developments earmarked around the fire station precinct, accommodating 400 units, and Pirrowville residential precinct, which would accommodate over 4 000 units.

The metro was considering the community residential unit as an opportunity for integration and creating integrated communities.  An assessment had been conducted and it was found that 243 000 potential units could be developed on vacant land. The metro attracted a lot of poor people who wanted access to opportunities in and around Johannesburg. A lot of such people ended up in back yards or informal settlements. This was a high priority for the City.

Informal settlements had been made a priority by all municipal departments, and not just human settlements. As a result, the metro had internally developed an informal settlements management plan. A framework had been done and adopted by council in 2011.

There were still communities receiving water from pipes because they were too far from the grid and could not be connected. Much of the interim services were financed through the municipal budget, but that had changed with the introduction of the USDG. Some communities still used chemical toilets, but the metro was in the process of doing away with them. Some families still used pit latrines by choice.

The National Department had appointed a consultant who, in the next 30 weeks, would conduct a rapid assessment of 76 settlements not scheduled for upgrading in the next five years. Upgrading plans would be developed for 18 of those settlements as part of National Urban Settlement Programmes (NUSP).

Expenditure of the USDG in the first quarter was in line with the plans. Review meetings of expenditure had been done with departments by management where heads had to account if expenditure was lower than planned. The same pattern was recorded in quarter two, where the planned expenditure had been a little higher than actual.

The Metro was not happy with the performance in the third quarter. The budget steering committee meetings had been held one-on-one with departments more regularly. As a result most departments were catching up with expenditure because of the interventions, most notably the road department.

The metro had acquired 159 hectares of land last year; in 2013 16 ha had been acquired by quarter two. During this time, much focus had been given on greenfields development. There had been an increase in brownfields acquisition as well, where old properties that could be developed for human settlements had been acquired.

The City did not have planned relocations, and when it happened in Bapsfontein it had been just a once off. There were people who lived in environmentally sensitive areas, and when the situation was critical, those people were moved. The metro worked closely with Ekurhuleni Development Company on matters of social housing.

The metro still provided informal settlements with chemical toilets at a ratio of 1:10, but was moving towards having waterborne toilets. All customers received collection of solid waste and there was a project undertaken to do waste minimisation this year.

Discussion
Mr Sithole sought clarity on various informal settlements which he said were in a terrible condition. The settlements included Wattville, Tsakane, Empilisweni, Ehlanzeni, Buyafuthi and Vumbuka. These informal settlements were in such a bad condition that in some the metro had just installed toilet structures with no seats on the inside. Most of these settlements did not have water; what was the progress on all of these since the visit by the Committee?

Ms Borman asked for clarity on households relocated from flood plains and other servitudes, as reflected on page 17 of the presentation. When those areas were cleared, what was the plan to ensure they were not invaded again? If this was going to be a permanent situation, what was the metro doing proactively so that people did not get back into such areas?

Ms Borman commented that the budget figures of the second and the third quarter had changed a bit, but there was a massive swing in the budget for the last quarter.  Why was that the case? The metro should explain why it was convinced it would spend all of the money by year, otherwise the figures looked sticky, especially as only 53% of the budget had been spent.
 
Ms Mashishi sought clarity on land acquired for greenfields development. Only 45 hectares had been acquired for this purpose in the third quarter. What was the latest on land acquisition and how many beneficiaries had been identified for the 45 hectares? She asked if the metro had a working relationship with the HDA, and if so, how that functioned.

Ms N Njobe (Cope) commented the metro had similar challenges as the City of Johannesburg with regard to informal settlements and backyard dwellers. Was there anything being done with backyard dwellers, and if so, what exactly was being done?

Ms Njobe said communal toilets were worrying, especially what had been shown on television in the past few days.  Government should work towards eradicating communal toilets, especially when considering hygienic reasons. It would be ideal if there were timeframes for some of these programmes.

Ms Njobe commented it was pleasing that Ekurhuleni had made informal settlements a priority. That statement would be followed up. She sought clarity on why there had been a slowdown in expenditure with regards to plans and output.  What were the challenges?

Ms Mnisi sought clarity on why R7.3m in the USDG was allocated for metro police. This money was too much. Other lump sums from the grant were allocated for transport and electricity; this was not part of the mandate of the USDG.

Ms Duncan commented the metro had received R1.2 billion in USDG allocations for roads and storm water drainage. Only 66% had been spent -- would the metro be able to spend the rest of the money by the end of June? She requested a thorough sanitation backlog report for all areas.

Ms Duncan said the upgrading of informal settlements was concerning, and asked what planning processes were there to ensure that Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) were done? People did not wish to be relocated, hence the SDF process was even more important. Consultation with communities needed to be thorough and officials should empower communities, and not ask them if they wished to be relocated. People should be told exactly why they had to be moved. Prior to being moved, people needed to be assured there was available land. This necessitated a healthy and working relationship with the HDA.

Ms Dlakude queried the statistic that 1 in 10 people in informal settlements had access to waterborne sanitation services. What about the rest of the people -- how did they get to relieve themselves?  She also sought clarity on whether the metro had an indigent register when it came to free electricity.

Mr Gaehler requested that the officials clarify the statement that those people still using pit latrine toilets “did so by choice”. What did that mean? If people were provided with decent toilet facilities they would demolish these pit latrines. He also asked whether the metro would be able to use all of the USDG money, as it was still at a 52% expenditure level.

The Chairperson said the presentation helped not only the Committee, but also the social cluster, in terms of using the information for overseeing social transformation. There was a lack of crèches in the settlements that were being built, which showed a lack of cooperation amongst departments. The presentation gave Members a lot to think about -- the country was still a long way from integrated human settlements.

The Chairperson said the metro lacked a plan to indicate progress on hostel upgrading. The information needed to be clear on the progress made on the backlogs. She sought clarity on the statement that there was no bucket system in the metro. Could the metro clarify how it defined and viewed the bucket system? The Committee had last visited the areas in 2011, and the bucket system had been so prevalent, yet nothing indicated progress had been made since the visit. The statement that there was no bucket system in the metro was “pure lies”. Why could the metro not prioritise sanitation?

The Chairperson said development plans were meant for human beings, and it should be possible to link the development to the people. The metro planned, but was challenged with implementation. Economic development meant nothing if people did not have toilets. The first priority for a human being was a toilet; this was the kind of practicality with which the metro had to approach its projects. That the metro budgeted only 12% for sanitation indicated that it did not prioritise the item. The metro needed to go and revise its budget and plans with a view to increasing the allocation on sanitation.

Overall replies
Ms Queen Duba, Municipal Mayoral Committee, EMM, said some of the issues raised had been addressed. It had been acknowledged that the delegation did not have information on where projects were located, but that information would be provided to the Committee. One of the many challenges that Ekurhuleni faced was that 52% of its territory was dolomitic. This necessitated the informal settlement management plan, to indicate that while the metro was busy with land acquisitions, it also had to render the services required by people.

Service provision had to be elevated as a priority in all municipal departments. On a quarterly basis, the metro received reports on where departments were, and whether they performed to the required levels. A scorecard of performance had been developed, and that assisted in ensuring the dignity of the people residing in informal settlements was restored.

Most of the informal settlements were not developable -- even if the metro had decided on in-situ work, quite often midway through the upgrading, it had to resort to relocation. This situation made long term planning that much more challenging.  Some people in informal settlements had refused chemical toilets, and hence the “by choice” statement in the presentation. In some cases, the municipality could not provide any form of toilets other than chemical toilets.   Over time, when communities realised any other ablution service other than chemical toilet was impossible, they accepted chemical toilets. The dignity of the people in informal settlement would be further improved if the informal settlement management plan was successfully implemented.

Ekurhuleni had attempted to develop a policy for backyard dwellers, but it was realised that would not assist,as there were no national guidelines on this aspect. The provincial department had become involved in trying to assess the real need among this category of people, and had been checked and verified in the database. People could also check themselves, and could register if their names were not on the list.

The metro had attempted to move the people in Empilisweni to Palmridge, but every time that was attempted, people would move back again. The metro had opted for the legal route, but was still challenged for space in Palmridge.  The court had instructed that alternative land be found for the people, but so far the metro had not found any piece of land. Progress had been made in relation to Madelakufa. A congratulatory note had been received from the National Department to indicate it was satisfied with how the project had been handled.

Mr Aubrey Mokgosi, Acting Head of the Department Human Settlements, EMM, said hostels in Watville and Thokoza were in the pipeline, following the approval from the province that implementation could begin. The Vumbuka programme would be linked with Vosloorus hostels as a footprint. The delay in the implementation of that hostel had to do with the dolomitic conditions on that piece of land. Geotech submissions had been done, but it had been recommended that further studies be done on that piece of land.

Entlanzeni was a category C informal settlement -- an informal settlement that the metro did not have any plans for, even after 2015. This was where the National Upgrading Support Plan (NUSP) would assist in terms of fast tracking the plans. This was one of those areas that would be investigated by NUSP.

Mr Mokgosi said the numbers of people in informal settlements were not being double counted, and was around 164 000 plus; this number excluded the backyard dwellers. The relationship with HDA and province was very cordial and harmonious. The metro had entered into agreements with HDA, and they had helped to secure pieces of land in and around Germiston.

If the government had the ability to provide every household a toilet, that would be ideal, but it was not economically possible to do. Communal facilities were meant to ensure that people had access to basic amenities at their disposal while awaiting decent services. The metro was mindful that in certain communities these were not welcomed.  When the council resolved to roll-out chemical toilets, an instruction was given that the ward councillors needed to communicate with communities. Some community members refused to use chemical toilets and opted to continue using the pit latrines.

Upgrading of informal settlements was sometimes impossible because they were not situated on suitable land, or on mine shafts or mine dumps. Those people had to be moved elsewhere in order to be assisted with housing. The informal services management plan focused on providing the basic services to all informal settlements irrespective of where they were located, and whether or not they were serviced.

He clarified that the bucket system was when people relieved themselves entirely in a bucket, whereafter it would be carried by the individual to be dropped into a moving truck. The chemical toilets that were there “went into a sucker” that sucked everything out and had it cleaned. There was nothing that got carried away.

The Chairperson interjected said this sounded very much like a short-sighted definition. This was not normal, whichever way one looked at it. The metro did not sympathise with those who carried the mess, and it could not claim not to have the bucket system.

The official conceded and said this would be followed up, and the metro had a department that could follow the matter as well. There was sufficient allocation to address that challenge -- it would just be a matter of prioritising the informal settlements.

Ms Duba said the projection was that 92% of the budget could be spend by the end of the financial year. Reasons for the expenditure challenge included the suspension of senior officials who oversaw a unit that received the hugest chunk of the USDG. This was no justification for the under-expenditure.

Closing remarks
The Chairperson said it was important for metros to revisit the State of the Nation Address, and what had been said about human settlements. Officials should consider buying government-owned land. She suggested that the metro invite the Council for Geo Sciences, with a view to developing strategies on how to counter the problem of dolomitic land. While the metro complained about dolomitic conditions, the population grew.  Where would the municipality place the people? The Council’s advice would be very useful, as one might find out that Centurion was also founded on mostly dolomitic land.

The meeting was adjourned.

 

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: