District Six restitution progress report

Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development

15 March 2022
Chairperson: Nkosi Z Mandela (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Video

The City of Cape Town, Department of Agriculture, Land Reform, and Rural Development (DALRRD), and Commission on Restitution of Land Rights met virtually with the Portfolio Committee to discuss the delays in completion of the District Six housing project and the City of Cape Town's handing over of certificates of occupancy.

According to the Commission, 2760 land claims were made, with 1201 selecting dwellings as part of the restitution settlement option. So far, 247 applications have been awarded residences, with 139 claimants assigned in the first and second pilot stages. In Phase 3, there are 108 applications, but no residences have yet been assigned. Phase 4 and 5 are still to come.

The City of Cape Town said that on inspection there were safety concerns and building non compliance with the regulations and building plans so the City issued occupational certificates with a list of safety compliance items that needed to be addressed before the buildings could be transferred to beneficiaries.

DALRRD explained the delays caused by the first contractor only completing 55 percent of the work but unable to finish the project. There was a year-long dormancy before a second contractor could be appointed to remedy the flaws and complete the work at a cost of R178 million.

The Committee said that the blame game between the DALRRD and the City of Cape Town is not benefiting the beneficiaries who are awaiting restitution. They insisted on better intergovernmental relations and communication with land claimants. They requested the financial reports. The Committee will conduct an oversight visit to District Six and engage with key stakeholders in the week of 29 March to 1 April 2022.

Meeting report

City of Cape Town presentation
Ms Erica Naude, Director: Urban Planning and Design at City of Cape Town, presented on District Six spatial planning initiatives. Phase 3 of the District 6 Land Claims Housing Development consists of 108 unit is developed by DALRRD.
The purpose of the District 6 Spatial Development Framework (SDF) is to provide policy direction for the nature and form of development and guide land use and environmental decisions. This is based on engagements with the District 6claimants, general public, key stakeholders and governmenet

The Public Realm Strategy initiated by the City of Cape Town to assist with the SDF implementation is fundamental to “stitching” the central business district (CBD) and District 6 back together using:
• Culture and Memory
• Activities and Land Use Strategy
• Landscape Strategy
• Urban Form Strategy

The Public Realm Strategy is not aiming to compete with any vision, direction or process. It is a sincere proposal to see new growth by working with those spaces and places we share – where we remember the past, work with the present and work towards a future that is worth it together. Key public places initially being put forward are: Harrington Square, CPUT Square, Memorial Park, Square and Plaza and Zonnebloem Square. In addition to this is the natural systems that relates to the natural streams/rivers that have been forgotten over the decades. With 4 ‘Source to Sea’ elements, related to treasures (Castle of Good Hope, Memory of D6, Trafalgar Park), the convergence of water and public space offers an incredible opportunity for ‘healing the land’, bringing people closer to nature, and ultimately show the interrelationship between humans, nature and history.

Next steps
• National DALRRD sent through extensive comments a week ago working through them and updating the maps to facilitate alignment.
• Confirm where we can accommodate public space, firm up guidelines for traffic calming and storm water in consultation with District engineers.
• Meeting with key education stakeholders, CPUT, Zonnebloem College and others 17 March.
• Revisions with input from public realm strategy (ongoing)
• Report to PMT 23rd March-Report
• Submission into City’s Council reporting Cycle 5 April
 • Aiming for Final Approval: June 2022

Occupancy Certificates
• Building Plans were approved in 2021.
• Inspections have taken place and non-compliance and safety issues identified. Examples include inadequate balustrades, unsafe handrails and unsafe riser treads and heights on staircases.
• Permission to Use letters were issued noting areas to be addressed with a time frame to address matters; National DALRRD contracted contractor to address these;
• The Building Act does not require an occupancy certificate or a PTU before the State may permit occupancy or use. A building erected on behalf of the State is not bound by the provisions of the NBR. No permission to use or occupancy certificate is required by the State prior to occupancy.
• The City proposes, in lieu of statutory occupancy certificates or PTUs that the City will issue the State with an ‘Occupancy Letter’ for each building in the development if it is consistent with the Building Act and plans. The Occupancy Letter will disclaim City liability for damage or injury.

Inter-governmental Relations
An Inter-governmental Steering Committee (political) will be re-established and an Inter-governmental Project meeting is in place. An MOU is proposed to address complexity of history and community dynamics. It was noted that all spheres of government are involved with multiple departments and personalities.

Funding Considerations
• City and DALRRD pursuing a USDG “top-slicing” option that will require sanction from Treasury and National DALRRD of Human Settlement and would see funds transferred from Treasury to DALRRD as part of the DORA allocation – i.e. City allocation but not within City budget.
• Funding would primarily be for reticulation services and be for a value to be determined annually but thought to be in the region of R100m per annum
• Bulk for future phases has yet to be determined or costed and is contingent on densities.
• Issue is a standing agenda item on the IGR Steering Committee, no implementation plan or further engagement with National Treasury.

Conclusion
• Continuous education with regard to different roles of spheres of government
• Completion of Phase 3 required in order to transfer unit is to beneficiaries; Occupancy letters to be issued nut transfer of properties may take place;
• DALRRD to be encouraged to develop remainder of unit is as soon as possible to secure land for beneficiaries and limit threat of land invasion;
• Timeous engagements on statutory processes required to limit any misinterpretations of requirements and processes.

The Chairperson thanked Ms Naude for the presentation

Commission on Restitution of Land Rights briefing on District Six Land claim
Dr Kevin Naidoo, Executive Manager: Municipal Governance, COGTA and Dr Wayne Alexander, Chief Director: Restitution, DALRRD (Western Cape) Commission on Restitution of Land Rights

Background on District Six Land claim
• District Six was located close to Cape Town CBD. As a result of the implementation of the Group Areas Act, the District Six community (66 000 people) moved to Cape Flats.
• The City of Cape Town as the registered owner of the land sought to exclude the land from being used for restitution in 1996.
• An application was brought to Land Claims Court and an out of court agreement was reached.
• The District Six Beneficiary Trust was elected by the claimants to represent them.
• A Record of Understanding was entered into in 1998 between the claimant elected District Six Beneficiary Trust, the Department of Land Affairs and the City of Cape.

 District Six Representation
• District Six Reference Group is the elected body (old order claims) aimed at dealing with technical matters, communication and social integration.
• District Six Working Committee represents mainly new order claimants who lodged between 1 July 2014 to 27 July 2016 but has representation of old order claims as well.
• District Six Civic Organization assists returnees with social integration and community matters.
• District Six Advocacy groups, who represent the interest of the then District Six home owners.
• District Six Beneficiary Trust established by claimants: facilitated Phases 1 and 2 developments.
• District Six Museum leads on heritage and memory making in restitution and restoration.

Challenges: Administrative and technical delays Phase 3
• Land use management approvals
• The original land use management approvals were obtained in February 2015, which included Site Development Plan (SDP) and subdivision approvals. The approval of the General Plan (GP) was obtained in September 2018. These approvals were obtained quickly as a result of close collaboration and engagements at the time between the Department, the professional team, and the City of Cape Town.
• By June 2021, construction was complete, and there were new challenges obtaining building plan approval because the City of
• Cape Town no longer recognized the SDP, subdivision, and General Plan that had been approved in 2015 and 2018.

Building plan approval
• The significance of building plan approval is that it is a prerequisite to obtaining occupancy certificates. Land Use approvals are required before any building plans can be approved, and as described earlier, the Land Use approvals process had to be redone, and concluded in October 2021, at which point the City began considering building plans for approval.
• The building plan submission and approvals process was challenging, because 58 separate applications had to be made via the City of Cape Town’s online portal. Each of the 58 applications comprised of several plans and forms. The City struggled to manage and coordinate the process effectively for 58 applications using their system, and it was agreed in early October 2021 that plans would be submitted in a phased approach to make the process more manageable.

• Court order
On the 26 November 2018, Land Claims Court handed down a declaratory order against the State (Minister, Commission and Presidency) for failing in their constitutional obligation to provide restitution to all claimants of District 6 and this therefore constituted a rights violation.
• Judge Kollapen ordered the Minister to formulate a “reasonable plan and programme”
• The plan must provide: A conceptual layout for the redevelopment of District Six, specific details of how the plan is to be funded, including the budget to be allocated by the Respondents for the execution of the plan and the precise means by which extrinsic funding is to be secured.

• Progress on court plan
- COVID-19 pandemic has had a negative impact on the implementation of the Court Plan
The Department officially appointed the built environment professional consultant team: the D6-ADE Joint Venture by 24 November 2021(urban designers, architects, landscape architects, civil, structural, engineers, quantity surveyors, planners, and project managers).
- Project meetings have commenced between DALRRD technical team and D6-ADE JV team.
- The agreed approach is to counter the impact of COVID on District 6 Court Plan by fast tracking implementation plan and take all reasonable measures to expedite the project to regain lost time.

• Consultation with claimants
The Minister agreed to the D6RG request for logistical support in facilitating a meeting with the broader claimant community to communicate the resolution on the improved unit design. The meetings were rolled out over a period of 14 sessions that commenced on 24 March 2021 and ended on 24 April 2021. The sessions were well-attended with a total attendance of 478 claimants. According to the D6RG outcome report received by the Department, the majority of claimants voted in favor of the improved unit design option 4.1. The claimants who attended the sessions overwhelmingly endorsed the improved housing unit (96%).

• Communication and way forward
The Claimants are kept informed, through SMS texts and emails of development processes and on any other relevant factor including meetings.
Technical team (Engineer, Town Planner, Quantity Surveyor) is in continuous discussions with the City of Cape Town on occupation certificates and building construction works.
Communicating with families with disputes to settle matters first before CRLR allocates a unit.
The Commission will continue to verify the claimants in line with policy and update the claimant list.

For additional information see presentation

Discussion on City of Cape Town presentation
Ms M Tlhape (ANC) said her take is that the City of Cape Town has delayed providing quarterly reports on their progress on District Six. There is a sense that they are saying if they were together from the start then there would have been commendable progress. This matter is aligned to the competency of the role of local government with regards to certificates for occupation. They demanded out of the interests of their occupants that some corrections be made to certain structures. Every six months they come back to say this was in fact not necessarily as the Department is exempted on such procedures. It is hard to understand that they are saying some of the processes can run concurrently. Are they trying to say that the Department can continue placing claimants into these houses? When are they intending to give the letters to the Department? The focus should be on the completion of Phase 3. The main problem is the delay on the side of the City of Cape Town.

Ms Tlhape asked how much are they involved in the completion of the coming phases for over 900 in Phases 4 and 5. Are they aware of the court order and how are they willing to assist the Department to comply besides compliance, which is not the issue? The issue is the plight of the District Six claimants. What role is the City intending to play to ensure there is a speedy acceleration towards occupancy for District Six claimants?

Ms A Steyn (DA) raise her concern about the absence of the Minister and both the Deputy Ministers. They have spoken about this in their Committee meeting last week. It is very important that they get finalization on what is going on with District Six. It would have been appreciated if there was at least some information from the minister or the deputies. She wanted to request a report from the minister after the meeting so they can get all the information on District Six.

She wanted clarification why the Committee was not involved in this process from the beginning.

Ms B Tshwete (ANC) raised concern that Phase began in 2015. It is been seven years since the start of this phase and it is not yet completed. The City of Cape Town imposed processes to be followed years back but all those processes were declared unnecessary. If the City of Cape Town has the best interests of District Six claimants at heart, why do they impose unnecessary processes which cause delays to its completion. Seven years down the line, there is still no occupancy certificate. The City of Cape Town does not have capacity to complete this phase and yet there are still Phases 4 and 5 for District Six. What is the cause of this?

Ms Tshwete noted Ms Naude said that it can run this process concurrently. Yet previously she said there is land invasion in District Six. If the City of Cape Town is evicting people, the process should be run concurrently where people should still be housed. Why is it evicting people leaving them without homes if they can run the process concurrently? What does the City of Cape town mean when they say they can run the process concurrently. The response should be in writing.

Ms T Mbabama (DA) asked who the members of the Steering Committee are and what are their different roles? Ms Naude said that DALRRD is exempt from national building regulations. It is difficult to understand as DALRRD is hiring the company that will build the unit, how can the company be exempt from the building regulations?

Ms N Mahlo (ANC) said there is a communication breakdown between the City of Cape Town and the Department which needs to be fixed with some urgency because without proper communication, the project will not move. The Committee is aware that DALRRD has been waiting for responses, after which those corrections will be done. They need to ensure that they communicate in time so the project is done within the timeframes of the project schedule.

Ms K Mahlatsi (ANC) pointed out that all meeting participants were nicely seated in their own houses whilst the beneficiaries are dislocated, waiting to occupy the houses they fought so hard for over the years. After such a long battle, the Committee is discussing on how best the beneficiaries of District Six can occupy what is rightfully theirs, precisely because of challenges between DALRRD and the City. The City comes with all sorts of excuses why these people cannot enter their houses. At no point is reference made to the actual beneficiaries. Can the City indicate when it will allow occupants to occupy those units given that DALRRD has done what it needs to do? When do they intend to communicate so the occupants can enter their homes?

Mr N Capa (ANC) asked if the noncompliance is common to all units. At this exact moment, what holds the City from issuing the certificates tomorrow? Are the inter-governmental relations limited to the province or includes the National DALRRD? Why does the compliance requirement come at this stage of the project? He was interested to know if the processes in the project of District Six is the issue. Does the City understand this District Six project is actually assisting the City in its housing problem? If they believe that, then these questions relate to its attitude.

He invited the District Six Working Committee and other members of the District Six community onto the platform to send their questions through the chat group, so we can ask questions on their behalf since this is a parliamentary committee meeting. This has been raised by some of the community members

The Chairperson raised one of these questions. A community member asked in what forum or when the claimants' representative organizations may have the opportunity to ask questions. They will abide by the committee rules and follow guidance.

The Chairperson replied that when they began this process of engaging with a number of District Six groups, this meeting was organised to get the necessary information as a Committee. This is so that they can convene a meeting directly with the beneficiaries, to see if their concerns have been raised by DALRRD, the Land Claims Commission and the City of Cape Town and they may need to follow up to resolve these matters. There is also a concern as some claimants feel that in the process they are losing a number of elderly claimants who are passing on without seeing the certificate given to them. When will the certificates be given to the claimants?
 

City of Cape Town response
City of Cape Town Deputy Mayor and Mayoral Committee Member for Spatial Planning and Environment, Eddie Andrews, replied that he completely agrees with the concern that the claimants are dying and they are not able to see this dream realized and ensure that the restoration actually takes place. It is a very valid concern and it is a mutual concern. Ms Naude made some key recommendations that will ensure the process runs a lot more efficiently and effectively. Those Committees are also really important if everyone is in the room. Before the next phase commences, he is confident that these issues will have been dealt with so that it is not really escalated to a level where there are comments about the processes.

The City of Cape Town does consider the District Six programme as an opportunity to satisfy the housing needs. They see every single opportunity to satisfy the housing needs whether it is enabling an environment to those to afford a bond for a home, or inclusionary housing, or a small rental scale programme in Khayelitsha where they assist residents who are unemployed and own a property to secure partnership with a financial institution to finance the development of a second and third dwelling unit on their property. That is how serious the City of Cape Town is to ensure they satisfy the housing needs. It is on record by all three spheres of government that accommodating those on the housing database should not be left to government alone. We need to pursue other processes for an enabling environment in partnering to accelerate meeting the housing need.

On the comment that this process has been imposed by the City, Mr Andrews replied that he went on site at the Phase 3 development in January with the local district team and inspected it to see for himself the root cause of the delays. He confirmed the concern about very important safety aspects. It is important that they do not compromise on safety aspects. It is important not just in ensuring that a claimant gets a fair housing opportunity or land restored that was rightfully theirs but also that they do so with dignity and in a safe manner as well.

On the plight of the claimants but now also the compliance issue as well, the Cape Town team has been keen to have pre-engagement with the professional teams to ensure they are aware of what the expectation is and the importance of building according to the specifications. One can see in Ms Naude’s presentation, that it is repeating the call to have these pre-engagements with the professional teams.

They are absolutely committed to ensuring that this process goes as smoothly and as effectively as it possibly can because they do not want any more claimants to die. Everyone should be aware of the safety aspects as those things can be remedied.

There are some remaining inspections where they have received a request for investigation in mid-February and the team has been out on average about one to two times a week to investigate and check that the units completed are fully compliant. This current week they will be issuing occupational letters to those units that are fully compliant.

The Chairperson said there have been challenges within the approval of building plans and new land use management plans. Perhaps the City of Cape Town can elaborate on this. Are the buildings currently meeting building standards? Has the City provided feedback on inspections done between February and 4 March 2022?

Ms Naude replied that District Six has been one of their top priority projects. It is important not only in terms of restitution, but also for spatial transformation within the City and other spatial strategies that they have to ensure there is absolute commitment to ensure implementation as efficiently as possible so the claimants are able to move into these units. They are 100% committed to work with all the other departments to ensure that this happens expeditiously.

There were a couple of comments on why this has taken seven years. The explanation for many of the challenges is obviously that DALRRD will be better placed to explain the entire process from where they started to where they are now. It is also not known by many that the filing of the building plan, the occupancy certificate and occupancy letters comes at the end of the process. This is endorsement after the entire process has been completed to endorse that all requirements have been met in terms of the National Building Regulations and the different standards as well. It definitely is not the occupancy certificates that have caused a seven year delay in this process.

There are many different statutory processes the City is responsible for and that they are engaged in. Some of these relate to land use processes such as the zoning of the property, site development plans, subdivisions, and consolidation of properties. These processes all have to happen even before actual building activities can play take place on site. It is also important to note that District Six is declared as a heritage area and there is a heritage protection overlay zone in the area. All developments in the area have to comply with heritage requirements which is another sphere of government in the provincial department that also has to comment on these issues.

On the membership of the Steering Committee, which is made up of the different spheres of government; the National DALRRD, National DALRRD of Human Settlements and their Provincial Department, the Land Claims Commissioner from the Western Cape, the City of Cape Town human settlements and spatial planning departments. Going forward, depending on the different phases of development, there might even be a need to extend the Steering Committee, to include other competencies and other role players, to ensure that anybody that has input or an interest in the processes can also participate in the Steering Committee.

On the actual buildings on site, after the building plans and the buildings were inspected in January 2022, the City issued permission-to-use certificates to the National DALRRD which gave it permission to start the process of transfer to beneficiaries. Certain safety concerns and non compliant areas were highlighted for correction within a particular time frame. The reason is not to delay the beneficiaries getting occupation of their unit. It is the safety of the residents that needs to be considered to ensure the unit is of a particular quality required by national legislation.

The National DALRRD then appointed a contractor to address these safety issues that were raised before as well. So there was a period where various improvements have been taking place. They have done follow up inspections to see if these units now comply with the regulations. They have not issued the communication after the follow up inspections yet; however will start to do so this week. There are a couple of inspections still outstanding that the City will expedite so those occupancy letters can also be issued as soon as possible.

On how many units are still outstanding and do not comply, they have not finished all the inspections so it is difficult to give an exact number but she is confident from the inspections that have taken place that even though they may not 100% comply, they all within a margin of acceptable error. That is where the differences are minute and therefore they will still be able to issue those occupancy letters as well.

The City will submit an overall letter to DALRRD by the end of this week to outline the process and where they are currently, while also issuing the various occupancy letters from this week. As soon as all the other inspections are completed, they can confirm those units that are satisfactory where the safety issues have been adequately addressed.

The City is very aware of the coming Phases 4 and 5 and the court ordered plan. It has been working very closely with the National DALRRD on the implementation of that plan as this was a requirement. This is also where discussions on the needs and requirements for various infrastructure emanated from as well was to ensure that the City jointly work in the implementation of that court approved plan. This formed the basis of what they are considering for the local spatial development framework. The City of Cape Town does realize, recognize and appreciates that a lot of engagement with the local communities and the claimants has taken place to develop that framework plan. The intention was therefore not to change any provisions of that plan, but rather to enhance it with certain aspects that the local authority will be responsible for such as the public realm, the public spaces, transport, non-motorized transport that contribute to the quality of life of the residents in the area. The National DALRRD has also participated in workshops with the community where that plan has formed the basis of ongoing work on what they can do to optimize what has been included in that plan.

In terms of the quarterly reporting, the National DALRRD submits the quarterly progress reports on the implementation of the court order. In the next presentation, they will speak more on those quarterly reports that have been submitted.

Important to note is that the National DALRRD can continue with the transfer of units to beneficiaries and beneficiaries can take occupation of these units. None of the City processes or these occupancy letters are a hindrance at all to that process being implemented. That can happen based on the previous work that was done and the permission-to-use letters that were issued. Also they do not have to wait for the local authority to give permission because the development is done by the state. The City is a commenting authority rather than approval – so there should be nothing that currently hinders the process of transfer of units to the beneficiaries. The City's comments just highlighted those particular safety concerns in the interest of the beneficiaries and to ensure that they are adequately addressed.

Follow up questions
The Chairperson asked a question on behalf of the District Six Working Committee who want to know how many units are now safe for occupation. An important concern is those old and vulnerable claimants who struggle to move; there are no lifts and only stairs due to budgetary constraints. The Working Committee asks DALRRD, why they allowed the defects in the first place? And why is it taking so long to fix the safety defects?

Mr Capa asked why Ms Naude found a lot of the questions irrelevant.

Ms Tshwete said there was a question about stakeholders that the City of Cape Town is having engagements with. Are these stakeholders internal or external, that is, within the City of Cape Town, or the province or national? She also asked why the questions of the Portfolio Committee are irrelevant and not all answered.

Ms Mahlatsi requested that the City update the Portfolio Committee as they give certificates of occupancy so that the Committee does not have to wait for the next quarterly report. As they give certificates, they must update them on how many as they do so.

The Chairperson requested all the questions be responded to in writing along with the letter Ms Naude will be sending to DALRRD by noon on 18 March.

Discussion on DALRRD & CRLR presentation
Ms Tlhape asked at the time of the original allocation for the District Six rebuild project, were the funds sufficient? At some stage did they hit a road block with no money. Is this money ring-fenced? For example, many unused budgets had to be reallocated for COVID-19 spending.

Secondly what communication strategies or mechanisms have DALRRD in place to keep the claimants informed? The delay is genuine due to inter-governmental challenges between DALRRD and the City. How are they taking the claimants on board throughout this process so they do not need to come to the Committee to understand what is going on?

Lastly, what lessons were learnt from the implementation of Phase 3? And how do you intend moving forward with Phases 4 and 5 to improve on implementation?

Ms Steyn said she wanted to go back to the absence of the Minister and the Deputy Ministers and the need for intergovernmental relations on this project. It is not good for them as Members of Parliament to sit here without the Minister and the Deputy Ministers. She would really like to find out if the Portfolio Committee can write a letter addressed to the Minister and to the Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Cape Town to ask them to ensure the Portfolio Committee does not have to take this on. Can the Committee be given the date when the last meeting of these inter-governmental bodies was held and even request minutes of that meeting because it looks like "there is a lot of talking past each other in this project". A question was asked on the finances and perhaps at some stage they will have to meet with the Treasury to understand the financing of this.

Ms Tshwete said she is a bit taken aback by the DALRRD presentation which clearly states what they have done. What is the role of the City of Cape Town? She reserved her comments and requested to submit her questions in writing.

Ms Mbabama said Fikile Construction was paid R85 million for 55% of the work. DALRRD said it would call on the construction guarantee. How much was the construction guarantee?

Secondly, another contractor was appointed at R178 million. It is difficult to understand this because if the original contractor was to be paid R167 million and was paid R85 million for 55% of the work, meaning there was only 45% of the work left. How could they appoint another contractor for R178 million, which is even more than the previous price? Apparently they are claiming part of the R85 million back from the previous contractor – it is difficult to understand how he could have been overpaid if somebody was doing inspections before the payment was actually made.

She asked the type of ownership of the District Six apartments – is it sectional title or a share title? Was training given to the occupants about their responsibilities towards their buildings in terms of levies that are normally paid under a sectional title or a share title? Was there communication to those that did not receive their unit but will only in Phases 4 and 5?

Mr Capa asked for the best solution to get out of this problem of the issue of certificates.

Mr N Masipa (DA) said he also finds that the blame game being played creates a bit of a challenge. Has DALRRD established a stakeholder engagement forum between themselves and the City of Cape Town to address these concerns because this matter should not have been brought to the Committee but should have been dealt with at the stakeholder forum. He requested that they share the stakeholder forum engagement in resolving these matters. The Committee has been dealing with this issue for a while. It is time that DALRRD really ensures that they hold themselves accountable on the deliverables required for this particular project.

Ms Mahlatsi said she wanted an indication from DALRRD how much budget had been utilized for this programme thus far, which contractors have been paid and how much.

During the implementation of this project, which small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) were involved? Were youth and women enterprises involved and how much has been allocated for those designated groups for the entire project?.

What lessons has DALRRD learned through this particular project about inter-governmental relations so that in future, one does not see what they have seen in relation to City of Cape Town and DALRRD. What is it that can be done better to mitigate claimants having to wait this long? There could have been bilateral between DALRRD and the municipality on the matter. This is being raised because the Committee is dealing with District Six today, but in future there will be other municipalities involved so let us ensure there is a smooth process and we do not find people being stranded like this.

The Chairperson requested a full written report on all the District Six financing since the land claim was assigned. Secondly, the Commission must account for every cent spent and what it has been spent on. The District Six model is applicable in similar claims elsewhere. Can this model be replicated elsewhere in the country from the experiences the Committee has been able to witness?

The Commission has a list of all claimants who lodged their claims which have not been finalized and which are all pre-1998. There must be a request to the Commission and DALRRD to write letters to these claimants and their complaints, responding to their concerns. The Committee will seek a progress report within three months on this.

The blame game between the Commission and the City on inspections and plans will not help anyone at all at this stage. Had the contractor done the work correctly, there would be no need for additional work to correct the problems experienced today.

Commission on Restitution of Land Rights (CRLR) response
Dr Wayne Alexander, Western Cape Commissioner, said they will ensure that they put together the report the Committee has requested on finance, accounting for every cent spent and where they are now with the budget. It is safe to say ± R418 million has been ring-fenced for the redevelopment of District Six. The Commission will give a breakdown of what has been spent in their report which will be tabled soon.

The Commission has in its last quarter report noted the complaints and the answers to those but they will certainly put it in a letter form and send it to the complainants.

There is a communication strategy that will also be shared but it is safe to say that they have been in touch with 108 claimants who have been part of the group that is being allocated to a dwelling and have been updating those. Now that they have an update from the City, they can tell the claimants what the next steps will be. They also inform through the various committees what the latest is about the 954 dwellings as before Covid they used to have meetings with the claimants to give updates. The Reference Group also shared the information with the people when the claimants visited the Mowbray offices to look at what the future dwellings would be. The Commission will also update them.

The plans will also need to be presented to the court as an update on future developments.

Mr Ben Mars, CRLR Head of Legal: Western Cape, replied that the development in Phase 3 is a mixture of the row houses and a sectional title scheme that is the apartment blocks. They have appointed conveyancers to transfer the property likewise. There is a mandatory Sectional Title Act that they will have to comply with. What happens is the unit is will be transferred to each claimant, the common areas will be administered by a body corporate. There is enabling legislation for sectional title schemes.

Currently they have instructed the state attorney to commence the transfer of registration of the units in Phase 3. The initial focus as per the Minister's instruction is to focus on the elderly people. They have identified 35 of these – what they call the original dispossessed individuals – and they are in the process of transferring the dwellings to the elderly people.

They are also going to instruct the state attorney to assist for Phase 4 and Phase 5 although there is a capacity constraint in the Office of the State Attorney. They have a mechanism in which they can outsource conveyancing matters to private conveyancers. This is underway and the Commission has a meeting tomorrow with the Head of Western Cape Office of the State Attorney, Mr Mlungiseleli Mbeki, to discuss the insuring phases. For Phase 3, the state attorney is at a very advanced stage.

The Commission had a meeting with the City of Cape Town to accelerate the rates clearance because that was identified as one of the stumbling blocks as sometimes there has to be a rates clearance of rights before one can lodge a transfer and registration.

They have enlisted the services and assistance of the Master of the High Court in matters where there are deceased estates because this also has potential for delays. However the Master of the High Court has given their fullest assistance and cooperation in this.

Department response
Mr Naidoo replied about funding noting the Western Cape Commissioner had said the funding is ring fenced and is available.

On lessons learned for intergovernmental relations, there certainly have been lessons learned and this addresses several concerns raised by Members. An Intergovernmental Steering Committee was established at the outset. When Phase 3 was conceptualized, that body sat every two weeks and worked intensively. The need for it existed prior to the commencement of construction because it was dealing with planning issues, heritage issues and having the stakeholders that could expedite those processes. It worked very successfully at that point. The Steering Committee tapered off as there was less work for it to do after the commencement of construction. The lessons learned are to maintain that Committee, certainly now with the future phases and going forward to maintain that level of intensity and constant meetings.

The Department does have a relationship with the City. It is not just through these forums, through formal interactions or correspondence only. The Department meets with them very, very often – with Ms Naude and her team. They do try their best but unfortunately some of the processes are not within their mandate alone.

Responding to Ms Steyn, he said that they have taken note of the attendance of the Minister at the Intergovernmental Steering Committee, and the need for inter-governmental relations. They have alluded to that and how DALRRD intends to reestablish that ability to be more impactful, and to meet more regularly.

On Fikile Construction doing 55% of the work and being paid R85 million, one is correct in saying you pay only on milestone delivery, you do not just pay things upfront. At the time that Fikile was starting to default, DALRRD had already paid them and their subcontractors for work done but the work that they had done was preparatory. They were doing foundations, structures and a lot of the concrete work. By the time DALRRD had to terminate – and a termination process takes about six months for a construction project of this nature – it pursued a construction guarantee acquisition from them. There is a legal process that is being undertaken for DALRRD to claim against them for the losses to the project. However when Haw and Inglis was appointed, that was three years after the original appointment. There is now fluctuation in construction costs, there are escalations. Haw and Inglis had to come in and rectify a lot of work and there was a dormancy period on site for about a year where there was no work because even though Fikile was on site, they stopped doing any work. There was a lot of weather damage to the exposed foundations and Haw and Inglis had to undertake corrective work incurred over that period of dormancy. That is where that difference comes from and DALRRD can provide the documentation for those milestones.

DALRRD has not given training because they have only recently identified and allocated the claimants who will be receiving those units. These only pertain to the apartments. The shared ownership is only for people who are sharing the apartment blocks. The row houses are all independently owned. Prior to this, there was consultation with the reference group to explain to them how this works and how the townhouses are managed. Apart from what is contained within the homeowner's domain, the common spaces and gardens are going to be transferred to the local authority so they are not going to pay for the upkeep of that. This has all been taken into account in the design consideration on how to minimize those costs. The cost will not be levied to the beneficiaries.

On inter-governmental relations and a structure for stakeholders at a government level, Mr Naidoo has alluded to that and said there is the Inter-governmental Steering Committee.

On how the money has been allocated, that will be covered in the report that the Commission will provide. The information will be provided on the Chair's request to account for all the money spent.

On who has been paid in terms of allocation to woman SMEs, the pre-qualification that Treasury has put on contracts that 30% allocation go to woman SMEs came into effect after these contracts were administered. The Department has included their own aspects of community involvement so initially when they had interactions with the claimant community, the claimants were asked to find all the registered SMEs that existed in the community. What was found was very few actual registered SMEs participated. However DALRRD has received a long list of individuals who have members of the households of claimants that had skills in construction. The Department handed over that list to the contractor to ensure that all those individuals who are unemployed would be employed or given an opportunity to be employed. The Department also had a component undertake construction related internships during this contract.

DALRRD Director-General, Mr Ramasodi Mooketsa, said they really need to reflect on the reporting and also on intergovernmental relations and how they have been working to date on the reporting that the Chair requested. There has to be a reflection on the lessons learned because any project reporting would need to have that.

There is an element of accountability and transparency provided by the financials and accounting to date in the report. DALRRD assists with the budget because the current budget they have dictates that there are engagements with Treasury, Human Settlements and the City. They have already had such meetings and look forward to see who takes on what in completing this process. They will share that with the Chairperson.

The Chairperson thanked the respondents who addressed the Committee's concerns

The meeting was adjourned.

Audio

No related

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: