Inqguza Hill Municipality Housing Projects: Status Report

Meeting report

The Chairperson opened the meeting by welcoming the delegates and allowing the Mayor of Ingquza Hill Municipality, Mr W Ngozi, to make an opening statement.

Mayor W Ngozi thanked the Committee for giving him the rare opportunity to present a status report on housing in the Ingquza Hill Municipality. He then requested his Housing Project Manager, Mr Simphiwe Thobela, to provide specifics on the status of the housing projects.

Ingquza Hill Municipality Housing Status Report
Joe Slovo Housing Project
Mr Simiphiwe Thobela (Strategic and Development Planning Manager: Ingquza Hill Municipality) explained that the Joe Slovo project needed 1117 units to be built. Currently 1111 units had been completed. Reasons for the outstanding units not being completed were that two sites were affected by the encroachment of the neighbouring school, three sites were affected by land invasion and therefore difficult to build on before the invaders were removed and the final unit was located on a steep slope and contractors were unable to build on it.

Water was provided via a standpipe that was considered as functional. The sanitation services were provided via a pit latrine system. Gravel roads had been made and still existed. There were 500 households that were unable to receive water and five tapes were provided. Electricity was installed for the whole settlement.

The process of transfers had not started, as the conveyancer had not been paid. The Department, though, had paid the total funds for conveyancing to the then project manager, Mr Peter Schofelt, and it was alleged that the project manager did not pay the funds to the appointed attorneys. The Special Investigating Unit (SIU) had started an investigation into this matter, however it was progressing slowly.

The challenges experienced were the title deeds that needed to be given to the beneficiaries. The management and processing of the beneficiaries was a challenge because persons who were not the approved beneficiaries currently occupied many of the houses. The township validity had since expired and as such a new process of township establishment had to be done but the municipality had no funds.

Thabo Mbeki Housing Project
Mr Thobela said that this project was approved in 1998 during the time of Flagstaff Transitional Local Council (TLC) and implementation began in 2000. The progress for this project had been very slow and was termed a ‘blocked’ project in 2003/04 when the municipality was placed under section 139 of the Constitution. There were 258 units that have been completed but these had some serious quality challenges as a result of poor monitoring and poor workmanship. There were 245 outstanding units. The municipality had written to the Department to receive further funding to complete the project but there has not been a response yet. There was a National Home Builder’s Registration Council (NHBRC) report that was expected about rectifying the defects in the completed houses. The report would form the basis of a corrective programme that should be taken up. Mr Thobela was of the belief that this report would also unblock the project.

He reported that services were inadequate for this housing project. There was one access road that was functional but in a poor state. All other roads had degenerated. Water pipes had been laid but because of time lapses, they had since degenerated. Holes for sanitation had been dug to install septic takes but these tanks had not been installed and the holes remained open and dangerous. Some residents had resolved to create their own pit latrines. There was no electricity. There was no progress with conveyancing as it was not clear who was appointed to do the conveyancing.

Mr Thobela’s list of the challenges noted that 24 houses had been affected by a recent disaster which had been reported. However nothing has happened as a result of these reports. Sanitation remained a concern and residents attempted to create alternatives. Township establishment had to be prioritised to begin the process of conveyancing and the list of the confirmed beneficiaries had to be completed. Support provided by the provincial department needed to be reviewed in terms of structure and management. Part of the support provided by the provincial department resulted in project managers being appointed that reside some distance from the projects and this could be contributing to the poor quality and slow pace of the project.

Nkozo Rural Housing project
The Nkozo rural housing project had 300 subsidies and was implemented according to the People’s Housing Process (PHP) policy. The OR Tambo District Municipality was the implementer of the Nkozo project and the local municipality was playing a supportive role. Of the 300 units, 195 had been completed. The challenges of this project were that access to materials was expensive. Delivery to the rural area was limited as the road presented a problem and some were not designed to carry heavy load vehicles. Access to water for construction was also problematic. There were poorly organised building teams and a high turnover of technical staff. The topography on the site was not easily accessible and the security of the material was a challenge.

Mantlaneni Rural Housing project
This project had only 88 houses of the 300 houses completed and experienced similar challenges as that of the Nkozo rural housing project.

Mr Thobela concluded that there was a Housing Sector Plan dating from 2004/05 that resolved to solve the backlog issue, identifying needs and planning a way forward with the Housing Projects. This plan, however, needed to be reviewed and the Department had hired a consultancy to review the Plan. The municipality had had the first meeting with the consultancy.

He then reported on the eleven houses that had been affected by recent natural disasters at the time of the visit of the Housing Portfolio Committee and Housing Minister Sisulu. He said that the pace of reconstruction had been slow on these eleven houses that had to be completed by the deadline set by the Committee. There was formal correspondence to the Department that raised issues of concern about the completion of the eleven houses, the project as a whole, the investigation by the SIU and the technical report by the NHBRC. There was an appeal for better support from the Department. The municipality wanted to be prioritised for future recommendation of projects. Financial administration was also problematic as there was contention about the way the municipality accessed funds from the provincial government. The administration and management of those funds were also problematic.

Discussion
Ms N Ngele (ANC) was disappointed that there was no delivery on the promise made to people that the eleven houses in the Thabo Mbeki housing project would be completed by December.

Ms Ngele wanted know what occurred after the Municipality engaged in a door-to-door campaign within the Joe Slovo housing project, to find out if the real beneficiaries were occupying the houses.

Mr K Gawe (ANC) wanted further clarification on the people that were occupying the houses illegally and if further attempts were made to ensure that the real beneficiaries were placed in the houses.

Mr Mluleki Fihlami (Municipal Manager: Inqguza Hill Local Municipality) replied that the land invasion had taken many forms. One major issue was that those who could not stay in the house would give the keys to their relatives. Other beneficiaries could not be found. Criminal activity had arisen as a consequence. The Housing Committee of Joe Slovo and the municipality met and came up with the solution that there should be those who would be given special permission to reside in the houses in order to avert criminal activity.

Mr Gawe wanted to know why the monies were not paid to the conveyancer.

Mr Fihlami replied that conveyancer had all the records and was awaiting payment. When Peter Schofeldt tried to pay the conveyancer they were informed by the SIU that it was under investigation and payment could not be made.

Mr Gawe expressed his confusion about the lack of township validation and asked for clarification.

Mr Thobela responded that the expiry issue was because the law that was in use in the Eastern Cape was Ordinance 33 of 1934. It stated that if a township was established and registered there was a window period of eighteen months to provide proof of sustaining its validity. Within that eighteen months, there had be a transfer of at least one site to an individual or an organisation. However, if that period lapsed then they would have to write to the MEC requesting an extension or begin afresh. In the present case there had not been a transfer of one site to keep the township valid.

Ms Sigcau asked what was being done to correct the degeneration of the roads.

Mr Fihlami replied that roads were the competence of the provincial government department, Roads and Transport. They had been informed, however nothing had been done. The service provider appointed to build the houses, had shown poor workmanship and this was a result of a lack of qualifications.

Mayor Ngozi commented that the Municipality was limited in the execution of some of the tasks that were their responsibility. He had written a letter to the MEC to discuss the progress of the housing projects and had received only acknowledgment of receipt of the letter. He wanted to know from the provincial government why there were delays in the projects. The municipality was facing several challenges. Timeframes and targets were set, however, they were not being followed. Furthermore the rectification of the eleven damaged houses was not under the competency of the municipality.

The Chairperson asked what the provincial department had done since their oversight visit project. She questioned whether there was any communication.

Ms Olona Njotini (Senior Regional Manager Housing: East London) replied that since the oversight visit, a contractor was appointed to complete the eleven houses by December 2007. Due to challenges regarding access to materials they had to engage a supplier in Umtata. They were currently in negotiation with the policy regarding this issue in order to attract the best service provider for the rest of the rectification programme. She mentioned that there was photographic evidence in the presentation document that the houses had been completed. The most critical issue was the timeframe of December that was not met because of the report that was needed by the NHBRC as it was to provide assistance. Since there was no report yet, they could not continue with the project as technical issues had to be resolved. The extent of the rectification programme had to be assessed before the programme could be continued. The rectification of the eleven houses was to be a kick-start for the whole programme. The overall programme was based on the appointment of a well-established contractor by the NHBRC. The NHBRC had informed the Department that it could not issue their report before it had done a geo-technical report to support their technical findings. They had received the documents from the municipality about the quality of services. A service provider would be appointed whilst construction of the houses continued.

Ms Nandipha Sishuba (Head of Housing Department: East London) added that they would meet with the material suppliers in order to enter into contracts and they wanted to engage in warehousing in the major centres of the provinces. For rural projects they were exploring entering into negotiated projects rather than tenders as they wanted to cluster the rural projects, otherwise it was not attractive to service providers.

The Chairperson referred to the NHBRC report that had not been received, adding that NHBRC was supposed to be present at the meeting. She wanted to know what had the Department done about this issue.

Ms Sishuba replied that the NHBRC had been engaged for the rectification programme. The Flagstaff programme had been prioritised out of the 5145 units that had to be rectified. NHBRC had presented the plan to the province for the first phase of the rectification plan and it had embarked on a process of appointing a service provider for the rectification project. It was in the process of writing the award of the project. It was however contingent on the funds. NHBRC had indicated that the rectification would be completed by the end of March.

The Chairperson wanted to know why the provincial government was not responding to the municipality’s request for a meeting.

Ms Sishuba replied that it had first provided support to the district municipality and they in turn would support the local municipality.

The Chairperson asked what system was in place to ensure that the correct beneficiaries were placed in the correct houses. She questioned the decision of placing people in houses in order to avert criminal activity, commenting that each of the houses were built with the funding of a government subsidy to a particular person. Hence it was problematic if the beneficiary could not be found. She added that although several questions could not be answered in the meeting, it had raised important issues that should be taken into consideration.

The Chairperson was concerned that a consultancy had to be hired to update the Housing Sector plan. She asked if the municipality lacked capacity and asked whether there was a housing department within the municipality.

Mr Thobela replied that there was no specific housing department within the municipality. The process was organic and the consultants’ role was merely administrative. The actual ideas were coming from the municipality.

Ms Sishuba responded that it was understood the municipalities had asked for support.

Mr Philip Chauke (Chief Director: Department of Housing) explained the processes followed beyond the intervention of the Committee. The NHBRC had been brought in to look at the structural capacity of the houses, as this was their competency. He said that there had to be better coordination between the spheres of government in order to better fulfil the project. Involvement needed to be increased and he suggested that a steering committee was implemented that comprised of the major role players. This would improve the information flow. The steering committee should, in the beginning, meet bi-weekly to ensure that there was progress. The steering committee would then develop an action plan to be presented to the Portfolio Committee. He had been informed by the NHBRC that they had bids for contractors.

Mr Thobela agreed with the proposal presented by Mr Chauke.

The Chairperson suggested that a mechanism had to be found for the municipality to be kept informed.

Mayor Ngozi raised the issue of timeframes and wanted specific dates, as he was not sure about delays.

Ms Sishuba replied that the project would start immediately after a contractor was appointed.

The Chairperson confirmed that the contractors would be on site by the 28 January 2008 and that by March the outstanding houses would be completed. She added that water was a challenge as there was no water on site. She suggested that water trucks were used to transport water to the site.

Mr Thobela raised the issue of the SIU investigation and the slow pace at which it was progressing.

The Chairperson suggested that a timeframe should be put in place.

Mr Gawe asked for clarity about the geo-technical report.

Mr Sikhumbuza Yoka (Technical Consultant: OR Tambo/ Alfred Nzo District Municipality) replied by confirming that the technical issues and problems could only be determined by the GeoTech report.

The Chairperson noted that the municipality had not been informed about the progress regarding NHBRC.

Mayor Ngozi commented that infrastructure should be taken into consideration and thanked the Committee for inviting the Nqguza Hill Municipality to the meeting.

The Chairperson raised the issue of electricity and asked the municipality to clarify the lack thereof.

Mr Thobela replied that in the available subsidy there was no provision for electricity in the original application that was approved. This fact could be found across the board with regard to the Eastern Cape projects. Eskom had to be brought in and they had said that a township had to be approved and registered. It would then be placed within their plans. However no timeframe could be given as to when provision would actually occur.

Ms Sishuba added that the Executive Council had met with the Department of Minerals and Energy on this issue. The Department would engage with the provincial Eskom representative on this matter. She continued that the MEC was quite hands-on with the project and they met weekly. The principle of project readiness had improved since a new person had been appointed to inspect future projects.

The Chairperson commented that township registration should be prioritised. The necessity for electricity provision could not be undermined because if there was no electricity, crime could arise. She mentioned that the Committee was not happy with the state of communication between the Department, the municipality and the MEC. She reiterated that by the end of March all should be completed with the rural housing project.

Mr Chauke appreciated the difficult conditions that the municipality was faced with especially regarding the topography. He brought to the attention of the Committee that the Thabo Mbeki settlement had no toilets. This was an urgent matter as people had to find makeshift alternatives and this was not good for public health. He asked if the municipality could provide emergency toilets.

Mr Fihlami responded that they had discussed the toilet problem with the OR Tambo District Municipality as it was their function and that it should be treated as an emergency. 

Mayor Ngozi added that he was aware of the issue. The projects had started without a clear programme for water, sanitation and electricity. It only had roads. It was unfortunate as it was not their function as a municipality.

The Chairperson specifically asked Mr Thobela how a project was managed without proper toilets.

Mr Thobela replied that there was a problem with sanitation and that it was dangerous. The district municipality was approached about it. Even if the mobile toilets were attained, there were still many issues that had to be considered. He thought that all spheres of government should provide support.

The Chairperson was surprised that the project had received approval without clear planning for sanitation, water and electricity.

Mr Thobela replied that what had happened was that those that started the project had not considered the installation of services but it was budgeted for. They were now faced with this troublesome situation.

Mr Clarence Tchitereke (Chief Director: Department of Housing) suggested that perhaps a commitment should be provided to the community that was currently without toilets as such a situation could not be allowed to continue.

The Chairperson noted that the provision of water and sanitation was the responsibility of the OR Tambo District Municipality, however, the Mayor should have acted on the issue. She added that solutions had to be found.

Mr Vusi Rapiya (Project Manager: Housing Department) clarified that the housing project had been approved with all the services included. Civil engineers were investigating the extent of the damage of these services and the Department would provide that funding.

Mr Thobela accepted that the structural subsidy included services, however, at present there were no toilets as the rectification of services had not taken place yet.

The Chairperson summarised by suggesting that emergency toilets and floodlights should be installed until such time as services were fully operational. Further, the NHBRC would be held accountable for not attending the meeting. She added that if there were any challenges, the Committee was available to provide support.

The Chairperson then thanked the attendees and adjourned the meeting.