Questions and Replies

Filter by year

22 May 2020 - NW471

Profile picture: Steyn, Ms A

Steyn, Ms A to ask the Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development

Whether (a) her department and (b) any lessees on state land owe money to the Great Fish River Water Association; if so, (i) what amount is outstanding, (ii) from what date has it been outstanding and (iii) on what date will it be paid?

Reply:

(a)  Yes, water use charge is regarded as a charge on land. However, where land is leased on a long-term basis, such liability gets passed to the lessee. In the event where the lessee fails to pay, the Department’s Policy provides for the possibility of stepping in to settle the debt and then recover the amount spent from the lessee.

(b)  Yes, in the context of the response to (a) above.

(i)  The estimation was R20, 438, 725.82 as at 20 March 2020.

(ii) From 2014.

(iii) The Department is working with the Great Fish River Water Association to reconcile the invoices and make payment as soon as that process is concluded.

22 May 2020 - NW586

Profile picture: Montwedi, Mr Mk

Montwedi, Mr Mk to ask the Minister of Agriculture, Rural Development and Land Reform

What measures has she put in place to support farmers through the Recapitalisation and Development Programme given that some farmers have already missed planting crops for the previous season?

Reply:

None. The Recapitalisation and Development Programme doesn’t exist in the Department of Agriculture, Rural Development and Land Reform.

22 May 2020 - NW473

Profile picture: Masipa, Mr NP

Masipa, Mr NP to ask the Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development

What is the total number of farms and/or land parcels that her department purchased in the Sarah Baartman District Municipality; (2) whether any other state-owned and/or government department (a) bought and/or (b) owns land in the specified district municipality; if so, (i) what are the details of each state-owned entity and/or department that purchased or owns land, (ii) under which programme has the land been purchased, (iii) in which year has it been purchased, (iv) what is the size of each piece of land, (v) who is the current owner and/or beneficiary on each farm and (vi) what are the details of the current use of the land; (3) whether a lease agreement exist on each land parcel; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, on which parcels were title deeds handed over?

Reply:

1. 287

2. (a), (b) Yes.

(i), (ii), (iii), (iv),(v),(vi) See attached Annexure A.

3. See Annexure A.

22 May 2020 - NW370

Profile picture: Chabangu, Mr M

Chabangu, Mr M to ask the Minister of Transport

What number of railway stations have closed and are no longer in use in the Republic since 1994?

Reply:

The following stations were closed and are no longer in use:

Gauteng:

  • Ellis Park – was closed in 2009 in preparation for 2010 World Cup. A risk assessment that was conducted showed that the platforms were narrow and could not accommodate the number of commuters going to the stadium. Ellis Park station was also too close to Doornfontein station and could easily use Doornfontein as the main station for Ellis Park stadium.

Western Cape:

  • Paarveneialand
  • Sunnycoast

Both stations were closed in 1996. They were not used by commuters but mainly used by railway employees and stopping was causing delays.

KwaZulu-Natal

  • None

Eastern Cape

  • None

Some of the stations (not listed) are temporarily and not permanently closed as a result of flooding, vandalism, crime, and PRASA not providing services as a result of shortage of rolling stock. As soon as projects are implemented to recover the service, these stations will be opened.

22 May 2020 - NW585

Profile picture: Mthenjane, Mr DF

Mthenjane, Mr DF to ask the Minister of Transport

What are the reasons that his department is failing to assist Mr Boy Nonyane from Marite Trust in Bushbuckridge, Mpumalanga, whose house was damaged by a certain company (name furnished) during the road construction of the R40 between Hazyview and Bushbuckridge?

Reply:

  1. SANRAL contract R.040-050-2010/2 for upgrading of R40 from turnoff to Sabie (the R28) to R533 in Bushbuckridge awarded to Roadmac Surfacing (Pty) Ltd and work commenced on 28 February 2011 and ended in February 2013.
  1. The claim was made by Mr Henry Nonyane, of Stand 711; Jim Brown Trust; Hazyview that damage discovered by Ms Agnes Sehlangu to his dwelling was allegedly caused on 19 and 20 January 2012 by the action of a vibratory roller being operated by the contractor or his sub-contractors at the time.
  1. Two of the contractor’s staff, Mr Peter Makwetla and Mr Kenneth Mashego, accompanied by the Resident Engineer from Vela VKE Consultants Mr Johan Van Straten attended a meeting with Ms Agnes Sehlangu at the house. The contractor was of the view that the damage to the house could not have been caused by his operations. The position of the house was more than 50 meters away from the road, and so was far enough away for the vibratory roller to have no effect. In spite of this, the claim was referred to the contractor’s Insurance providers. The matter was investigated, and the claim was subsequently denied as there was insufficient proof that the damage was caused by the activities of the contractor. All machinery was found to comply with standard specifications.
  1. On 4 September 2012, the contractor’s brokers sent a letter via email to Ms Sehlangu that her claim was rejected. On 12 September 2012 the claimant’s legal advisors responded to above letter with request that decision be revisited. On 16 October 2012, the contractor wrote a letter to the claimant’s legal advisors that their claim was denied and no compensation for damages would be made.
  1. No further correspondence was received from the claimant by the contractor nor SANRAL since the above communication in 2012.
  1. The project was handed back to SANRAL in February 2012 and the Defects Liability period ended in February 2013. In terms of the contract with SANRAL, the contractor is obliged to carry all risks associated with claims from third parties against the contract and that SANRAL is not legally responsible. Due to fact that the contract ended in February 2013 and that the matter has now prescribed in law as it is older than 3 years, SANRAL has no further actions it can take to assist.

4 September 2012 - Letter from Contractors Brokers