ATC130226: Report of the Portfolio Committee on Human Settlements on an Oversight visit to Lenasia, Gauteng, dated 22 February 2013

REPORT OF THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SETTLEMENTS ON AN OVERSIGHT VISIT TO LENASIA, GAUTENG, DATED 22 FEBRUARY 2013

The Portfolio Committee on Human Settlements, having conducted a follow-up oversight visit to Gauteng on 1 February 2013 in relation to the demolition of houses in Lenasia, reports as follows:

1. Background

In terms of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa of 1996 as well as Parliamentary Rules, the Portfolio Committee of Human Settlements (the Committee) has a responsibility to conduct oversight over any executive organ of State that falls within its portfolio. The Committee visited the Gauteng province in order to receive a proper presentation from the provincial Department of Local Government and Housing on issues around the demolition of houses in Lenasia. The Committee agreed to conduct a follow-up oversight visit to Lenasia to assess the progress report on the implementation of the recommendations of the oversight report of 19 November 2012.

2. Objectives of the visit

The objectives of the oversight visit were to:

· Conduct a follow-up oversight visit to Lenasia about the demolition of houses.

· Assess and determine the progress made on the implementation of the recommendations of the Committee after its visit to Lenasia on 19 November 2012 at Lenasia.

3. Delegation

3.1 Portfolio Committee on Human Settlements

The multi-party delegation consisted of Ms BN Dambuza (Chairperson of the Committee and leader of the delegation (ANC)); Ms G Borman (ANC); Ms AC Mashishi (ANC); Ms J Sosibo (ANC); Mr S Mokgalapa (DA); Ms P Duncan (DA); Mr R Bhoola (MF) and Mr K Sithole (IFP).

The delegation was accompanied by: Mr M Nyatela (Committee Secretary) and Mr L Tsoai (Committee Researcher).

3.2 Councillors from the City of Johannesburg

The City of Johannesburg Council was represented by Councillor Zarina Motala.

3.3 Officials from the Gauteng Legislature

The Gauteng Legislature was represented by the following officials from the legislature: Mr T Kepedise (Researcher); Mr M Masilo; and Ms S Mhlambi.

3.4 Departmental officials

The delegation from the provincial Department of Local Government and Housing was led by Mr M Mnyani (Head of Department) and accompanied by Ms F Koloko (Office Manager-HOD’s office); Mr J Molefe; Ms N Mthembu; Mr S Mlotshwa; Mr M Radebe; Mr P Makhetha; Ms L Ngcobo; Ms S Mhlambi; Mr K Dlamini; Mr M Motlhaolwa; Mr PM Seipohi; Mr M Hadebe; Ms N Mathobela from the provincial Department of Local Government and Housing and Mr M Shabangu from the national Department of Human Settlements.

3.5 National Home Builders Registration Council (NHBRC)

The Council was represented by Mr T Mudai

4. Welcome remarks

The leader of the parliamentary delegation welcomed all present and expressed gratitude and appreciation to the MEC and provincial department for responding to the Committee’s oversight initiative. She further acknowledged the presence of the representatives of the City of Johannesburg which demonstrated commitment to a collective effort in ensuring that this matter is resolved amicably. The leader of the parliamentary delegation further outlined the purpose of the visit, that is a follow-up on the oversight visit undertaken on 19 November 2012 to ascertain progress made by the national department to address human settlements challenges in Lenasia which were identified and on which recommendations were made.

5. Apologies

The Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Local Government and Housing of the Gauteng Legislature and all Committee members had submitted an apology since they were attending a class with PALAMA. The office of the MEC had also apologised on behalf of the MEC because the MEC was also attending a class with PALAMA.

6. Presentation by Head of Department of the Department of Local Government and Housing

The Head of Department (HOD) outlined a number of critical issues that the Gauteng Department of Local Government and Housing achieved as part of the progress in response to what emanated from the previous oversight visit and the recommendations made by the Portfolio Committee on Human Settlements.

The Head of Department presented a progress report. He further unpacked the progress report of the steering committee established to drive the intervention process.

The steering committee comprised representatives of the national department, provincial department, National Home Builders Registration Council (NHBRC), South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC), City of Johannesburg (COJ), and community representatives. Amongst others, the task of the steering committee was to develop a framework document, laying out processes towards resolving the matter and generating recommendations to that effect.

The steering committee held about eight meetings with the stakeholders. The outcome of such meetings resulted in the development of an Intervention Implementation Framework with principles that would be applied by all stakeholders and would address the implementation of the various solutions identified to deal with the land invasion. The framework encompassed broad proposals by the South African Human Rights Commission and Lenasia South Extension 3 and 13, Ennerdale and Lawley Concerned Assoaciation.

The HOD reported that after the Committee visited Lenasia on 19 November 2012, the Minister also visited Lenasia and held a meeting with all stakeholders including South African Human Rights Commission. The HOD reported further that the provincial Department of Local Government and Housing was the custodian of land in the province and that properties in question were being managed in terms of the Gauteng Land Administration Act, Act No 11 of 1996 and its amendment of 2002 while any disposal of land is done through the Gauteng Land Disposal Policy of 2008.

Part of the challenges with managing the land was the high rate of land invasion, where people illegally occupied land and build structures on it, whether temporary or permanent. Some invasions were averted by departmental inspectors while other were not as they occurred overnight and on weekends when the inspection staff was off duty.

Due to the high prevalence of land invasions in Lenasia extension 13 and Lenasia South extension 4, the department took a decision to demolish unoccupied and incomplete structures in the latter part of 2012 following a court order granted in September 2010. As the demolition of the properties gained a lot of media attention, the provincial committee and the Minister of Human Settlements visited the area to see the demolished structures and engage with the communities.

The provincial department took the delegation through the background of the problem and also conducted for site inspection and showed the delegation the type of invasions that had taken place and structures that had been erected on state land.

On 26 November 2012, the provincial department attended a meeting called by the Minister of Human Settlements to which the department and the residents were invited to discuss a way forward. Afterwards the Minister formed a forum called the Special Lenasia Intervention Team (SPLIT) to craft approaches that could be adopted, to amicably resolve the Lenasia land conflict. SPLIT comprised the provincial Department of Local Government and Housing, the national Department of Human Settlements; the National Home Builders Registration Council (NHBRC); South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC), the City of Johannesburg (COJ), local councillors, the Member of Mayoral Executive Council responsible for housing at the City of Johannesburg, the Housing Development Agency (HDA) and Lenasia residents (both legal and illegal land occupants).

6.1 Special Lenasia Intervention Team ( SPLIT ) engagements

The provincial department presented a detailed plan that highlighted the processes to be followed to resolve the matter. The plan were the need to auditing of all properties in order to have an accurate record; the adoption of a communication plan and strategy to communicate the facts of the project, which were inclusive of all involved; the need for the NHBRC and City of Johannesburg inspectors to inspect the structures that were not demolished to determine their quality and advise the department accordingly.

The plan was accepted as a draft that had to be refined and signed by all concerned parties, and the Director-General of the national Department of Human Settlements was tasked with convening meetings to drive that process.

The Minister directed that solutions to the matter needed to be legal and should address the challenges of land invasions; foundations that were dug; structures that have been partially built and some abandoned, some being continued on a piecemeal basis; completed but unoccupied structures; completed and occupied structures; structures that were demolished; and syndicates who own houses and also built houses illegally.

The HOD reported that there had been numerous meetings to interrogate the Lenasia intervention plan and that the plan was finally adopted in a meeting on 18 January 2013. He also reported that the department was busy with detailed planning in relation to vacant land in the area. As there were plans to develop the vacant land, the department was finalising the analysis of the audit information that was captured audit information and would compile a consolidated report to guide on the way forward. A synopsis of the audit results which were prepared conducted during November and December 2012 at Lenasia Ext 13 and Lenasia Ext 4 were presented by the department as follows:

· 615 properties were visited by the Anti-Corruption Unit, Property Management, Quality Assurance, City of Johannesburg and NHBRC, 215 in Lenasia Ext 13 and 352 in Lenasia South Ext 4. Out of the 215 in Ext 13, 21 were vacant stands and 11 were unoccupied, incomplete structures.

· About 182 stands had complete structures- some were legal and were in the process of being transferred to their owners.

· Of the 352 stands in South Ext 4, 125 were vacant, 67 were incomplete and 156 had complete structures but were not necessarily occupied.

· A total of 240 people received notices to come to the department because they ere not found in their stands during the audit. These properties still needed to be verified. The Hawks were in the process of taking statements and collecting evidence from people who were cooperating so as to ensure that an arrest would result in a successful conviction.

· The department had undertaken a road show to inform communities about the plans of the department to deal with the issue of Lenasia.

6.2 Way forward

In terms of the adopted plan, the following needed to be done:

· Appointing a consultant to do the rezoning and subdivision or consolidation of stands where applicable;

· Meeting with the City of Johannesburg to commit itself to fast-track the approval of plans;

· Stand evaluation;

· Rubble removal and cleaning of stands;

· Detailed planning options to be developed;

· Compile a list of beneficiaries;

· Finalisation of the investigation cases;

· Compile a list of properties to be transferred to relevant individuals, and transfer of properties.

7. Questions by the delegation

The Committee raised the following questions:

1) Whether there were any means to control some of the constructions that was taking place during the intervention process;

2) Whether the department was going to interfere with buildings when doing rezoning and make a special spatial framework for the area;

3) Whether there were buildings in the stands that were going to be subdivided;

4) Whether the people were building on business sites;

5) When the Minister was expected to sign off on the intervention framework as it had to be presented to Parliament by Minister for monitoring and evaluation;

6) Whether the affected people had received notices and if so, how they were distributed as indicated that the people were not available at the time;

7) Why the City of Johannesburg billed the department an amount of R300 000 for services related to illegal connections;

8) Whether the steering committee had a legal expert who would who would take statements from witnesses so that they could not be thrown out of court because of legal technicalities.

The Councillor reported that she was proud of the team and that the Council was aware of the services provided by the City of Johannesburg in the area. There were numerous occurrences of dolomite and sink holes in the entire Lenasia South area. There was widespread criminal activity in the area. In 2010, the City of Johannesburg had requested the community to submit applications for housing programmes but instead occupied educational sites and parks areas.

8. Response by the department

The HOD informed the delegation that the department respected the court order and frequently consulted SAHRC, but the people continued to build houses even after the visit by the Minister. The department consulted the NHBRC for purposes of assisting with in the inspections for compliance with building standards. The department together with the City of Johannesburg issued notices to the people to stop building illegally in the area and placed the notices on front doors in instances where people were not available. He also reported that SPLIT would continue working for a period of six months for consultation purposes and had to report to their stakeholders. In a meeting of SPLIT on 18 January 2012, all stakeholders agreed with the principles in the framework and all inputs and comments of stakeholders have been inserted in the framework.

On the establishment of the township, the HOD reported that the lay-out has been developed for the establishment of the township and that there would be no excessive expenditure thereon. He reported that it was not going to be a wholesale compensation for all the people. However, each case would be dealt with on its own merit. Only those people who applied and qualified would be compensated in a form of the building of a proper house for them. The money that was going to be used for compensation was part of the subsidy approval and planning. The department was working with the City of Johannesburg on the matter and had identified a place for rubble and security through the assistance of the City of Johannesburg . In terms of how people got their notices, the HOD reported that those people usually came back in the afternoon and during weekend and got hold of their notices placed in their doors.

The department was negotiating with the City of Johannesburg not to pay all billed amounts for illegal connections. The team ( SPLIT ) was provided with legal experts by departmental legal services, who had a legal background in taking accurate statements. The departmental officials attached notices to the gates of houses and used loud hailers to inform people. The whole idea of profiling people was for auditing purposes to determine how many people qualified for assistance in terms of the housing subsidy programme.

The department had put together security measures on the ground in order to prevent the mushrooming of illegal houses which may have been too expensive. The HOD had a concern with the implementation costs of by-laws which were borne by the department instead of the City of Johannesburg . The department had set up a nodal point with 10 officials and people were coming to the nodal point office to supply information. Once the audit was available, the City of Johannesburg would install meters in relevant areas. Eleven suspects had been identified and were being profiled by the Hawks. The team had consolidated the number of properties under the department and submitted the information o the deeds office for verification.

Planning division of the provincial department

The presenter reported that demolished houses were unfinished and/or unoccupied houses. The team was finalising its audit and have submitted its preliminary report to the department. The department had been appointed to do a land survey together with engineering and geo technological studies on the area.

The department had met with the City of Johannesburg on the rezoning of some of the stands. The process of subdivision and rezoning was going to take about six months but it was negotiated with the City to shorten the period to two months. The presenter reported that about seven stands would be subdivided and 192 stands would be rezoned.

Committee’s comments

The Committee unanimously commended the department and SPLIT for the hard work, effort and commitment towards the development of the framework and for the communication strategies they were using. The department had picked up the ball and was carrying it. The Committee stated that if those strategies were put into perspective before the demolitions in Lenasia had begun, the demolitions could have been avoided. The example of Lenasia should be used as a test case by the province in trying to prevent land invasions.

The Committee expressed its appreciation for the work done by the Gauteng Department of Local Government and Housing in resolving the complex issues of the illegal selling and occupation of stands in Lenasia. The Committee appreciated the intervention framework that emanated from SPLIT .

The Committee was of the view that the team had put in place a clear framework to rescue the situation in Lenasia and that the team was also cautious in dealing with the situation.

9. Findings

· Municipalities were not doing justice in the implementation of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE Act), Act No 19 of 1998. Parliament would not be subjected to the proposal to amend the Act that has not been implemented and whose impact had not been tested on the ground.

· The municipalities do not have by-laws to immediately respond to the land invasions.

· It is the responsibility of the City of Johannesburg to prevent the mushrooming of illegal structures within its municipal boundaries.

· The team has done a good work in developing and implementing a framework that would be used as a case by other provinces.

10. Recommendations

The Committee recommends that the Minister should:

· Use the framework of the provincial department as a guide to develop national framework for national department which has to culminate to a national strategy of the department of human settlements.

· Submit the signed framework to the Committee after being signed by all relevant stakeholders and finally by the Minister.

· Ensure that the national and the provincial departments provide supportive mechanisms to municipalities in implementation of the PIE Act in terms of section 154 of the Constitution of South Africa Act, No. 108 of 1996.

· Ensure that the City of Johannesburg develop by-laws and strategies to prevent the mushrooming of the illegal structures in line with the national legislation.

· Ensure that the provincial department deals with the criminal activities accordingly and the culprits face the full might of the law.

· Ensure that a progress report is submitted to Parliament every two months until the process is finalised.

Report to be considered.