Report of the Portfolio Committee on Human Settlements
on an oversight visit to the
Table of Contents
3 Briefing by the Provincial Department
4.1 Site visit: Duncan Village Project
4.2 Site visit: Ducats (rectification programme
4.4 Responses from the delegation
4.5 Site visit: Social Housing-Emerald Sky
4.6 Site visit: Reeston Project (East London)
5 Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality
6 Kouga Municipality in Jeffrey’s Bay
6.3 Responses by the municipality
6.4 Site visit: Kuyga Phase 2 (1170) rectification programmeme
7.1 Site visit: Ramaphoza project in Motherwell
7.2 Site visit: Kamvelihle Housing Project
7.3 Site visit: Motherwell - Matthew Goniwe
7.4 Site visit: Veeplaas in- situ upgrading
7.5 Site visit: Chetty River Ext. 3, 4 & 5
7.6 Site visit: Zanemvula Pilot Project
7.7 Site visit: Uitenhage, KwaNobuhle
9.2 Site visit: Thornhill Project (New project)
10.2 Site visit: Molteno in Nkwankca Municipality (Kwa Nomonde)
10.3 Site visit: Elliot -Takalani Location
10.4 Site Visit: Illinge (405)
10.5 Site visit: Ugie, Cala and Maclear Projects
11.1 Site visit: Njongweville Ext.
11.2 Site visit: North End Ext:
11.3 Site visit: Harry Gwala Ext:
In 2004 Cabinet took
a decision to shift from providing just houses and adopted a comprehensive
integrated and sustainable Human Settlements development strategy. The Cabinet
further more evoked Section 100 of the Constitution on April 2008 to intervene
in the
The Portfolio
Committee on Human Settlement undertook an oversight visit to the
Ř Provincial
performance to meet delivery targets set and challenges for 2008/09 and if there has been any value for money;
Ř
Progress made by
Section 100 team which was appointed by the former Minister Dr L Sisulu to run
the administration of the Provincial Housing Department;
Ř
Progress report
around the disaster affected areas in the Province with special attention to
the areas that were affected from 2000 to 2008;
Ř
Progress and plans
made to unblock the blocked projects;
Ř
Progress and plans
made on the rectification programmes;
Ř
Progress in
implementation of rural housing plan and targets;
Ř Progress in upgrading of informal settlements including Community
Residential Unit (CRU’s); and
Ř Plans and service
delivery targets for 2009/10.
The delegation
comprised the following: Ms BN Dambuza (ANC), leader of the delegation; Mr MR
Mdakane (ANC); Ms TMA Gasebonwe (ANC); Ms GM Borman (ANC); Mr J Matshoba (ANC);
Ms NA Mnisi (ANC) ; Mr AM Figlan (DA) ; Mr AC Steyn (DA) and Mr T Botha (COPE).
The delegation was accompanied by the National Intervention Team, viz: T
Mathibeli; D Awogu; C Sehlapflo; LS Rampedi; R Manphaga. The delegation was
also accompanied by the following staff members: Ms K Pasiya (Committee
Secretary); Ms B Madikane (Committee Secretary); Mr M Erasmus (Committee
Assistant) and Ms K Ndyondya (Parliamentary Communication Services).
The Department led
by the MEC, Ms Nombulelo Mabandla welcomed the delegation. She introduced the
Provincial officials as well as the National Intervention Team that had been
deployed to the Province. She handed
over to the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Human Settlements Hon BN
Dambuza. The Chairperson thanked the MEC for the warm welcome received; she introduced
the delegation team and further outlined the purpose of the visit as well as
the expected outcome.
The National
Department was also represented and led by the Chief Financial Officer, Mr. M
Dlabantu.
The MEC in her
opening remarks informed the delegation that she had joined the Department
after the 2009 National General Elections, and found the National Intervention
Team on the ground addressing service delivery challenges as per the Cabinet
decision. She stated that they had begun to work as a team of government in
September 2009. She informed the delegation that the national intervention
support team was there as an implementing arm, to transfer skills as well as to
prepare the Provincial sustainability plan. She also indicated that as the Province
they welcomed and appreciated the support given by the Portfolio Committee
through its oversight, as this would assist them to strengthen and enhance
service delivery programmes. The MEC further stated that due to the slow pace
and poor quality production in certain areas she had observed, she had decided
to take over the developer status from the struggling municipalities.
She apologised to
the delegation as she would not be able to be part of the team to all areas to
be visited due to the Provincial week that took place at the same time. However, she would join the delegation on the
last leg of the visit in Alfred Nzo District.
The Head of
Department (HOD), Ms N Sishuba tabled the report on the state of the Province
around the service delivery context. She reported that in 2008/09 the
Provincial Department split from Local Government and became a stand alone
Department which tabled its own first reports. The Department has its own staff
complement and has secured office space. She stated that at the beginning of
the year they appointed 197 employees of whom 85% constitutes project managers
and quantity surveyors. This initiative relates to a change management strategy
which interlinks the relationship between delivery and human resources. The
Department started with a clean audit report and achieved an unqualified
report. She informed the delegation that
the Department had set a target to build 15 000 houses by 31 March 2009 and had
to spend the allocated R1, 2 billion budget.
The Department reported
that the Section 100 team which consisted of officials from the National
Department as well as some Provincial officials started in 2008 to assist the
Province in challenges encountered in the administration of the Department as
well as housing delivery. In response to
the matter, the Department agreed to establish a forum to be chaired by the MEC
to:
1.
Oversee provincial turnaround strategy;
2.
Verify, analyze and approve flagship projects;
3.
Review projects implementation plans and existing contracts
in order to upscale delivery;
4.
Deploy technical skills required; and
5.
Improve monitoring and evaluation to deal with issues of
quality and accelerated delivery.
The Department reported that even though it has set a target to complete
15 000 houses by March 2009, it has managed to complete 18 000 houses of which
some houses were at various stages of completion. The Department’s expenditure
increased from R379 million in 2007/08 to R1, 04 billion in 2008/09. The MEC
further informed the delegation that the Department’s aim is to:
Ř
Develop a
comprehensive informal settlement upgrading plan
Ř
Review and roll-out
an emerging contractor development policy
Ř
Proactively plan
projects
Ř
Streamline internal
processes
Ř
Ensure stakeholder
mobilisation and engagement to leverage resources for maximum delivery
There were 41 blocked projects of which 21 were being unblocked. It was
reported that 1077 units were targeted for rural housing development. With
regard to the Community Residential Units Programme, the Department confirmed
that they have not done well. The Department was busy with feasibility studies
to that effect and the set target was 121 units for the current financial year.
The Province reported that according to Census 2000 they have 205
informal settlements. The Province has an estimated backlog of 117 719 houses
with funding requirement estimates of R13, 554 Billion. It has been reported
that there were 6 active informal settlements upgrading pilot projects with
units totaling 69 200. The following are the projects and the reported
challenges experienced with the completion of those projects:
Ř
Zanemvula: There is
a lack of cooperation by the social cluster Departments. The Department was
trying to bring all the Departments on board.
Ř
Duncan Village:
There was a challenge with the procurement of services and bulk infrastructure
provision.
Ř
Elliotdale rural
housing: There is a lack of capacity within the Municipality, reluctance of the
established contractors to take up the development due to lack of water and
topography.
Ř
Ngangelizwe: Land
invasion resulted in project delays.
Ř
Siyanda: The
development of the project was unable to start due to a land claim challenge.
Ř
Thornhill: In phase
1a, 500 houses were to be constructed.
Ř
Makana: 5000 houses
were to be constructed but due to scarcity of water the project was delayed. It
was reported that National Treasury has agreed to provide assistance.
The Department reported that the plan to respond to emergency housing
for the entire Province was in place. The Department further stated that out of
2619 purchased temporary shelters, some were awaiting delivery. 8000 shelters
were on adjudication for purchase depending on budget availability. The
shelters would also be utilized as temporary units for rectification purposes
as well as for people in distress. The Department reported that the Division of
Revenue Act provides funding reassigned for disaster management.
The Department plans to verify a panel of contractors who can respond
promptly to disasters.
The Department reported that challenges have been encountered in the
coordination of and administering the beneficiary list, which is often
manipulated. In order to respond to the matter, the Department has embarked on
the process of establishing a Social Facilitation Unit to deal specifically
with beneficiary challenges. The MEC has not been approving any project without
a consolidated and verified beneficiary list.
Some of the challenges raised included the following:
Ř
Selling of RDP
houses at a lower cost was cited as the most critical challenge especially in
Nelson Mandela Metro.
It has also been noted that there is
a challenge with Section 10A of the Housing Act which reads as follows: notwithstanding any provisions to the
contrary in any other law, it shall be a condition of every housing subsidy, as
defined in the Code, granted to a natural person terms of any national housing programmeme
for the construction or purchase of a dwelling or serviced site, that such
person shall not sell or otherwise alienate his or her dwelling site within a
period of eight years from the date on which the property was acquired by that
person unless the dwelling or site has first been offered to the relevant provincial
Housing Department.
Ř
To address the
matter of child-headed families, the Province indicated that a programmeme to
deal with vulnerable groups was in place including the implementation of the
Law of Succession.
Ř
Delays from the
Deeds Office on issuing Title Deeds.
The Province has begun interacting with the Private sector on issues of
informal settlement upgrading.
To address the matters of red tape when applying the procurement policy,
the Department intends to review such policy in order to shorten the
procurement period which has to be linked to price and determined by the
subsidy quantum. Furthermore, competence and time would be the main
determinants for efficiency. At this
stage the procurement policy proposal has been presented to the MEC for
consideration.
The Department reported that with regard to the Housing Development
Agency (HDA) mandate, the first meeting has been held to clarify its role and
it was agreed that the relationship between the Department and the (HDA) would
be defined by the business plan.
The delegation welcomed the presentation made by the Department. The
delegation noted and raised the following:
a)
Based on the issues
raised in the presentation by the Department, as well as from the observations
contained in the previous oversight reports of the Parliamentary Committees,
similar challenges continue to be encountered. Therefore an extra effort was
required to overcome the challenges for the benefit of the citizens from all
angles. It was stated that proper planning was very crucial for project
management. Therefore intergovernmental relations should be promoted and
enhanced in order to adhere to acceptable norms and standards of human
settlements service delivery.
b)
It was stressed
that the monitoring and evaluation of projects at early stages, phase by phase
was imperative to detect defects earlier.
c)
Beneficiary
management was raised as a very crucial matter as there were houses built and
left unoccupied that resulted in vandalism and illegal occupation.
d)
The Department was
advised to strive and advocate for transparency in beneficiary management as
this would eliminate suspicion and corruption practices.
e)
The delegation
reaffirmed unhappiness about the report on the performance of the National Home
Builders Registration Council (NHBRC) because the quality of the houses was
paramount.
f)
The allocation of
houses to backyard dwellers was also identified as a challenge as there is no
clear guiding policy to this effect.
g)
It was also noted
that if a project was done correctly at the outset, it would reduce the
unnecessary cost of rectification and further save money for other projects. It
was further suggested that payment processes should be determined by the
quality production.
h)
As much as some emerging
contractors are likely to produce poor workmanship, there are instances where
the established contractors take advantage and also produce poor workmanship.
Therefore close monitoring has to be implemented in each and every project.
i)
The capacity
building programme should be continuously implemented for SMME or emerging contractors
in order to promote entrepreneurship development.
j)
The architectural
structure of the houses does not consider the dignity and privacy of
beneficiaries. Therefore the Department was advised to take serious
considerations to that effect when approving housing plans.
k)
The housing subsidy
does not have a budget for the maintenance of the houses. The most affected are
the indigent beneficiaries whose houses are at risk of dilapidation.
l)
It was noted that
not everybody requires permanent accommodation but some seek temporary
arrangements. Reference was also made to small towns, where the majority of
workers resides in cities or well established towns, thus negatively impacting
on their work performance.
m)
The delegation was
also interested to know about the issue of office space and the utilisation of
consultants.
The Department informed the delegation that it was renting the space
from the Department of Public Works. The Department was utilising consultancy
for scarce skills only.
The delegation visited the Duncan Village project and was informed that due
to its development needs, this area was declared a Presidential Project in
1996. The settlement has a housing shortfall of 21 000 housing units. A programme
to de-densify the area has been identified as follows:
Ř Alleviate the
unacceptable levels of overcrowding in some sections of the settlements;
Ř Provide the
necessary space required for the improvement of bulk infrastructure in the area;
Ř Having achieved the
above, construct decent human settlements for the residents of Duncan Village;
and
Ř Land acquisition
for the redevelopment initiative of Duncan Village.
Despite a range of
good plans that have been developed for Duncan Village, very little has been
achieved due to lack of bulk infrastructure in the areas identified for
de-densification. In July 2008, the National Department of Housing applied to
the National Treasury for an amount of R1, 56 billion to support the bulk
infrastructural needs in the Eastern Cape with an estimated amount of R600
million towards Duncan Village. The funds were however not provided. It was
reported that the Minister of Human of Settlements was in the process of
approaching Cabinet for financial support in order to address these critical
areas in the human settlements sector.
During the interaction it was agreed that there was a great need to
attend to the following:
Ř Upgrading of bulk
infrastructure to augment water and sanitation provision in the Greenfield
sites that have been earmarked for relocation of Duncan Village households
residing in informal settlements.
Ř The Housing
Development Agency (HDA) has to play a vital role in the acquisition of land
parcels in order to increase bulk infrastructure capacity for new development
with the precinct and outside Duncan Village.
Ř There was a need to
increase human resources as well as to provide an operational budget for the Duncan
Village Redevelopment Initiative Unit.
Ř The
Intergovernmental Relationship needed to be enforced so that the project should
get off the ground as it is a National Priority Project.
The delegation
visited Ducats informal settlements where residents informed the team about the
state of their living conditions. There is an incomplete subsidy development
project in the area, which was constructed in 2005 through the People’s Housing
Process (PHP). The very same project requires rectification owing to its state.
Residents appealed to the delegation to intervene as most of the roofs of their
houses had been blown away as a result of poor quality construction. The issue
of unavailability of adequate sanitation was raised strongly as the sewerage
was not drained away. The sanitation system used posed a great challenge to
children and presents health hazards. Houses were unplastered, roofs were
leaking and there were no street lights. There were also no proper access
roads.
Residents also
raised a challenge with the houses being long distances away from all amenities,
such as clinics and social services, thus providing difficulty in accessing
medication and grants. It was indicated that there were no schools in the area,
which also led to a high number of children being involved in car accidents
whilst crossing the road to other schools.
Residents displayed
anger towards the officials as they blamed them for the backlog and delays in
housing delivery. Residents raised a serious concern about the invisibility of
their Ward Councilor.
Mr Nojoko from the
Provincial Department of Housing stated that the project was started by the
Amathole District Municipality in 2002. He confirmed that 6 contractors had
been involved in the construction and rectification of the project. But the slow pace of production by the
contractors led to the project being blocked. He stated that the project was
unblocked in 2007. Additional funding had been approved to further unblock the
project during the current financial year (2009). He indicated that 561 houses were completed,
and 39 were under construction, whilst 25 were still to be built.
The delegation
stated that they sympathized with the challenges encountered by the citizens of
Ducats but appeased the community and informed them that their challenges were
not only peculiar to the Ducats community, but similar observations applied to
most projects in the Province as a whole. The delegation reassured the
residents that their complaints would be dealt with by the Provincial
Department and the MEC. The delegation further reassured the residents that a
follow-up visit to oversee progress would be made after 3 months. The delegation
appealed to the MEC to negotiate for a periodical extension of mobile services
e.g. social and health services.
The MEC confirmed
that the concerns of the Ducats residents have been forwarded to her office and
she has been communicating with the civil society leader. She further informed
the delegation that Ducats forms part of the approved rectification programme. The MEC indicated that the Department would
begin to address the community concerns within a period of two months. With
regard to mobile services and school transport services, she reassured the community
that she would consult her colleagues in the executive to assist as there was a
dire need to address these matters.
The delegation was
pleased by the response of the MEC who took an initiative and contacted the
local government officials whilst the team was still on site to address the
sanitation problem as a matter of urgency in a crčche that had put the lives of
children at stake.
The delegation
visited Emerald Sky and learnt that the allocation of houses was dependent on
the family income. The project accommodated people who earn between R2,
500-R7000. There were 480 units in total, and the project is managed by the
Department of Housing. The project manager stated that rental collection was
not a challenge. There was also a similar construction taking place to expand
the current project.
The delegation
expressed appreciation and commended the Department for running such a
successful project.
The delegation
visited the Reeston project in East London, and was informed that the new
housing project has been completed and handed over to the beneficiaries. The
delegation learnt that the residents were grateful for the government efforts
in providing them with a shelter; however they raised a challenge of being far
from the social amenities and were paying exorbitant amounts for school
transport. The people living in Reeston are people that used to live in Duncan
Village’s informal settlements and have been moved to the new settlement.
The delegation
visited the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality and was welcomed by
Councillor Biyana, Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Housing.
Mr S Maqhethuka,
Executive Director reported that the Metro has a population of 1.1
million. The Metro has built 289 000
houses and currently has a backlog of 87 000. Out of that 87 000 backlog, 49
000 are backyard dwellers, 115 informal settlements and 38 000 households.
He informed the
delegation that the Metro has the following challenges:
1.
Capacity of SMME contractors, which are identified as
follows:
1.1
Contractors lack financial management, business and
technical skills, quality control and site supervision.
1.2
Contractors lack project and contract management skills.
2.
Reluctance of suppliers to supply material due to payment
delays.
3.
Verification of Title Deeds registration.
4.
Illegal occupation of houses.
5.
Beneficiary list management.
6.
Implementation plans of health and safety measures.
7.
Lack of inter and intra-departmental coordination and
planning.
8.
Non-connection of internal services as the local government
unit delays water connection.
9.
Signing of FUR’s was a challenge due to the vastness of the
area.
10.
Surveyors’ rates were expensive, some charging up to R800
per unit.
The Executive
Director reported that the sector was accountable and reported to the Standing
Committee on a quarterly basis. The Municipality runs a capacity building programme
in partnership with the Nelson Mandela University and NURCHA to provide
capacity to SMMEs and Expanded Public Works programmes. It was indicated that
there was a study conducted by SERVCON on the illegal occupants and the legal
process was very slow. The Municipality raised unhappiness over the reluctance
of the Province to release the SERVCON outcome reports. The Municipality urged
the delegation to assist in accessing the SERVCON study outcomes so that they
can be implemented. In response to payment delays, the Executive Director
indicated that the Metro has developed a cession agreement. He indicated that
to keep their projects running the municipality utilizes its revolving account
and when payments are received from the province they transfer funds back to
their account.
The Metro also
undertakes an audit on backyard shacks, beneficiary management with a database
that links to the national housing subsidy. Land has been identified as a
critical challenge in the CBD area and the Metro opted to concentrate on Social
Housing. To address the selling of RDP houses the Metro has conducted a
forensic audit in that regard.
The Executive
Director raised unhappiness about the tendency of the province of dumping funds
towards the end of the financial year to the Municipality.
The delegation was
welcomed by the Chairperson of the Council. He explained to the committee that
the district cannot function without the support of National Parliament. The
Chairperson further proclaimed that Kouga municipality is the Jewel of the
Eastern Cape Province. The municipality has to date spent R16 415 169.55 of the
initial budget of R19 172 718.00. It was reported that the council conducts
meetings with communities and enrolls them on their waiting list and gives them
updates on the progress made on houses built. They encourage people to come
forward for screening and verify if they qualify for a subsidy. Their
turnaround time for when a claim is logged is 4 days. A progress report is
handed to the Department of Housing when projects are finished. The
municipality currently has new projects and the beneficiaries are already
identified. They do the building of houses in three phases and start by
preparing the land, installing services and constructing houses. The Department
is responsible for the approval of beneficiaries. The district also focuses on
formalizing informal settlements. The municipality has the benefit of access to
land in the urban area. The municipality has completed 70 to 80% of the backlog
on houses in the district.
It was reported
that an in-situ upgrading project was approved in the Ocean View area to build
360 units. The awarded contractor was to construct services and top structures.
There was a delay in the project because it had to wait for a Geotech
investigation report, which resulted in the foundation design changing. It was
also mentioned that the project is in-situ as there were some delays in the
initial stages, but things are progressing. The 360 structures are partially
completed. The construction of bulk services was to be finalized by the end of
October 2009. The contractor will start with internal services and connect the
houses to all services.
The municipality
also explained that they have 4 foster care houses which were sponsored by
Vodacom.
The following challenges were identified:
Ř Delays in the
payment of contractors;
Ř Unavailability of
an electronic system to scan applications;
Ř Fast growth in the
development of the coastal area;
Ř Difficulty in
screening of beneficiaries;
Ř There are blocked
projects that require to be unblocked; and
Ř Unavailability of
funds.
The delegation
enquired about the following:
Ř Number of informal
settlements the municipality has and projects in the pipe line.
Ř Number of blocked
projects and the quality of the houses constructed.
Ř Any challenges with the title deeds and
whether the municipality has control over the mushrooming of informal
settlements.
Ř Clarity on the
NHBRC contractor enrolment, and what support was given to the emerging
contractors.
Ř Where contractors
are enrolled with NHBRC, and whether the emerging contractors were given the
support.
Ř Whether there are
any service sites for future development.
Ř The officials from
the municipality indicated that there are 9040 informal settlements scattered
throughout the area with a total of 11440 people on the waiting list.
Ř The municipality
has earmarked 10 projects which are waiting verification. The municipality aims
to access external funding to fund these projects as these were not budgeted
for.
Ř The municipality
has 4 blocked projects and 1 serviced site. A signature is required to unblock
the projects.
Ř The quality of
houses is satisfactory.
Ř The municipality
controls the informal settlements by having a monitoring office in all 10
wards. It also assists SMMEs by giving them small projects and also encourages
big contractors to involve emerging contractor.
The project was approved on 8 March 2002
for 1170 subsidies at R16000 per subsidy for phase five, with a total value of
the project at R41 020 278, 00. The appointed contractor completed all the
houses and left the plumbing unconnected and the project was blocked.
Metro applied for additional funding to
unblock the project. The funding agreement to unblock the project was finalized
on the 28 November 2008. The contractor
for the plumbing connection was appointed in September 2009 and is currently
busy with 568 houses. The anticipated completion date of the project is 15
February 2010.
The project is under the rectification programme
for houses with major structural defects but rectification will start after an
assessment report has been approved. There were 1170 houses built and 876
transfers paid. There were 1159 services installed and 200 plumbing fittings
completed to date.
The project budget allocation for bulk
services was R3, 510,000. The Metro contributed R3, 500,000. The installation
of a sewer pump station was R1, 846,600, excluding vat. The reticulation and top structure was R41,
020, 278, excluding variance. The expenditure to date is R35, 951,841
The following challenges were identified with the project:
Ř 11 houses are not
connected to the main sewer, due to terrain or topography.
Ř There are major
structural defects on completed houses.
Ř There was a duplication
of approvals on the Housing Subsidy System (HSS).
Ř 15 beneficiaries do
not want ceilings.
The following
intervention strategies were identified:
Ř To source funding
for a pump station for 11 beneficiaries who need assistance to be connected to
the main sewer.
Ř All houses with
major cracks will be considered during the rectification programme.
Ř The project to be
reduced by 15 ceilings was approved.
In this project
there are 2345 houses completed, 27 incomplete and 286 were on the landfill
site. There were also 3 new projects
with approved layout plans.
It was a new
project which was approved on 03 July 2009 with 644 top structures. The Nelson
Mandela Metro (NMM) is the developer for this project and it is an in-situ
upgrading project. The municipality has applied to increase the project from
664 to 668 sites. The project was approved with a total budget of R59 817
001.58. The contractor, Wells JV was appointed by Metro on 03rd June
2009 and started on site on the 09th June 2009 as per the signed
Joint Building Contract Committee (JBCC). There are 174 foundations, 142 wall
plates, 125 roofs, 117 completed houses and 52 final unit reports by the National
Home Builders Registration Council (NHBRC) to date. There are 565 identified
beneficiaries and 334 approved on the housing subsidy. The anticipated completion
date as per the Joint Building Contracts Committee is 30 June 2010. There are
551 houses outstanding and 668 service sites were being installed.
The
following challenges were identified:
Ř Beneficiary
identification and approvals. This is an
in – situ upgrading and some of the beneficiaries who are currently staying in
shacks were not approved on the Housing Subsidy System (HSS) as they have
benefited before.
Metro officials are
currently working closely with the Departmental officials to resolve the
challenge of identification. But in future projects pre-screening will be done
to avoid this challenge.
Mr Gerber, the
Contract Manager reported to the delegation that the original size of the
project was to build 2308 houses. The project was approved in 2005 and blocked
in 2008. Two contractors were appointed in 2009 to complete the incomplete and
outstanding houses. The contractor has managed to complete 107 houses and 142
houses were under construction. Out of a budget of R4, 7 million, R1, 3 million
has been spent. The project is challenged by untraced beneficiaries and other
related problems.
Beneficiaries were
allowed to occupy houses before they were finished, allegedly to avoid
vandalism. Internal services were not connected. The municipality must still
install water and electricity. The standard and quality of the houses are very
poor. Water pipes are not correctly installed; some were laid on the ground in
some areas. People have been staying in such poor conditions for the past three
years. Incomplete houses were handed over to beneficiaries by a Ward Committee
Member (the late Mr Yoyo), accompanied by the Contractor.
During interaction
with the community, it was found that the community was not happy at all. The
Control Sheet signed by the inspector showed that everything in the houses was
done whereas it was not. The community was encouraged to sign letters
indicating their satisfaction (happy letters) and was promised that the houses
were going to be completed in due course. The community also accused the late
Mr Yoyo of occupying four houses in the same area even though other people were
homeless. The community indicated that there were no proper plumbing and no
water connections. Some houses were repaired more than once. An occupant of a house that was damaged by
spring-water reported that the problem was identified and rectified but the rectification
caused more damage.
The delegation observed that some houses present fatal conditions, such
as houses that had dividing walls that were not sturdy. The delegation
requested the Department to attend to such conditions urgently. The Department
committed itself to make follow ups and to ensure that houses with major
defects were prioritized.
The project started
in 2002 with an approval to build 2300 units. Challenges encountered with the
project relate to roof leakages, deprivation of privacy, rooms that are not
divided and toilets without a shower and hand basin.
It was noted that
the contractor had identified and was already installing ceilings even though
the roofs were leaking.
Mr Anton van Greunen
gave a brief overview on the Matthew Goniwe project. He reported that a
contractor called Tsepiso was terminated due to his underperformance. The
project was blocked because he had no resources and this led to vandalism.
The Project Manager
assured the delegation that the houses were already assessed and the
rectification is undertaken. He further explained that funding was a major
problem. The escalation of material prices affected the progress and thus
resulted in slow production. He stated that the houses built by Mr Tsepiso were
of a very poor standard. He built an open plan house with a toilet space that
has no toilet accessories (toilet, basin, and shower) and without water supply
in and outside the house.
On the opposite
side of the same street, women contractors explained that the houses they had
built were vandalized. Their houses were of good quality, but their material
was brutally taken by thieves wearing balaclavas and armed with guns at night.
Several cases have been reported to the local police but there was no positive
response received. Due to the above mentioned challenges the women were running
short of funds because they have to rebuild these houses more than twice at the
same stage.
The delegation
observed that the houses built by women contractors were of good quality, the
problem was the installation of water meters and electricity. The delegation
was informed that installation of bulk services lies with the municipality.
The leader of the
delegation informed the Project Manager that she should ensure that toilets
were installed even if they were temporary. She was also reminded of her
responsibility of overseeing that houses built should comply with acceptable
norms and standards and according to the approved plans as well. The Project
Manager was advised to report to managers any contraventions committed by the
contractors. The contractors were also advised to immediately hand over the
finished houses to the municipality to avoid vandalism.
The delegation
requested that the case numbers for Women Contractors reports be submitted to
the Committee for follow ups.
The upgrading of
houses was done in 2002. Some houses
were identified for rectification and those that were built below the flood
line were relocated to Chetty River extension 3 & 4. The small sites were a
challenge with some of the shacks being identified for upgrading. The
challenges were that toilets were outside the houses and there are no sinks or
basins in the toilets.
During phase 1 of
the project, 460 units will be built during the current financial year. The
project started in March 2009 and 70% of the units have been completed. There
were 8500 houses to be rectified.
Communities were
happy with the houses, although the size of the house was 36 square metres.
The delegation
advised the Department to make provisions for the internal ablution services
and kitchen sink.
Chetty River extension 3 & 4 was built
to relocate beneficiaries from Chetty River in Veeplaas. The project was
granted an approval to build 327 units. The Project Manager informed the
delegation about a multi purposes centre, clinics and schools that were
earmarked to be constructed the area.
The houses were in good condition. The
challenge is mud roads and no proper drainage which are the competency of the
municipality.
The project has
four designs that were agreed upon as valuable and affordable. The show houses
were built on the site for beneficiaries to choose from. There were 1000 solar
heating systems that were funded by the Metro.
The project has the
following challenges:
Ř More solar heating
systems were needed to cover the whole project but there was a lack of funds.
Ř There were no water
connections.
Ř Water meters are
not installed.
Ř There are no
sanitation provisions. Residents are struggling to get facilities.
The delegation
advised the Department to address the matters as a matter of urgency.
The project was
approved in 2000 and construction started in 2002. The project was blocked in
2006 and has since been unblocked. The project scope was to build 438 houses of
which 106 were completed whilst the balance was under rectification. The
project started as a People Housing Process (PHP) project, and all the
beneficiaries were approved.
Mr Mali, the ward
councilor, stated that there were six houses which were not yet built and in
some houses the walls were falling down.
Ms Nomasomi
Matinise, Head of Somzana Builders, who was the contracted service provider,
indicated the following challenges:
Ř She stated that she
had a challenge with the municipality in terms of paperwork which is not done
on time and took long to be processed. She further stated that frequent
changing of project managers impacted on their paper work.
Ř The theft of
building material, as well as funds to replace the stolen material.
Ř Reluctance of
suppliers to supply materials on credit.
The delegation appealed
to the Department to ensure that contractors were provided with the support
they deserved. Women contractors
required most empowerment and support.
The
delegation met with members of the community who briefed the delegation as follows:
This is a poverty
stricken area occupied by people who were evicted from nearby farms in 1995.
The area is challenged by frequent rains which causes flooding. The flood water
flows over the graveyard before reaching the residential area bringing all the
graveyard mess inside their shacks. There are no services in the area, as a
result their health and safety status is continuously at risk.
The community needs
water and sanitation. They are currently serviced by a mobile clinic which
visits once a month or does not come at all. Other socio-economic services such
as banks, shops and transport (taxis) were also not available. The community
further reported that even though they travel many kilometers to visit the
offices of the Department of Social Development, they received ill treatment
from officials when they apply for grants. The farmer was also intimidating
them by randomly shooting in the air as they still reside near to his farm.
The delegation also met with a community
representative from Kuygha (built in 2007) who gave a clear picture of poverty
and frustrations of the community in her area.
She indicated that there was no water, no toilets, falling walls,
leaking and loose roofs.
The provincial
representative confirmed that Thubelisha has purchased a piece of land six
years ago in St Albans. Beneficiaries have been identified and lists are ready.
He further informed the delegation that money has been set aside and the St
Albans project was earmarked to start in 2009. An application for Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) was submitted to the Environmental Affairs Department
and the approval was received 2 years later. However the approval was subject
to certain conditions which are contested on the second application.
Beneficiaries have
been identified and lists are ready. He further informed the delegation that
money has been set aside and the St Albans project was earmarked to start in
2009.
During interaction
the delegation enquired about those conditions cited in the report. The official
was not able to clarify as there was no document in his possession. The
delegation advised the officials to organise short term services such as water
tanks that provide water to both Fisher’s Corner and Kuygha. The delegation
further advised that a system should be devised that will redirect the water
from the mountain streams. The delegation further requested that the copy of
the EIA report be made available so as to check problems that caused the delays
and to find out what the conditions were as set out in the report.
The Councilor
welcomed the delegation on behalf of the Mayor who was absent due to other
urgent municipal commitments. The Councilor stated that the municipality faced
the following challenges:
Ř A problem with the drainage of storm water as
no structure can last due to too much water that is saturated in the soil.
Ř Contractors do not
supervise their workers and leave as soon as they receive payment. A decision has been taken to build houses in
phases and move people in as soon as they are completed.
The municipality
reported that they have a backlog of approximately 1 500 houses. It was
reported that the shortage of water is a challenge in the Ndlambe area. In
order to address this challenge a research investigation had concluded that
sewerage water could either be converted into drinking water, or water could be
obtained from Grahamstown at a cost of 1,2 billion.
A conclusive report
was given on projects under rectification in the Ndlambe municipality. Mr Luyanda
Dyani from the Housing Department of Ndlambe, assisted by Mr Emmanuel Myatalo,
the project manager, reported that Cacadu District has nine municipalities
which are as follows: Bavians, Blue Crane, Camdeboe, Ikhwezi, Coega, Koukama,
Makana, Ndlambe and Sundays River.
Mr Mayinje an
employee of the municipality further reported that, the project at Ward 1, in
the Ndlambe area was blocked after four years of existence. He reported that 50
houses were built without toilets, 44 were not finished yet, 38 not yet built
and 5 were completed. He reported that at Bavians houses were completed. The
contractor is demanding payment for plastering the houses which was part of the
agreement and that was causing delays in handing over the houses to
beneficiaries.
In the Ikhwezi
(project 418) and Janseville (project 350) districts, registration of
beneficiaries was in process. The old houses were to be assessed by people from
Heritage Council under the Department of Arts and Culture as to whether they
could be retained or demolished to make space for new projects.
In Koukama the
project was taken over by the Department due to mismanagement by the
Contractor. The project is also encountering water shortage. It was reported
that 10 projects were under the process of fixing plastering of walls and
ceilings.
Makana has two
projects, Eluxolweni which was 75% of houses are complete and Fingo which has
577. Some family houses were put under trust due to family in-fighting, with a
family member claiming to be the sole beneficiary of the house.
Sundays River has
five projects that are doing well due to transfers. Beneficiaries have no money
to pay the Claims Administrator for the transfers.
The District proposed that the Department
should refund them of the funds that were not used in the previous financial
year. They further reported that at Thornhill the project has already installed
the infrastructure and the construction of houses will follow.
On a site visit to
Kenton on Sea, the delegation met Mr Magwa, the contractor of the Inxili
Construction. Mr Magwa highlighted their frustrations as contractors as
follows:
Ř Value added tax and
implications on housing delivery; currently the subsidy is Zero rated,
resulting to a contractor the burden of 14% on behalf of the developer.
Ř Housing competence
at Local Authority.
Ř Shoddy workmanship
and the lack of enough experience and competent technical staff on the ground.
Ř Assistance to
SMME’s/emerging contractors in order to be able to grow.
Ř Supplier protection
and the taking of responsibility of materials by municipalities who act as
developer.
Ř Long lead and
turnaround time for Project approvals, payments order, etc.
Ř Appointment of mega
contractors when the need arises.
Ř Identification of
related programmes to assist the Department in spending all its funds.
Ř Political
interference in housing project.
The project was
faced with challenges of walls inside the houses not being built up to the
ceiling. Houses have no inside doors and aprons that prevent walls from
dampness. The Province committed itself to fix identified errors such as build
walls to the ceiling and install water together with showers and sinks in the
bathroom and kitchen respectively. The Province also undertook to fix the
roofs.
The officials
reported that the first phase of the project was approved in 2004 which
consists of 509 units. The project will have single, double and double storey
houses which will accommodate low, middle and high income earners. Bulk
infrastructure was in place and they were ready to start building. There were
4000 beneficiaries identified of which 350 have been approved. Other phases
will wait for bulk services to be installed.
The officials
reported that the Masakhe project had 721 units built in 1997. They were built
with bricks and blocks on 34 to 36 square metres. The houses were still on
assessment for rectification from the top to the floor slab. The delegation was
assured that the problems would be rectified or demolished pending the finding
of the assessment. A toilet and an extra
room will be added.
It was identified
that the project had major cracks and falling walls. Some walls were half built
and had one bedroom with no toilet.
The Sonwabile
project was built on 40 meter square plots and has the same challenges as
Masakhe.
The Communities
complained about the Municipality delays in responding to their complaints. An
elderly citizen cited that she had reported the challenges with her toilet some
time ago but has had no response from the municipality.
The delegation was
informed that an 18 year old woman had lost her parents and was living in a
house that was falling apart with her unemployed boyfriend and with their 3
year old child. During interaction the delegation established that the young
lady was interested to go back to school and had no resources. The National
Department was requested to assist the woman through the Departmental
Assistance programme
Mr Yekani (Mayor of
Molteno & Sterkstroom) welcomed the delegation. Mr Ndevana the ward
Councilor briefed the delegation about the project. He stated that the project
was approved and started in 1999, upgrading the old location with 412 houses.
The project was challenged with walls that were not straight, cracked and
warbling, leaking roofs and poorly constructed foundations.
Vandalism occurred
to houses that were not unoccupied. Most beneficiaries were under-age and
preferred to stay with their parents. Some beneficiaries were working in other
towns such as Johannesburg and left their houses unattended.
The delegation
advised the Municipality to conduct a research of each unoccupied house and
compile a report that will be tabled before the council. Based on the report
the council would take a resolution to recommend de-listing of those
beneficiaries.
The project has 800
units and was started in 2002 and was blocked in 2005 due to disputes between
labourers and sub-contractors. Only slabs were finished by the time the project
was terminated. It was unblocked in 2007 and 352 units were approved for
rectification.
The HOD reported
that they were going to meet the NHBRC.
Tenders were called for and a contractor has been appointed. A
contractor management support committee was also appointed. Consultations have
been done with beneficiaries, emerging contractors and material supplier.
The Department is
planning to beef up the supplier/contract relationship. The HOD informed the
delegation that the Department has a 53% vacancy rate; therefore project
monitoring was very difficult.
This is a
rectification project with an approved budget of R3 475 251, 00. The project is
running slowly and the completion date is 31 March 2010.
The
delegation was informed of the following challenges:
Ř The initial cash
advance by the Provincial Department of Housing (PDOH) to the NHBRC for
rectification has been completely spent as at March 2009.
Ř PDOH will now only
effect payments to value created on site.
Ř The original
rectification specification is invalid in that the scope of work has increased
to include non-structural defects.
Ř There is insufficient
project scope in including social facilitation, temporary shelters and
operational health and safety in budget funding.
Ř Incapacity of NHBRC
to carry out the duties of an implementing agent.
Ř There is no clarity
regarding the disposal of residual materials from the rectified houses.
Ř Non performance by
contractors regarding expected quality of rectification work.
The
following intervention strategies were identified:
Ř Application for
funding to be done through a submission to TET for approval of the initial
budget, variations order, temporary shelters, NHBRC project management fees,
supervision by consultants, community facilitation and OHS consultants.
Ř NHBRC to negotiate
with contractors on cost and develop BoQ.
Ř The Service Level
Agreement between the Department and NHBRC to be amended to incorporate the
scope unintentionally left out.
Ř The municipality
will make available a disposal site for waste materials, prepare construction
detail drawings and build show houses to standardize expected quality.
It was reported
that in Ugie the project lacked beneficiaries. To avoid vandalism people who
were available were asked to move in.
In Maclear it was
reported that there were more than 300 units. The contractor was busy with the
rectification of houses that were blown away. Progress was very slow. The units
were of poor quality, lacking beneficiaries. There were no water connections,
no sewerage and no electricity.
In Cala the project
has more than 500 units that were vacant. The project had the same challenges
as Maclear.
Councilor Sello
Ntai, the Mayor of Matatiele welcomed the delegation, the Executive Mayor Mr GG
Mpumza, Councilors from Umzimvubu Municipality as well as Local Councilors in
attendance. He further acknowledged and welcomed national, provincial,
municipal and NHRBC officials. The MEC, Ms Mabandla joined the delegation
whilst the Chairperson was addressing the meeting. The Chairperson welcomed and
thanked the MEC for joining the team. She stated that, as the delegation was
approaching the last round of the visit/engagements with the Province, it was
important for the MEC to get a preliminary overview on the observations made by
the delegation about the service delivery in the Province.
The Chairperson
further stated that the delegation understood that the MEC has inherited a
mess. She also assured the MEC that the Committee is committed to support the
MEC and the Province in every endeavor to uplift the lives of the citizens of
this country. The delegation has observed similar challenges in all the
projects e.g. projects reported to be rectified requires re-rectification and
houses handed over without sanitation provision. The delegation was prepared to strengthen oversight
and assist where possible. At some stage
the delegation observed that Councilors were given incorrect information by the
officials and thus causing conflict between Councilors and the Community. Hence, reports tabled in the boardroom
meetings do not reflect what is happening on the ground. The MEC was assured by
the delegation that there was no uncertainty about her leadership and trusted
that she has all the strength to overcome the challenges with the holistic
support from Parliament.
The MEC assured
members that her office was doing everything in its power to improve the
situation. With regard to financial mismanagement, investigations were being
conducted and serious steps would be taken against people who were found to be
guilty.
The Mayor and the
Councilors complained about the lack of consultation in human settlement
developments with regard to the employment of contractors and the local
emerging contractors are being ignored. The Mayor requested that it should be
addressed as it affects the communities by causing conflict that delays the
starting of projects. Disaster areas
were not addressed by the Province even though during the previous Committee
visits it was strongly emphasized that these were to be dealt with urgently.
The issue of the developer (Sdumo Developer) being also the implementing agent
was raised critically, thus causing confusion on the delegated powers of the
Municipality as government.
The presentation by
the officials reflected the state of projects within the district. They reported that all projects were under
rectification and there were also new projects that have been identified that
include rural development. What was
strange in the report was that all the projects have almost the same number of
units. It was further reported that the
rectification programme in Mt Frere, Mt Ayliff and Flagstaff was awarded to one
and the same contractor and that was affecting the performance, resulting in
the slow pace in delivery.
The Mayor raised a
serious concern with the fact that he had in his possession a different version
of the report to the one that was presented by the officials in relation to the
projects within the district. He also raised a great disappointment with the
response from the Department in relation to the long standing disaster affected
areas that were not attended to. He made reference to the occasion when the
Portfolio Committee together with the National Department built a show house in
May 2007, in response to the Dutyini disaster. He indicated that to date
nothing has happened from the side of Provincial Department to take the programme
forward.
With regard to the
above mentioned reports, the delegation was of the view that there was a
serious communication challenge which required urgent attention. It was advised that the MEC should review the
Kentha Construction performance.
The Mayor welcomed
the community and informed them that the delegation from Parliament was there
to listen to their grievances. The Chairperson was given an opportunity to
brief the community on the objectives of the committee visit.
The following
issues were raised by members of the community:
The first resident
complained about lack of communication. She stated that as community members
they were not engaged in decisions affecting their lives. There was no
information being shared and they were being side lined by everybody.
The rectification
pace is very slow. The lists were hidden by the officials and were released
very late. As a result houses were given to very young women and men, old
people were not on the lists. Houses were also sold to people from other
provinces.
The community
complained about the communication issue and the in competency of builders.
They requested that the community should be given an opportunity to tender in
order to provide their services. One member mentioned that as the Youth
Development Forum in the area they are not given any
space to show-case their skills. Tenders are given to contractors and
subcontractors that are not known in the area, who do not have even common
working equipment such as spades to start with.
The
Youth Development Forum requested the municipality to consider youth
empowerment and the local development programmes. The Forum further requested
that their complaints that were tabled six months ago be addressed and that
they be involved as beneficiaries of all housing projects in the area.
Some of
the residents directed their complaints to the Mayor expressing their
frustrations as the citizens of the area that were not happy at all. They
mentioned that they were once called to a meeting with the Mayor. However, on
their arrival only a few were allowed to enter the hall while the rest were
locked outside the gates. They wanted to know what takes one to qualify for a
house. They questioned the prioritization of people from Mt. Fletcher and Mt.
Ayliff in Matatiele as opposed to residents who were from the area. Some
members of the community also raised the unavailability of reserved land to
build churches in the area.
This
project was under the rectification programme. In that project the plan or
design was not acceptable as the toilets in the houses were in the main
bedroom. During the previous visit it
was recommended that the toilet be moved, sinks be installed and the inside
wall should be built to the ceiling. But
the delegation was shocked to find that even though they were rectified, not
all the previous recommendations were being considered. The delegation observed
that while walls were rectified the toilet was still there and the sink was
installed inside the room next to the toilet.
The cracks in the walls were becoming worse and the contractor was not
addressing this.
The
access roads remained in the terrible state that they were in since 2007. The area is still dark even though it was
recommended that a mast light be installed to alleviate criminal activities in
the area.
The community
complained that the houses in the established Njongweville were sold out by the
Sdumo Developer. The delegation was informed of occasions where a house owner
makes an arrangement to pay extra for an additional room and due to economic
challenges the owner fails to pay and the developer evicts and sells the house.
The concern of the delegation was that the house does not belong to the
developer and the owner during that period, so that would require that an
investigation should be conducted. The
delegation affirmed that rectification should seriously take into account the
recommendations made by delegations from the previous Parliament. Furthermore,
houses with major structural defects should be demolished and temporary
accommodation should be provided and the Municipality should attend to the
issue of access roads urgently.
The Committee
decided not to visit the project as it was reported that the status was similar
to Njongweville Ext and the project was also under rectification but the
process had not yet begun.
In this project
there were 119 houses completed. The houses did not have an apron. There was no cooperation between the
municipality and the Councilor in the handing over of the houses to the
beneficiaries, hence the process was done by the Intern Staff (project manager). Beneficiaries were given letters to sign
stating their satisfaction (happy letters), yet the houses were
incomplete. It was further not clear who
was handling the beneficiary list as the ward Councilor and the Mayor did not
have access to such processes.
During interaction
the Mayor reported that the Council had never taken a decision to hand over
houses. The interns were mandated to educate beneficiaries on how to look after
their houses and not to hand them over.
The delegation
advised officials that although the housing development is the competency of
the Province, the consultation with the Municipality as well as Ward Councilor
was very crucial. Councilors are accountable to their communities; therefore
they have to be given an opportunity to access the information, so that they
can be able to respond to the community concerns properly.
The Mayor was
advised to convene a meeting with the Ward Councilor and the officials to
verify if the approved beneficiary list is still legitimate, as there are
allegations of manipulations reported by the community.
It was reported
that development started in 2002 and was blocked in 2005. Phase 1 has 341 units
and Phase 2 has 247 units. It was further reported that the completion date was
set for September 2009, but was later extended to November 2009. A meeting has
been set to discuss a further extension date requested by the contractor for a
period of eight months. The beneficiary list is available at the municipal
offices.
During
interaction the delegation was not in agreement with the view to extend the
contractor period as this development has taken a very long time. However the MEC was requested to discuss the
matter with the contractor.
Ř Members of the
steering committee complained about one of their ex-members, who was bullying
the community by stopping the installation of doors, a project done by a hired
subcontractor.
Ř It was alleged that
the above member used to be a sub-contractor whose services were terminated due
to his ill behavior of stealing material and cement.
The delegation
requested the MEC to attend to the challenges together with the contractor as
the member was previously appointed by the contractor.
It was reported
that the project has 700 houses that required rectification. The project was
valued at R39m of which R18m had already been spent. The project manager stated
that they had made provision for temporary houses whilst rectifying the houses.
Stemele Bosc Africa Engineers were appointed to do all the pre-planning
activities and the budget for construction for internal services will be
determined by a tender report.
The challenge was
similar to the previous circumstances where people were moved into the
incomplete houses with no sanitation provisions.
The contractor also
complained about the scarcity of water in the area resulting in difficulties on
project implementation.
The Department was
instructed to provide temporary arrangements for sanitation purposes.
The Committee
decided not to proceed with the visit to this project because it was reported
that there were only slabs and a few wall plates that had been constructed.
The delegation was informed about the following challenges:
Ř The rectified
houses don’t have running water and beneficiaries move in even though the
project is not finished. Owing to lack of water, residents are forced to use
their neighbour’s toilets.
Ř The non –performance of Kentha Construction
who was also appointed to work in Mt Frere and Flagstaff.
The committee
stated that the fact that people did not have toilets in their houses was
unacceptable and needed to be addressed urgently. The committee suggested the
erection of temporary toilets.
1.
People in most houses are living under life
threatening conditions. Dividing walls are full of cracks, wobbling, and not
firmly grounded. This was very scary and people feared that they might fall at
any minute. There were also no showers in the houses.
2.
The architecture of the houses does not take
into account the privacy and the dignity of the people.
3.
The
structural defects remained, although the rectification programme was claimed
to have been completed. There were no signs of rectification or construction
undertaken in some areas. Some of the defect observed were:
3.1
Ceilings
were being installed although the roofs were leaking.
3.2
There was no water connection.
3.3
There was
no access to roads
3.4
There were
no proper sanitation facilities e.g. people were relieving themselves in the
bush, neighbors’ toilets or some using buckets.
3.5
There was no clean water.
3.6
There was
no access to clinics and medicines.
3.7
There were no schools and the crčche in Duncats
informal settlement is disgusting; kids are exposed to health hazards.
4.
There was a lack of commitment and disregard for
human dignity and a lack of Batho Pele principles and an overall lack of work
ethic.
5.
There was a lack of monitoring and evaluation as follows:
5.1
Project managers and contractors do not communicate with the
community.
5.2
Councilors are not involved in projects and are not in a
position to address the community complaints because they lack information.
5.3
There is a lack of monitoring, evaluation and inspection in
most projects.
5.4
There was a lack of
communication from the Province to local Municipalities as Councilors and the
communities were not aware or informed about the delegation’s visit.
5.5
Unreliable information was provided by an official who
produced control sheets reflecting that the work is completed only to find that
it is not.
5.6
Beneficiaries are forced to move into houses with defects.
6.
Although the Breaking
New Ground (BNG) Policy was launched in 2004, houses built are not complying
with the policy.
7.
There is no greening, no play ground, no amenities as
stipulated in the policy.
8.
There is a lack of proper management, coordination and
transparency of beneficiary lists which results in uncertainty, suspicion and
corruption.
9.
There is a lack of community involvement in the housing
development processes.
10.
There is a lot of littering in the Nelson Mandela Metro and
in most informal settlements.
11.
Spiraling costs of material have a negative impact on the
projects.
12.
There is a lack of suitable land for human settlement
development.
13.
There is a lack of capacity from some emerging contractors.
14.
There is a lack of
access to funding due to late payment of suppliers.
15.
Some established contractors take advantage and produce poor
quality work e.g. in Cala.
16.
The contractors leave the rubble on site.
17.
There is
mismanagement of funds.
18.
Cacadu area is very dry. Water is scarce and it impacts on
housing delivery.
19.
The occupancy audit report which was conducted by SERVCON
has not been released in the Nelson Mandela Metro.
Recommendations by the Committee:
1.
The Committee strongly recommends that every development
should comply with the Human Settlement’s principles and policies (BNG). Houses
which are handed over to beneficiaries should conform to these principles. Each
house should be equipped with access to water, sanitation and electricity as
these are basic rights for each and every citizen. If some of these services in selected
circumstances cannot be provided on a permanent basis, temporary arrangements
should be put in place. Greening projects, as well as sports grounds have to be
built in places where people reside.
2.
Intergovernmental and intra-governmental planning should be
seriously considered to address the bulk infrastructure and provide sustainable
human settlements (all amenities).
3.
The Department should look at a national policy to
coordinate and manage beneficiary lists that would take into account the active
public, municipalities and Provincial participation e.g. Housing Forums.
4.
Municipalities that have appointed implementing agents to act
on their behalf should take charge of the development as this is a delegated
responsibility.
5.
Project managers have to reside closer to the projects which
they were managing.
6.
Projects inspection by the Department should be conducted
properly to ensure that good quality projects were completed on time.
7.
Opportunities should be allowed for developer
contracts/agreements to be reviewed when timeframes are unreasonably adhered
to.
8.
In terms of the escalation of building materials the
Department is advised to conduct a research on a possible intervention to
address this challenge as it impacts on the government housing subsidy programme
9.
Regulations to guide timeframes for speedy EIA process e.g.
cross reference should be conducted. This recommendation does not refer to
sensitive areas like wetlands. However the reality is that this could not take
more than six months e.g. changing of land use.
10.
Reported cases of corruption must be well investigated and
dealt with promptly.
11.
There should be effective and efficient management and
monitoring of rectification projects to avoid re-rectification of what has
already been rectified.
12.
The report to be formally forwarded to the legislature.
General comments
The Committee notes
with concern that project rectification and change in design is very costly
especially when the project has been approved. Therefore the planning stage is
the critical stage to be considered (to get it right from the beginning). If
this approach is not taken seriously, Government is left with no other
alternative other than to compromise new project developments. House design
should take into account the current needs and restoration of people’s dignity
and integrity, and if this is done at the planning stage, efficiencies should
be increased and costs reduced. With the trends and pace of delivery currently
demonstrated, the state would not be able to deliver on its election
mandate.
The values, norms
and standards set by government are not adhered to in some areas. Therefore, there is a great need to
strengthen up the strategic operational delivery agents so that they can be
held accountable. Risk management
strategies, capacity building and re-skilling of personnel are paramount.
The Committee has
agreed concurrently that they will delegate members to do follow ups and also
to visit other areas where there are challenges.
Report to be
considered