Cities Alliance Project Output

National Upgrading Support Programme Assessment Report

Strengthening the South African National Upgrading Support

Programme

P111510

This project output was created with Cities Alliance grant funding.

NATIONAL UPGRADING SUPPORT PROGRAMME

ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR NATIONAL DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND CITIES

ALLIANCE

FINAL REPORT

Disclaimer This report was produced for the South African National Department of Housing and Cities Alliance as part of their partnership to develop a National Upgrading Support Programme. Any opinions contained in the report are those of the Assessment Team, and do not necessarily represent the views of either the Department of Housing or Cities Alliance. Acknowledgement The Assessment Team would like to thank all those community members, government officials, politicians and other development practitioners who gave their time to share their experiences and information in the development of this report. Any factual errors or misinterpretations are the responsibility of the Assessment Team.

CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1 Background 1 2 Assessment Process 1 CHAPTER 2 ASSESSMENT 3 1 Policy and Programme Issues 5 1.1 Part 3 National Housing Code 2007 4 1.2 Setting Targets: 2014 6 1.3 Matching Subsidy Allocations to Prevailing Conditions 8

1.4 A Genuine In Situ Approach to Upgrading Informal Settlements

9

1.5 Inclusion Programmes 10 1.6 HIV and AIDS 12 1.7 Promoting Self-Reliance 12 1.8 ‘One House Up - One Shack Down’ 14 1.9 Minimising the incidence and impact of relocation 15 1.10 Temporary Relocation Areas 16 1.11 People’s Housing Process (PHP) 18 1.12 Occupations of Land and Property 19 1.13 Security of Tenure 21 2 Practice Issues 23 2.1 Basic Services and Infrastructure 23

2.2 Increase Residential Densities and provide Multi-storey Housing Typologies

25

2.3 Optimising the Design of Subsidised Housing Units 27 2.4 Improved Planning Layouts for Greenfield Sites 29 2.5 Environmental Efficiency 30 2.6 Project Plans and Socio-Economic Surveys 31 2.7 Emergency and Relief Services 32 2.8 Solid Waste Collection in Informal Areas / Recycling 32 2.9 Technical Capacity 33 2.10 Undue influence of technical consultants 34 2.11 Project Management and Sectoral Coordination 35 2.12 Monitoring and Evaluation 36 2.13 Beneficiary Administration 37 2.14 Housing Subsidy System 39 2.15 Improved Public Transport Provision 40 2.16 Land Use Zoning Classifications 41 2.17 Partnerships 42 2.18 Unequal Standards in Mixed Income Housing Developments 43 2.19 Housing Micro-Finance 45 CHAPTER 3 THE NATIONAL UPGRADING SUPPORT PROGRAMME 46 1 Options for Upgrading Informal Settlements 46 2 NUSP rationale, principles and objectives 48 2.1 Rationale 48 2.2 Principles 48 2.3 Objectives 49

3 Indicative First Year NUSP Activities and Timeframe 49 3.1 Rapid appraisals 49 3.2 Citywide inclusion programmes 50 3.3 Participatory planning 50 3.4 Mobilising technical capacity 51 3.5 Indicative NUSP Timeframe 51

1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1 BACKGROUND The National Upgrading Support Programme (NUSP) is a joint project of the National Department of Housing (NDOH) and the Cities Alliance. The partnership was set up to develop the NUSP and so strengthen the nationwide approach to informal settlement upgrading. This approach was unveiled in the department’s 2004 policy statement, Breaking New Ground: The Comprehensive Plan for the Development of Sustainable Human Settlements. It was subsequently regulated in Chapter 13 of the National Housing Code 2004, which sets out a four-phase approach to upgrading: Application: project identification and interim business plan Initiation: and acquisition where required, pre-planning and provision of interim services Implementation: detailed planning, permanent services, secure tenure, land rehabilitation, housing support services Housing consolidation: completion of township establishment, owner registration, and house construction. State-led housing options include contractor-built houses, People’s Housing Process and rental accommodation. A project does not necessarily have to proceed beyond phase three – the community can benefit from secure tenure, improved services and even build their own houses before the final housing consolidation phase is initiated. Chapter 13 was incorporated as Part 3: Upgrading Informal Settlements in the 2007 update of the National Housing Code. The four-phase approach remains the same. It is subsequently referred to in this report as NHC Part 3. The NUSP partnership has three main streams of work: • Assessment of the pilot projects initiated to implement the Breaking New Ground

and NHC Part 3 approach to informal settlement upgrading • Consolidation of lessons and recommendations from the assessment process to

guide the design of the NUSP and its policy and practice context • Establishment and implementation of the NUSP This report covers the assessment, and sets out lessons and recommendations for the NUSP. 2 ASSESSMENT PROCESS The NDOH initiated a set of pilot projects in 2006 to test the new approach to informal settlement upgrading. Numbers varied between one and three pilots in each of the nine provinces. The assessment was carried out over the period September-October 2008, and a final selection of 16 projects was chosen, based on the original list and supplemented with additions suggested by provincial housing department officials. The projects were: Eastern Cape • Duncan Village & Reeston, Buffalo City Municipality, East London • Zanemvula, Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality, Port Elizabeth

2

Free State • Grasslands, Mangaung Municipality, Bloemfontein Gauteng • Chief Albert Luthuli Extension 6, Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality, Benoni • Etwata Extensions 9 & 10, Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality, Benoni KwaZulu Natal • Mount Moriah, Ethekwini Metropolitan Municipality, Durban Limpopo • Disteneng-Seshego Extension 44, Polokwane Municipality, Polokwane • Phomolong Extensions 4, 5 & 6, Mookopong Municipality, Naboomspruit Mpumalanga • Emsagweni, Emahlaleni Municipality, Witbank • Ethandakukhanya Extensions 4 & 5, Mkhondo Municipality, Piet Retief Northern Cape • Lerato Park-Galeshewe, Sol Plaatje Municipality, Kimberley • Ouboks, Umsobomvu Municipality, Colesberg North West • Seraleng, City of Rustenburg Municipality, Rustenburg • Jouberton Extension 24-Kanana Extension 14-Kuma Extension 11, City of

Matlosana Municipality, Kleksdorp Western Cape • Bossiesgrif-Qolweni (‘Coming Together’), Bitou Municipality, Plettenberg Bay • N2 Gateway, City of Cape Town Metropolitan Municipality, Cape Town The Assessment Team visited all 16 projects, and met with relevant provincial and municipal officials. It reviewed the project documents supplied by these officials, as well as the relevant housing sector plans and Integrated Development Plans. These were supplemented with publicly available information from the relevant provincial and national websites. Summaries of the project reviews are included in Appendix One. The outcome of the assessment is that, for the first time, the NDOH has a contemporary evaluation of the pilot projects, and the progress made against the development approach set out in Breaking New Ground and NHC Part 3. The Assessment Team sought to ensure that its findings included not only the outcomes from each project, but also considered the approach taken within each province and municipality.

3

CHAPTER TWO: ASSESSMENT NHC Part 3 requires that in-situ development should be the first resort in any upgrading project; however, the Assessment Team found the reverse to be the case. The majority of projects are, in fact, greenfield relocation projects: Greenfield relocation: 10 projects • Chief Albert Luthuli Extension 6 • Disteneng-Seshego Extension 44 • Ethandakukhanya Extensions 4 & 5 • Grasslands • Jouberton Extension 24-Kanana Extension 14-Kuma Extension 11 • Lerato Park-Galeshewe • Mount Moriah • Phomolong Extensions 4, 5 & 6 • Seraleng • Zanemvula Mixed greenfield relocation and upgrading: 4 projects • Duncan Village & Reeston • Emsagweni • Ouboks • N2 Gateway In situ upgrading: 2 projects • Bossiesgrif-Qolweni (‘Coming Together’) • Etwata Extensions 9 & 10 This variation in approach, and its diversion from the policy and practice set out NHC Part 3, is the main finding of the Assessment mission. Given that NHC Part 3 prescribes a progressive and unequivocal approach towards informal settlement upgrading, the evidence raises an immediate question – why are so few provinces and municipalities choosing not to implement it? This chapter collates and sets out the main issues identified in the Assessment mission, along with responses and recommendations. They are grouped into two broad categories – policy, and practice. Policy issues relate to the policy, strategy and programmatic approaches to informal settlement upgrading, as framed by Breaking New Ground and NHC Part 3. Practice issues relate to technical and implementation aspects drawn from the projects, and the associated provincial and municipal upgrading programmes. In both categories, the Assessment Team has identified both good and bad examples, where appropriate. In particular, the Assessment Team was pleased to note substantial progress across almost all projects, with a substantial number of housing units finished or under construction. In addition there were various individual examples of good practice to be found, including:

4

• Bossiegrif-Qolweni: Implementation of a phased incremental approach to in situ upgrading, involving on-site temporary resettlement for a small number of households. The project is part of a bold municipal redevelopment programme aimed at promoting integrated economic growth and social development. The housing project has excellent community participation in all aspects of planning & development

• Emsagweni: A mixed project of in situ upgrading (755 stands and units) and greenfield development (106 new stands and units) to house displaced households. The project is consistent with Part NHC and has sought to retain the physical character and social networks of the existing community.

• Etwatwa: A consolidation project on an old sites-and-services scheme, this is a well managed in-situ upgrade in a dense physical environment. New 40m² top-structures are being inserted onto the existing 120m² stands to replace shacks. There are also numerous self-built houses, confirming the validity of incremental upgrading.

• Mount Moriah: This is a greenfield relocation project, involving multiple relocations from the ‘source’ communities to the project. The project demonstrates good use of semi-detached units and well-managed construction in the development of a difficult site.

• Ouboks: The municipality has adopted a comprehensive approach to developing all its informal settlements, both in situ and with greenfields development designed to accommodate future growth. The project also demonstrates a high degree of community involvement in both planning and implementation.

• N2 Gateway: Although this project has a contentious history and troubled inter-governmental relations, it has built good examples of double storey units and walk-ups in the Joe Slovo development.

• Zanemvula: This is a complex greenfield relocation project, involving the large-scale removal of households in flood risk areas. Project management is particularly good.

5

1 POLICY AND PROGRAMME ISSUES 1.1 Part 3 National Housing Code 2007 Part 3 of the National Housing Code 2007 sets out the national approach to informal settlement upgrading; however it is not prominent in policy, programmes or practice across the pilot projects. The Assessment Team found little awareness of, and very few explicit references to Part 3 (or its 2004 forerunner Chapter 13). The Western Cape Department of Housing was a notable exception to this situation – its Upgrading of Informal Settlements Programme is structured directly along the lines set out in NHC Part 3. The Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality also includes NHC Part 3 guidelines in its sustainable community planning approach. The lack of prominence for NHC Part 3 is surprising, given that it is very clear on a phased approach to informal settlement upgrading, prioritises in-situ upgrading, provides options for tenure arrangements, rehabilitation of marginal land, and seeks to benefit all inhabitants of informal settlements, not just subsidy qualifiers. It is a practical extension of the positions expounded in Breaking New Ground to promote sustainable human settlements for poor communities. Mainstreaming the provisions of NHC Part 3 by implementing in situ upgrading programmes nationwide would both complement and greatly expand the breadth and impact of government’s current programmes. So why is NHC Part 3 not more prominent even in the pilot projects? In the Assessment Team’s view, likely reasons include: • Conventional, quantitative housing delivery continues to dominate development

policies and approaches to the point that the provision of top-structures is perceived as the only ‘solution’.

• Holistic, integrated and locally appropriate solutions seem to have little traction among government practitioners, probably because of their limited experience with in situ upgrading and concern that such methods can be human resource intensive and complex.

• Limited appreciation of how progressive in situ upgrading protects and strengthens the survival strategies of the poor, while minimising their exposure to external shocks.

• The persistent narrow view that a sustainable human settlement project is primarily about housing, plus identification of sites to be developed for social amenities by other sectoral departments

• Capacity shortages of experienced project managers able to handle complex projects

These perceptions are compounded by the emphasis in official statements and in practice on the ‘eradication’ of informal settlements - rather recognizing both the immediate and long term benefits of in situ upgrading. Consequently, there are few examples of incremental upgrading and in many cases there is a dominant official mindset at provincial and municipal level of ‘new-build good, upgrade bad’. This rigid ‘one size fits all’ mindset unnecessarily risks condemning thousands of households to living in degraded environments while waiting in long lines for ‘the full housing package’.

6

Recommendations The NDOH must: • Publicise and broadly disseminate NHC Part 3, through national circulars, ‘road-

shows’ and discussion sessions at national, provincial and local levels, involving politicians and practitioners.

• Issue a clear policy statement on the significance of informal settlements and the importance of incremental upgrading approaches and people-oriented housing and services solutions, to complement and expand the impacts of current housing delivery programmes

• Re-emphasise NHC Part 3 requirements in IDP Housing Chapters Scrutinise more closely project plans for Part 3 compliance, particularly in respect of high levels of relocation, community participation, and projects that do not consolidate urban spatial form

• Develop a capacity building programme on informal settlement upgrading for government and professional practitioners including the key theme of protecting and promoting sustainable livelihoods. Potential partnerships with Higher Education Institutions should be explored.

1.2 Setting Targets: 2014 The National Housing Code 2004 Chapter 13 set a target for upgrading the living conditions of close to 2.9 million households in informal settlements over a period of 15 years (2005-2020). It makes reference to and is in line with the MDG goal of “improving the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers by 2020” as proposed in the Cities Without Slums action plan. It is subsequently confirmed in NHC Part 3 (2007) as the national goal to upgrade all informal settlements by 2014. However, numerous public political statements and policy documents at all levels of government refer to the ‘eradication’ of all informal settlements by the set date. Setting targets for the upgrading of informal settlements is both necessary and an obvious key indicator of political will. However, the target articulated in NHC Part 3 has been widely misinterpreted to imply that the government will build new top structures for all the residents of informal settlements by 2014. Counting new top structures alone is a counterproductive measure of improving the lives of informal settlement households. Notwithstanding the continued large-scale provision of new housing, promising new housing for all informal settlement households by 2014 establishes a very challenging target that is unlikely to be met. The following calculation illustrates the financial implications of the target: • 1.6 million households living in informal settlements (Stats SA Community Survey

2007) • Cost of a serviced stand and top structure at R67 916 (2008/09 Subsidy

Quantum: top structure R43 506; informal settlement upgrading, excluding relocation grant: R24 410)

• 1.6 million serviced stands and top structures would cost around R108.7 billion. If the national housing budget continues to increase in line with the projected Medium Term Expenditure Framework, it will have a cumulative total of around R127.5 billion by 2014/15. So the cost of re-housing the existing informal settlement dwellers would

7

require 82% of the cumulative budget. This figure makes no allowance for: • Informal settlements growth, due to demographic changes, household formation

and in-migration • Increases in building cost escalation The goal of improving the lives of informal settlement households, as articulated in NHC Part 3 can be met, if government fast tracks the in situ provision of improved basic services and secure tenure and includes in its counting the number of informal settlement households whose lives have been improved through these efforts. Informal settlement households would then be seen, and see themselves, as the beneficiaries of programmes designed to formalise their positions, build their assets and upgrade their services, rather than being reduced to numbers on waiting lists for top structures and totally dependent on government. Since informal settlements are generally better located and in much closer proximity to livelihood opportunities and social services than new housing sites, in situ upgrading (as opposed to ‘slum clearance’ or ‘eradication’) is also critical to the success of efforts to develop sustainable human settlements, especially in meeting government’s goals to overcome spatial distortions, strengthen social capital and make housing markets work for the poor. Response Targeting the in situ upgrading of existing informal settlements should be promoted as a core component of government’s housing strategy. The focus should be on setting clear targets locally for the provision of security of tenure, infrastructure and services and working directly with the community on plans to increase density - both to avoid the displacement of residents as well as to provide them with options and incentives to progressively create more living space. Informal settlements that face a high risk of frequent flooding or are in other dangerous locations should be moved and these residents should have priority for the new top structures which are being built. New area development should be planned with the explicit objective of helping to prevent the growth of new slums by providing options to new urban migrants and expanding households, as well as resettling the strictly limited number of household that are currently living on sites which are at greatest risk. The focus of upgrading should be on ‘inclusion’ – developing citywide inclusion programmes with time-bound targets to progressively provide all informal settlement households with improved infrastructure and services and with support to improve their housing over time. Cities that develop multi-sectoral citywide inclusion programmes that minimise relocations and engage informal settlement communities in the planning and upgrading process should be rewarded with secure three-year funding flows to support implementation. As government strives to redirect and enhance existing mechanisms and introduce new instruments to achieve its poverty reduction and related sustainable human settlements goals, the appropriate target for NHC Part 3 is the number of informal settlement households which have benefited from the provision of secure tenure and basic services and are empowered with incentives to build their assets and improve their housing over time. These targets should be set locally then aggregated and monitored nationally with built in budgetary incentives for local authorities meeting their targets.

8

Recommendations The NDOH must: • In conjunction with the DPLG, promote the development of city-wide inclusion

programmes by municipalities, including programmes for informal settlement upgrading, and support these through the provision of three-year funding flows

• Rather than only counting new top structures promote the target of ‘Improved basic infrastructure, services and land tenure for all informal settlement households by 2014’

1.3 Matching Subsidy Allocations (Supply) to Prevailing Conditions

(Demand)

Section 2.2 below outlines the need to introduce alternative higher density forms of subsidised housing at scale, including two storey detached, semi detached and row houses, as well as 3-4 storey walk up apartments. There is every reason to believe that there will be general acceptance of these high-density housing alternatives if they are objectively presented to potential beneficiaries as viable options that will help minimise the need for relocation away from established informal settlements, social services, community networks and places of employment. These alternatives also have greater potential for increasing value as housing assets due to their generally better location. However, even if these alternative high-density house types are built in large numbers and to reduced specifications, the key issue in determining their feasibility is likely to be the fact that the cost of construction may well exceed prevailing subsidy limits for top structures. Response It is important that as well as adopting a more incremental approach to informal settlement upgrading, Government mainstreams higher density housing solutions as a major thrust in addressing the current backlog and future housing demand in rapidly urbanising municipalities with limited land availability. The prevailing paradigm dominated by ‘one size fits all’ needs to be replaced with a more nuanced framework in which different demand side conditions will be met by correspondingly different supply side solutions. For example, in Northern Cape where there is a relatively small housing demand but no practical limitations on the availability of municipal land, standard residential densities and housing typologies linked to the existing housing subsidy formula can still apply. By contrast, in Ekurhuleni, Ethekwini, Rustenburg and Buffalo City for instance, where limited land availability conflicts with high levels of demand, the need for increased residential densities linked to some form of multi-storey unit will require alterative (increased) housing subsidy allocations. Therefore in order to more closely match supply to demand Government should review the current formula for determining the subsidy allocation for top structures on the basis of specific provincial or even municipal conditions. The additional subsidy needed to cover the construction cost of multi-storey high density housing could be granted in a similar manner to the current 15% contingency granted for difficult terrain.

9

Recommendations • The NDOH must promote high-density solutions in those key municipalities with

very high land pressure, suitable for high density/multi storey housing delivery at scale .

• The NDOH must require that communities be presented with housing/relocation options in all informal settlement upgrading projects. The demonstration of housing alternatives should be in plan and model form, and if possible as prototype units.

• Based on feedback from beneficiary communities, recommendations included in municipal IDPs and Housing Sector Plans and a detailed scrutiny of plans and cost estimates, the NDOH must review the prevailing subsidy formula to include additional targeted (municipal-specific) contingencies needed to cover a range of high density/multi storey housing solutions. It should also explore the possibility of instituting incentives to municipalities to institute high-density housing.

1.4 A Genuine In situ approach to Upgrading Informal Settlements One of the overriding impressions formed in the course of the Assessment Team mission was that, contrary to the recommendations of NHC Part 3 of the National Housing Code, municipalities are approaching informal settlement upgrading mainly on the basis of large scale relocation of resident households to greenfield sites. Even in municipalities where something of an upgrading approach was being adopted or is being proposed, the methodology (with possibly two exceptions in Colesberg and Witbank), was not what could be considered to be bona fide in-situ upgrading, but one which instead involved the removal of households and their shacks to Temporary Relocation Areas (TRA) pending completion of any requisite site formation works and the introduction of infrastructure and services. There is no doubt that this ‘temporary’ relocation of households and dismantling of existing structures greatly facilitates the introduction of infrastructure and services, as well as the creation of regular formal planning layouts based on standard residential stand sizes. However, this quasi in-situ approach has a number of disadvantages: As in the case of permanent relocation, temporary removal and resettlement of households is extremely disruptive and traumatic for targeted communities. Furthermore it breaks down the social capital invariably found in existing, well-established communities formed through family ties, neighbourhood linkages and community organisations. Although originally intended as temporary relocation, such resettlement can often prove semi-permanent - residents in the Durban Ridgeview TRA have been housed in sub-standard accommodation for around three years without any indication of the timing and location of their promised serviced stand and housing unit entitlement). In many cases temporary relocation involves the dismantling and removal of structures which are built of permanent or semi-permanent building materials, or which are substantially larger than the proposed TRA accommodation (and often larger than the proposed subsidised housing unit) and as such represent a considerable investment on the part of the occupant household.

10

Response Aside from the need to re-examine the manner in which decisions regarding upgrading as opposed to the relocation of informal settlements are taken, there is also a need to reconsider the manner in which so called in-situ upgrading is undertaken. In terms of project preparation, aside from the need for in-depth socio-economic surveys, there is a need for detailed physical surveys (aided by aerial photography) to determine the prevailing settlement pattern in terms of the existing circulation (road and footpath) network as well as disposition and condition of shacks and structures. Using this as the basis, upgrading proposals should first be prepared around an appropriate road, footpath and mains infrastructure /services network, applying in the process appropriate road/footpath design standards. The advice given in Part 3 allows for this, stating that while layouts must cater adequately for municipal and other services (waste collection, emergency services) it is not necessary to provide vehicular access to each individual property. Without in anyway compromising the design efficiency/cost effectiveness of the infrastructure/services proposals, the first iteration of upgrading proposals should attempt to minimise the need for total or partial demolition of existing structures. Where demolitions are necessary, these should be restricted to less permanent / poor condition structures that represent a reduced investment in the part of owners. In addition, sites should be identified well in advance for proposed relocatee households. This stage of the upgrading process will inevitably require intense, first hand consultation with the community: - not just with ward councillors and committee members, but most importantly with all potentially affected households. This consultation process should be undertaken on the basis of focus groups linked to the residential blocks defined by the proposed road/footpath network layout. It is on the basis of these same residential blocks/focus groups that the next stage of the upgrading process, involving the determination of stand sizes, can be undertaken. Recommendations The NDOH must: • Through the NUSP, design and circulate an upgrading manual illustrating best

upgrading practice drawing on the many existing examples both nationally and internationally.

• Initiate a training programme to accompany the manual, for urban planners, engineers, housing specialists, social workers, community development workers and community liaison officers in selected priority municipalities.

1.5 Inclusion Programmes Relatively few provinces and municipalities interviewed by the Assessment Team had an explicit planned programme for informal settlement upgrading, or an understanding of the scale of delivery required to meet the 2104 target. The Ekurhuleni metro has a thorough programmatic approach, based on a clear migration plan that identifies the number of households to be upgraded and relocated along with potential capacities of greenfield projects. It has a current fast track complement

11

of projects (‘Project 56’). Cape Town also has an informal settlements master plan, is committed to providing essential basic services to all of its 223 informal settlements by the end of 2009, and is developing a multi-year strategy to guide further upgrading in the longer term. The Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality has identified all informal settlements within its jurisdiction and has an upgrading strategy in place to address conditions in these areas based on a sustainable community planning approach. Colesberg illustrates an equally well-organised approach in a much smaller municipality, with able assistance from the province and district municipality. The Emahlahleni municipality is a good example of a secondary city that has put a good deal of effort into diligent spatial planning and forward programming of its projects, and has a clear idea of its progress. Regrettably, other municipalities and provinces do not exhibit similar consistency in forward planning and programming of upgrading projects. The Assessment Team noted various examples of sub-national governments relying on an ad hoc project-by-project approach. The lack of a strong forward programme can be attributed to a variety of factors – technical capacity shortages, interference by politicians unwilling to relinquish a ‘hands-on’ role that in some cases has as much to do with control of patronage as projecting visible strong leadership, and the complexity of real development problems that make it difficult to know where to start. However, the lack of a robust programmatic approach seriously undermines performance and delivery. It weakens the links between projects and budgeting, and undermines the importance of detailed spatial information for accurate planning around land capacities and acquisition. It also gives rise to a disjunction or even self-delusion between stated intentions of delivery, and the likely reality of achieving such targets. Breaking New Ground stresses the importance of inclusion of poor and marginalised communities in the planned development of urban areas. The Assessment Team believes that this theme should be strengthened and inclusion programmes be developed, with action plans for the upgrading of all informal settlements in each municipality. Recommendations • Where effective programmes are weak or absent, municipalities must institute

rapid appraisals of all informal settlements in their jurisdiction. These appraisals should include shack counts, population estimates, estimates of levels of services, and development constraints. These appraisals should take the form of fieldwork and supplementary desk-top analysis, and form the basis for initial categorisation of the development response for each informal settlement. They subsequently become the first stage in the development of a comprehensive programme, and then provide the basis for the subsequent project identification and implementation phases required under NHC Part 3.

• The NDOH can encourage the development of programmatic approaches at municipal level by providing guidance in operational manuals to be provided by the via the NUSP

• The NDOH needs to re-emphasise need for good quality IDP Housing Chapters, which include a specific programme for informal settlement development, migration plans, and clear links to Spatial Development Frameworks and municipal land audits.

12

1.6 HIV and AIDS The Assessment Team found few examples of specific provision for people living with or affected HIV/AIDS, nor efforts to bring in programmes on education, nutrition or HIV/AIDS awareness. A notable exception was at Ethandakukhanya where the Mkhondo Municipality was working with the local group of the National Association of People living with HIV/AIDS (NAPWHA), supporting the development of a centre for Orphans & Vulnerable Children, and the provision of VCT services and home-based care. In Klerksdorp, housing subsidy application forms were made available at the Tsephong Wellness Centre for users. This is despite the stated intention of the Informal Settlement Upgrading programme to improve the health and security of people living in informal settlements. The risk of HIV/AIDS in informal settlements is well known – the HSRC/Mandela Foundation research of 2005, and included in the SANAC National Aids Plan (2007) showed that prevalence rates (number of people infected by HIV) are double those of formal settlements. One in four people between the ages of 15 and 49 years living in urban informal settlements is currently HIV-Positive. New or rapidly growing settlements, areas on transport routes and towns with high numbers of migrant workers and/or mineworkers are particularly at risk – this would include Colesberg, Rustenburg and Klerksdorp. If the pilot projects are representative, then the Informal Settlement Upgrading Programme has failed to mainstream the issue of HIV/AIDS in its planning and operations. This needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. Recommendations • The NDOH must impose a stringent requirement that all informal settlement

upgrading projects must include HIV/AIDS responses in their plans and implementation. This should be included as a performance indicator.

• The NDOH, via the NUSP, must provide practical guidance on understanding and integrating HIV/AIDS responses in informal settlement upgrading programmes by inclusion in operational manuals. There are various sources of such advice, including the Isandla Institute’s guide for municipal practitioners: HIV/AIDS and Sustainable Human Settlements in South Africa (2007)

1.7 Promoting Self-Reliance The Assessment Team visited a range of low cost housing projects developed during the 1990s. These were developed as sites and services, where beneficiaries were allocated serviced housing stands on which a free standing sanitary or wet core was provided, comprising a VIP or flush toilet and in some cases also a wash basin. The intention was that upon taking possession of their serviced residential stand beneficiaries would initially erect a temporary shelter or shack for immediate occupation, but would over time expand and improve this and incrementally construct a more permanent dwelling to match their household requirements and in line with their disposable income. Although in many instances there was some initial resistance amongst the urban poor to the sites and services concept (such as the former ‘Toilet City’ site in Duncan Village), it gradually gained some measure of acceptance and most beneficiaries moved onto their allotted residential stand and erected some form of temporary shack accommodation.

13

The Assessment Team noted that subsequent development has broadly followed three tracks: The projects have received top-structures through the Consolidation subsidy (for example, in Duncan Village and Etwatwa) Some beneficiary households remained with their shacks and made minimal improvements. Due either to income constraints or attitude, it seems that these beneficiaries opted instead to wait for Government assistance and the provision of a subsidised top structure. In other cases, beneficiaries did in fact undertake improvements to their initial shack structure and over time have constructed larger and more permanent houses, either on a self-help basis or by employing local building contractors. These houses would have been financed from own resources or via micro-loans. Response Specific income data on this latter category of beneficiary households is not available at present, but evidently a proportion could still qualify either for fully subsidised housing or ‘gap’ housing under present Government eligibility criteria. Self-improvement or self-help housing represents a considerable investment on the part of those households involved. It also lessens Government’s burden in terms of addressing current housing need and incidentally demonstrates the advantages of a flexible incremental approach to housing linked to household needs and affordability as these change over time. It is essential therefore that this attitude of self-reliance does not go unrecognised. However, there is a danger that Government’s perceived promise of subsidised housing for all qualified SA citizens will dull such initiative and result in a totally dependant and unmotivated society awaiting subsidy in a form of national ‘cargo cult’. To avoid this and at the same time give due recognition to and encouragement for greater self reliance and enterprise, there is a need to ensure that those households who have taken the initiative and made some form of self-help housing commitment, but are still eligible for benefit, still receive an element of subsidy support. This could take the form of a home improvement grant, equivalent say to between 50-60% of the current top structure subsidy. In order to encourage and support greater levels of self-help home improvement there will be a need to establish Housing Support Centres in all participating municipalities and if possible in all larger informal settlement or relocation project sites. The Assessment Team did not see any Housing Support Centres in the pilot projects, despite their promotion through NHC Part 3, and the evidence from other projects and municipalities that such facilities are actually very useful in improving the quality of housing. Beyond this, and in consideration of the fact that the standard 40m² unit provides inadequate space and accommodation for larger households, there is a need to consider ways in which top structure subsidy can be allocated in a more flexible manner to possibly assist in the improvement and/or expansion of existing shack structures; and in relation to this to reconsider the stance of some municipalities and provinces for a total ban on the retention or reconstruction of shacks as a condition of serviced stand and top structure delivery (summarised as ‘one house up, one shack down’).

14

Recommendations • The NDOH must review current eligibility criteria for housing subsidies, and

develop a home improvement grant for eligible beneficiary households. These homeowners would have already built their own structure and would prefer the option of an improvement grant rather than a standard subsidised unit.

• Informal settlement upgrading plans must include the provision of Housing Support Centres

1.8 ‘One House Up - One Shack Down’ NHC Part 3 states that: ‘The municipality must table a comprehensive action plan for the management of projects specifically addressing measures to prevent re-invasion of land and the process of shack demolition in the event of persons accessing housing consolidation benefits’. This provision is a practical project-specific directive concerned with the issue of exactly how municipalities intend to undertake the process of shack demolition in order to make way for the construction of a standard subsidised unit. In consolidation or upgrading situations, shacks may have to be moved on the existing stand to make room for the new unit, or temporarily relocated to create space for services. In conjunction with a key theme of NHC Part 3 – that of reducing shock and protecting the livelihoods of informally settled households – the shack demolition provision does not preclude the possibility that all or part of an existing shack may have to be retained or rebuilt. This would be used to provide shelter for members of large households, rental accommodation and a potential source of income for owners, or additional storage or parking area. The Assessment Team saw examples of all these cases during the course of their mission. However, certain provinces (for example, North West) have interpreted the shack demolition provision to mean a blanket ban on all shacks in completed projects, the ‘one house up, one shack down’ requirement. Acting on provincial directive, certain municipalities (for example, Rustenburg and Klerksdorp) have prepared or are preparing local byelaws that will not only prohibit any form of shack construction on serviced residential stands, but will make the commitment by intended beneficiaries not to build or reconstruct a shack a precondition for the award of title. In order to further reinforce this requirement and limit any opportunity for shack reconstruction, these municipalities will dispose of all salvaged building materials after shack demolition. ‘One house up, one shack down’ is excessive, and prizes formality over sustainability. It ignores the reality that: • Larger households (many of whom presently live in shacks with a habitable area

greater than 40m²) cannot be accommodated in the standard subsidised unit • Many ‘shacks’ are constructed of permanent or semi-permanent materials and

represent a considerable investment on the part of the owners • Shacks built for rental purposes not only serve as a potentially valuable source of

income for owners, but also relieve pressure for housing • There is a trade-off between formality (and the tentative wish to create a

secondary housing market), and the longer term perspective that embraces incremental upgrading

15

Response The Assessment Team acknowledge the need for a measure of regulation and control over shack construction and the spread of informal settlements. However, the ‘one house up, one shack down’ interpretation of NHC Part 3 on shack demolitions appears more to do with the adverse aesthetic impact of informal shack construction on completed projects, rather than with any of the practical considerations listed above. In view of this, and the fact that the ban on shack construction in completed projects is likely to be unenforceable or at best inconsistently applied across municipalities, it is recommended that any policy requirements that ban shack construction in completed projects be withdrawn, and an unambiguous definition of the subject clause in NHC Part 3 be prepared and publicised. The NDOH must: • Amend the shack demolition clause in NHC Part 3 to avoid the ‘one house up,

one shack down’ interpretation. For example, the clause could read: Demolition of shacks: ‘The municipality must table a comprehensive action plan for the management of projects specifically addressing measures to prevent re-invasion of land. In addition, municipalities must note that while upgrading projects may require the shifting of shacks on site, or temporary relocation, there is no requirement for shacks to be demolished as a condition of persons accessing housing consolidation benefits’.

1.9 Minimising the incidence and impact of relocation The stated policy intent of NHC Part 3 is ‘to facilitate structured in-situ upgrade of informal settlements, as opposed to relocation’. Relocation is included ‘only as a last resort in exceptional circumstances’. Yet one of the overriding impressions the Assessment Team gained in its mission is that, contrary to these statements, relocation of households from existing informal settlements to greenfield sites appears to be the dominant option considered by most provincial and municipal governments in upgrading projects. In some instances, there is clearly some justification for approaching the development of informal settlements on the basis of relocation, for example: • Removing households from vulnerable or potentially hazardous areas, such as

flood plains (for example, the Zanemvula project), excessively steep slopes (as found in many Ethekwini projects), dolomitic geology (in Ekurhuleni) and power transmission line servitudes (N2 Gateway)

• Total or partial removal to allow for implementation of strategic development programmes or projects designed to serve the broader public interest and/or generate improved economic growth and development

• Dealing with occupations of private land where court judgements have found that the community needs to be re-housed (for example, the Gabon community in the Chief Albert Luthuli project)

• Partial relocation to facilitate the provision of improved infrastructure and services within existing settlements

In other cases, most notably the Duncan Village Redevelopment Initiative, the degree of relocation is extremely high (up to 80% of the informal settlement community, some 14 000 households and an estimated 42 000 people). In scale this compares to

16

the apartheid removals of the 1950s in Sophiatown (estimated 50 000 people) and District Six (estimated 55 000 people). While the Assessment Team is in no way suggesting that the processes or motivation are similar, the impact of such large-scale relocations undoubtedly has a traumatic and disruptive impact on those households affected. Generally, relocation sites are less well-located than the original informal settlement, which places an extra strain on household disposal incomes due to increased transport costs, travel times, difficulties in getting to school or looking for work. Response In order to reinforce the concept of in situ upgrading as the preferred first development option, there will be a need to scrutinise the rationale and scale of any proposed relocation. All project plans should include a detailed justification of any relocation component, setting out the number of affected households, the reasons for relocation and alternatives for densification. This should also include a report on consultations with the affected communities. These proposals must be validated prior any approval to proceed. Where relocations do have to take place, strenuous efforts must be taken to minimise adverse impacts on the affected households. Prior consultation is essential, and all aspects of the relocation process should be discussed and agreed by the affected households. Such aspects, in line with NHC Part 3 guidance, include: • The schedule for relocation, allowing adequate preparation time for affected

households • Details of the location and condition of the relocation site (if possible the

municipality should arrange a site visit for the affected households prior to removal)

• Transportation assistance from the existing settlement to the new site, as well as other supporting short/medium term transportation arrangements such as school buses and vehicles for the elderly

• Payment arrangements for any relocation expenses • Arrangements for the storage, transfer or compensation to be made in respect of

dismantled /salvaged shack building materials.

Recommendations • The NDOH must require provinces to apply the NHC Part 3 guidelines, and

ensure that all project proposals include a detailed justification of any relocation component, covering households involved, motivation for relocation, alternatives considered and details of related community consultations.

• The NDOH, via the NUSP, must develop criteria and guidelines for assessing such cases to create a body of practice and precedent, rather than relying on ‘each case on its merits’

• The NDOH must, via the NUSP, produce and circulate guidance on humane detailed relocation procedures designed to minimise impact. The procedures developed for the Alexandra Urban Renewal Project could be a suitable template in this respect.

1.10 Temporary Relocation Areas There is a clear logic for TRAs - Temporary Relocation Areas (or ‘transitional residential areas’ as they are euphemistically referred to on one project) – for the

17

developer they solve the problem of having to decant informal settlement residents during upgrades or while alternative accommodation is being provided. In theory, the residents are provided with access to improved, safer shelter and municipal services for a period of a few months. For example, the provincially provided TRAs for the N2 Gateway have excellent ablution blocks. However, for some households, the reality of temporary relocation becomes an extended, costly and generally unpleasant dislocation. The formal temporary structures offer some slight benefits to the residents, including better service levels and safety – for example, the City of Cape Town’s TRA has small galvanised steel units which offer better fire protection than shacks. However, TRAs are not designed for long-term occupation: units are small, uninsulated and uncomfortable – for example the N2 Gateway Delft TRA comprises 24m² units. Although the developers’ intentions are to minimise the time of occupation (six – nine months), any delays to project implementation or allocation result in the time being extended. In the Cato Ridge TRA in Ethekwini, some residents claimed to have been there for over three years, with no idea of when they would be moved out. The TRAs can represent a massive dislocation, since they involve an extra move and may be located at a distance, causing the residents increased transport costs – for example, the Delft TRA is 15kms away from the original site. Once people have been moved into a TRA, the immediate urgency to rehouse them permanently is reduced, and non-qualifiers in particular tend to be left for long periods if there is no alternative accommodation. The uncertainty of length of stay and disruption to livelihoods and social networks place the resident households at a serious disadvantage that far outweighs the perceived benefit. In some instances there is even a shift in prioritisation which can result in upgraded stands in completed projects being allocated, not as initially intended (and often promised) to relocated households originally resident in the project area, but to other external beneficiaries. For example, the significant number higher income households and households from backyard shacks and waiting lists outside the project that are receiving benefit in the various phases of the Joe Slovo Project is reportedly a source of considerable concern at present in the N2 Gateway Project Response The use of TRAs has some validity, but only in context of well-planned and managed projects, with a clear programme of delivery. There also needs to be full community participation, understanding and agreement of the detailed issues (location, transport, time period, risks etc) – it is reported that on one project residents were given less than 24 hours notice of their removal to TRA. The need for such large TRA camps, in some cases housing hundreds of households, also needs to be questioned. It should be possible for the implementation of any upgrading or relocation development to be phased in such a way that temporary relocation is limited to a smaller number of households – the Bossiesgrif / Qolweni TRA is a very good example of a small, on-site decant facility. It is just too convenient for the developer to clear large areas by wholesale removal of large numbers of residents, in order to achieve a more simplified development. There needs to be a strong disincentive so that developers only use TRAs as an absolute last resort. It is recommended that prior to any removal, a legally binding agreement should be drawn up and signed between the developer and individual households, clearly setting out the principles of the temporary relocation, with clearly

18

defined starting and end dates, as well as the obligations of both parties, and should include a compensation clause for serious delays (in excess of 3 months beyond the stated deadline) in provision of permanent serviced stand or accommodation. Recommendations The NDOH must: • Ensure that project plans are scrutinised prior to approval, and require that TRAs

should only be used as a last resort in upgrading projects • Ensure that where TRAs are used, particular care be paid to their size and

location. They should be on or as close to the original site as possible, and / or have good transport connections to social/community facilities and places of employment.

• Institute a requirement for a contractual agreement between developer and households to be relocated, setting out dates and obligations

• Prepare guidelines governing the preferred location, layout, design and construction of TRAs, based on the Emergency Housing specifications in Part 3 of the National Housing Code

1.11 People’s Housing Process (PHP) The People’s Housing Process (PHP) programme was introduced to facilitate a self-build approach to housing provision. Apart from the capital subsidy for house construction, the programme provides funds for various aspects of project preparation as well as technical assistance. As the programme is project based the subsidy is only available to community organisations and not to individual beneficiaries. Many of the municipalities visited in the course of the Assessment Team’s mission reported having undertaken informal settlement upgrading on the basis of the PHP approach. Generally speaking it had not proved successful for a number of reasons, including: • An extensive lead-in time was needed to organize and prepare the community for

their involvement in the process • Project implementation on the basis of self-help was also a slow process that

required constant supervision and monitoring • In many communities there is no longer a concept of self reliance and sweat

equity, but instead an insistence of payment for services rendered and a reliance on Government support

• In some instances there was lack of community motivation and commitment that led to a lessening of interest over the course of the project and abandonment of the project by some workforce members once their units were complete.

The implication for municipalities of these various shortcomings was an increased burden on their already over-stretched technical and management capacities. As a result many municipalities abandoned the approach. Other municipalities persevered and adopted the ‘Managed PHP’ approach. This involved the appointment of local service providers to undertake contract works on behalf of the community, on the basis of contractual agreements stipulating the need to maximise non-mechanized/labour intensive working methods and utilize a high percentage of locally employed labour. However, in spite of these safeguards, the Managed PHP was perceived as effectively taking decision-making and payment away from the intended

19

beneficiary community, and as such running contrary to the basic PHP concept of internalised benefit and community self-reliance. The NDOH is now exploring a new variation – the ‘Enhanced PHP’. Broadly speaking, this seeks to reassign the responsibility for project implementation back to the community, but envisages the appointment of an NGO or Community Based Organization (CBO) to act in an overall project management capacity and provide necessary supervision and technical assistance in support community self-help efforts. Notwithstanding the various difficulties experienced in implementing projects in accordance with the PHP approach, the fundamental concept of promoting community self-reliance and maximising community participation in decisions and development interventions that will directly affect their lives, is entirely valid. The Assessment Team view, based on its experience during the mission, is that this could have wide application in informal settlement upgrading programmes, especially for in situ projects. Response The Assessment Team is concerned that the ‘Enhanced PHP’ may be hampered by the lack of suitably experienced NGOs/CBOs operating in housing throughout the country at present. While the Team met various NGO representatives during the course of its mission, none was directly involved in housing delivery in the pilot projects. However, the major cities already have active NGOs operating in this sector – for example, Development Action Group (Cape Town), Project Preparation Trust (Ethekwini), Afesis-Corplan (East London), EcoCity Trust and Planact (Johannesburg). The Assessment Team engaged with a number of provinces and municipalities, which are awaiting the ‘Enhanced PHP’ with anticipation. At the time of the assessment, further details of the ‘Enhanced PHP’ had not been released. It will be important for municipalities and provinces to start identifying potential NGO and CBO partners as soon as possible, linking them to potential upgrading projects. Recommendations The NDOH must encourage provinces and municipalities to initiate relationships with suitable NGOs as part of the planning and implementation process for the ‘Enhanced PHP’, as well as identifying linkages and roles within their informal settlement upgrading projects 1.12 Occupations of Land and Property The Assessment Team found that all provinces were considering the introduction of legislation to prevent illegal occupations, in line with agreement at the MINMEC. These are modelled on the KwaZulu Natal Elimination and Prevention of Re-emergence of Slums Act, which faces a High Court challenge and may be declared unconstitutional. Consequently, provinces have been cautious in introducing such legislation and instead have either asked municipalities to enforce current bylaws or have drafted bylaws for municipalities. Gauteng province reported that they regard illegal occupations as an urban management issue but have not explored the matter further.

20

The Assessment Team observed various examples where invasions of land and property had taken place during the course of projects. In Klerksdorp, new houses have been occupied or damaged as a result of delays in allocating them to beneficiaries and a dispute over construction defects. The well-planned land invasion in Grassland Phase 4 Mangaung, allegedly organised by the chairperson of the local ANC branch, is a good example of the disruption to project plans and community aspirations caused by unauthorised occupation. The responses of municipalities to illegal occupations vary, to illustrate: • The Rustenburg municipality has introduced new bylaws that criminalise land

invasions but has also established a process for `authorised informal settlements’, which will then be legalised.

• Polokwane manages growth of informal settlements by declaring a boundary around each. The municipality, by authority of a previously obtained standing court order, uses private security companies to monitor and evict of land invaders outside the designated boundaries. The municipality’s court order includes conditions under which relocation to alternative accommodation may take place, and provision for transport of people’s possessions.

• The City of Cape Town has its own internal anti-land invasion control unit • The City of Matlosana municipality uses its traffic police to monitor land invasions

Most municipalities interviewed by the Assessment Team claimed that they did not have the capacity to manage land invasions or reinvasions, apart from Northern Cape where this issue is not as serious as elsewhere. Similarly, municipalities have had to address the growth of informal settlements. Approaches vary, but generally include shack numbering, designating boundaries, and removal of newcomers. In some cases, municipalities have been able to negotiate agreements with communities who undertake to prevent newcomers establishing themselves in return for upgrading and housing the current residents. Response The management of land occupation and re-invasions has become a major policy imperative due to greater urbanisation pressures and the constitutional provision of the protection of property rights. The Assessment Team believes that overall a more considered response is needed, which places urban planning and management at its core rather than policing. This would involve engagement with the affected communities to monitor and manage the growth of their settlement, supported by municipalities to police vacant or cleared land. To be effective these efforts must be complimented by planning for growth, including the identification and basic layout planning of new areas suitable for new development, including small infill sites, that wherever possible are located to achieve a more compact urban form and mixed land use development. The actual process of eviction or relocation has to operate under clear guidelines supplied by the NDOH, as well as meeting legal requirements. This should include community consultation with a view to voluntary relocation, with a set of incentives and mitigation measures. The Alexandra Urban Renewal Project provides a good case study of this approach. Where evictions or relocations take place under a court order, clear guidelines are needed on the process, dealing with people’s possessions and the prioritisation of the vulnerable.

21

In addition, cases similar to Klerksdorp can be avoided by more effective project management, timeous process of beneficiaries, and better protection of construction sites by contractors. Recommendations It is recommended that: • Where appropriate, municipalities should establish internal or outsourced

capacity to control land invasions. These should operate in a supportive fashion in partnership with communities to achieve negotiated agreements to limit the growth of informal settlements as part of an agreed development process.

• Removals and relocations should follow the guidelines set out in NHC Part 3, particularly in terms of establishing beforehand an agreed process between the municipality and the community.

• Municipalities should anticipate and direct, rather than attempt to stop future growth. This entails forward planning and acquisition of suitable land, and development of reception areas.

1.13 Security of Tenure Most municipalities took the approach that in-situ informal settlement upgrading provided recognition for those people staying those settlements. In Ethekwini the provision of emergency services was seen as recognition of the settlement. In Mkhondo municipality, shacks were connected to water and electricity and services accounts were opened for those households (the services accounts were also used as the allocation criteria when the formal establishment of the settlement took place). A similar procedure was operated by the City of Cape Town. In Mangaung letters of occupation were given on the basis of residence in the area before people were screened by the HSS system. Some municipalities held the view that at the stage of service installation no formal screening of beneficiaries is required. Consequently a range of interim security of tenure options has emerged, largely through practice rather than regulation. In the instance of Rustenburg this has been formalised through the gazetting of bylaws that make provision for authorised informal settlements. Response Ideally, security of tenure is served by full ownership rights, but given the long time lag in this process, various interim tenure options for households in informal settlements need to be explored. Part 3 of the Housing Code states that the programme to upgrade informal settlements ‘promotes security of tenure as the foundation for future individual and public investment. The broad goal of secure tenure may be achieved through a variety of tenure arrangements, and these are to be defined through a process of engagement between local authorities and residents’. Interim tenure recognition that does not require approval through the HSS is being practised in some municipalities either through letters of occupation, opening services accounts or providing emergency services and/or housing. It may be desirable that municipalities set up more formal local registries that are not necessarily full tenure rights as in the deeds registry but with sufficient documentary proof of occupation rights that may be used for transactions.

22

Recommendations It is recommended that the NDOH: • Reinforce Part 3 of the Housing Code by promoting interim tenure options for

dissemination to provinces and municipalities Encourage municipalities to set up local registries of occupants who have been provided with interim tenure rights through variety of means including services accounts, letters of occupation, or through town planning mechanisms

23

2 PRACTICE ISSUES 2.1 Basic Services and Infrastructure The Assessment Team noted the influence of conventional ‘Red Book’ township design standards on local infrastructure services provision in upgrading and greenfield projects. These standards appear to be relatively high and expensive, considering the anticipated usage in low-income residential areas and relative to the clear service level intentions set out in NHC Part 3 of the National Housing Code. Some examples of this are as follows: • Water supply – unnecessarily high residual reticulation pressure (24m) to supply

houses which are virtually certain to remain single storey for the design life of the services, and are most unlikely to incorporate high-pressure facilities, since installed sanitary fittings are limited to a sink, shower, WC and wash basin. The residual design pressure could be substantially reduced, and with it the pressure class and cost of pipes and fittings. High residual pressure also increases the potential system leakage over time.

• Water supply – design demand based on average consumption of 650 litres per unit per day for detached subsidy houses is particularly high considering the limited sanitary fittings provided and the targeted income group. Firstly, normal household use of the fittings provided, even including some irrigation, is unlikely to exceed 400 litres / day. Secondly, the design consumption is equivalent to more than double the recently increased free household monthly water allocation of 9 000 litres (=300 litres / day). It must be assumed that a large proportion of low-income households will avoid exceeding the allocation in order to minimise expenditure.

• Sanitation – conventionally designed waterborne sewerage systems are not always appropriate, particularly in the higher reaches of the network, resulting in frequent blockages occurring due to insufficient flushing water due to low use and the types and quantities of solids being flushed into the system.

• Access roads – paved roads providing all-weather vehicle access to all stands is considered inappropriate when vehicle ownership in the community is, and is likely to remain, very low. A more important consideration is surely to minimise the walking distance to designated taxi and bus routes.

• Stormwater drainage – the preference for underground pipe systems is questioned, since the levels of siltation and solids ingress from the developed areas are high, creating a high potential for blockages in pipes, kerb inlets and catchpits. Although open channels have their own problems (plot access, road crossings etc), they can be more simply and effectively maintained.

• Electricity reticulation – the use of underground MV and LV reticulation, although visually superior to overhead lines, cost approximately double.

Lack of coordination of provision of bulk and internal services, partly due to funding misalignment between bulk and internal services (housing subsidy, MIG, DWAF, DME and municipal own resources), has led to failure to complete houses and all services concurrently. There were several instances of top-structures in pilot projects being finished or near completion, and in some cases occupied, and lacking either internal or bulk service connections (for example, Phomolong Extension 6 in Mookophong, or the Grasslands project, Mangaung).

24

Responses Two sets of stakeholders in the upgrading of informal settlements – the municipal engineers who will take over and be responsible for operating and maintaining the services, and the beneficiary communities who will occupy the stands – have a vested interest in opting for the highest possible level of service provision and application of design standards, since they will both benefit; in theory, less maintenance for the cash- and resource-strapped engineers, and better quality of generally free services for the beneficiaries. Viewed narrowly there is no trade off to make, since affordability considerations do not form part of the project development process – virtually the entire cost is subsidised. From a broader perspective, however, there is a serious affordability issue for the municipality. Generally the internal services cost has proved greater than the proportion allowed within the subsidy quantum, requiring municipalities to use their own funds to finance the additional cost, or delaying the completion of the services (particularly roads and drainage), so that in the short-to medium-term both engineers and beneficiaries are worse off. Both sets of stakeholders need to be persuaded that a lower level (and therefore more affordable to the municipality) of service provision is appropriate and acceptable. The problem is that the expectations of both groups have been raised by precedent projects, but the April 2007 ruling that internal services can only receive subsidy funding as a last resort may assist in this persuasion. Although it is not clear from the National Building Code (Vol 4, Subsidy Quantum) whether this ruling applies to upgrading of informal settlements, it should go some way to concentrate minds on equating service provision to available funding. The National Building Code, and in particular the ‘Norms and Standards in respect of Municipal Engineering Services’ (2.1.7, Vol 2) need to be applied in informal settlement upgrading projects. In discussions with beneficiary communities and briefings for design engineers, the starting point for service provision should be the specified minimum level (yard tap, VIP toilet, gravel road etc). Levels of services, stand sizes and nature of top-structures can all be negotiated as part of the community participation processes put forward in NHC Part 3. Innovative approaches to services design also need to be encouraged. An example of this is the application of water demand management through design, well demonstrated at Mount Moriah in Etekwini, where intermediate pressure, small pipe sizes and provision of an overhead tank physically limits the water available for household use to a reasonable level compatible with the free monthly allowance. Institutional project arrangements also influence levels and standards of services. In the case of township development the crucial physical components are land, services and houses, but the supply of these are funded and managed by different entities, spheres and agencies, and coordination of all these is lacking. For each project there needs to be one ‘office’, clearly identified with the skills, responsibility and authority to ensure that the planning, funding and timing of implementation of each of the project components is fully coordinated. There also needs to be a requirement of commitment from all funders / service providers, in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding, before a project proceeds to implementation.

25

Recommendations The NDOH must: • Reinforce the negotiated approach to provision of services as highlighted in NHC

Part 3 • Encourage, publicise and disseminate examples of innovative service provision.

Built environment professional associations can be used as channels for lesson learning, as well as facilitating the development of communities of practice to foster appropriate development approaches.

• Scrutinise project implementation plans to ensure that there are clear project management and coordination arrangements with sufficient authority to secure adequate alignment of services delivery. The use of Memoranda of Understanding between funding departments and service providers to obtain hard commitments is to be encouraged.

2.2 Increase Residential Densities and provide Multi-storey Housing Typologies

Municipalities frequently reported that the shortage of suitably located developable land for low cost housing was a major development constraint for informal settlement upgrading, for reasons including: • The expansive land take of sprawling low density development • Unsuitable terrain and poor soils in many urban areas • Land use limitations imposed by prevailing SDF and land use zoning plans • Competing urban development priorities and land uses • Weak urban land management by other sub-national government departments • Rising land prices in many urban areas • Speculation by private landowners and their reluctance to sell land to

Government for low cost housing development.

Notable examples include Rustenburg, where the platinum mining belt and industrial uses restricts housing development to a fairly confined belt, and where the municipality has to compete with the Royal Bafokeng Authority for land acquisition; Durban, where river valleys and steep topography excludes land for housing; and Ekurhuleni where mining, compounded with dolomitic geology has precluded the suitability of many sites. These difficulties are compounded by the fact that planning layouts are mostly prepared on the basis of a rigid application of standard low density residential stand sizes and house types often prescribed in a top down manner by government. Given the shortage of suitably well-located housing land, this is wasteful, and leads to a higher degree of displacement and relocation than necessary. The Assessment Team was informed of the provincial standard house and stand size to be applied across all informal settlement projects. To illustrate, these included: • Limpopo – 40m² unit on a 300-400m² stand • Eastern Cape – 40m² unit on a minimum 250m² stand

26

• Klerksdorp – council decision to require stands not less than 350-400m²

By contrast, there was more flexibility shown by Gauteng DOH, which cited projects using stand sizes of 90m² in Alexandra, 120m² in Ekurhuleni and 140m² in Johannesburg. Gauteng’s response is more in line with that recommended by NHC Part 3, which stresses that ‘due to the informal layout of informal settlements, it is not desirable to determine uniform or minimum stand sizes. Locally appropriate stand sizes should emerge through a process of dialogue between local authorities and residents’. Response Provincial and municipal housing departments need to re-examine their planning assumptions regarding optimum residential densities and house types for subsidised housing projects. In particular they need to be more pro-active in planning in-situ upgrading or greenfield site housing projects on the basis of increased residential densities and (by implication) far smaller stand sizes than currently common standards. Similarly, more effort needs to be made in introducing alternative housing typologies such as two storey semi-detached or row housing and 3-4 storey walk-up apartments. The introduction of more realistic engineering design standards for roads and footpaths will also help increase residential densities and result in a more efficient cost effective utilization of urban land. These higher density solutions should be introduced through community consultation at project level to explain in detail the valid trade-off these alternative densities and house types represent in terms of a reduced need for relocation, more efficient use of available land, better located and hence more valuable housing assets. Although the Assessment Team heard reports that informal settlement communities are resistant to high density, multi-storey accommodation and prefer instead conventional subsidised units, international and South African evidence shows that, if the options and trade-offs are clearly spelt out, communities will make informed, rationale choices about their preferred living environment. The Assessment Team noted how the Duncan Village informal settlement residents in 2006 accepted increased residential densities and two storey house types as a means of reducing the need for relocation. Regrettably, in spite of this positive response, the development programme for Duncan Village presently being implemented envisages extensive relocation of the existing community (almost 80% of those living in the informal settlements) to Reeston, 15kms away. The informal settlements will be replaced by housing at densities as low as 30-35 units/ha in certain areas. It hoped that the potential advantages of multi-storey house types presently being constructed as prototypes in pilot project areas within Duncan Village will be presented to residents as alternative housing options that will help reduce the need for the excessive relocation presently being proposed. Aside from beneficiary acceptance, there will be a need to consider the cost implications involved in determining the feasibility of these proposed subsidised multi-storey units. Recommendations The NDOH must:

27

• Promote more flexibility and variation in stand sizes, in line with Part 3 / Ch13 and as viable alternatives to top-down prescriptions. Project participatory processes should include discussions of house types and density trade-offs to beneficiaries. Introduce housing density per hectare as a significant performance indicator, as well the percentage of the original informal settlement households remaining on-site.

• Promote and publicise house-type variants (double-story, semi-detached, row housing) through NUSP operational manuals and departmental circulars. Plans, specifications and costs estimates for these could draw on examples from the Joe Slovo residential area (N2 Gateway Project), Duncan Village, Chief Albert Luthuli Extension 6 and the Alexandra Renewal Project.

• Publicise house models to reduce beneficiary resistance and conservatism

2.3 Optimising the Design of Subsidised Housing Units The amount of subsidy allocated for the construction of top structures (houses (HU)) is reviewed annually to match the rise in building materials’ and labour costs. The present (2008/9) subsidy allocation is R R43 506 per unit Typically, the top structure subsidy allocation covers the construction cost of a single storey detached unit, built to conform to NHBRC space and structural standards namely: • A generally rectangular floor plan with a gross internal floor area of 40m² • Accommodation comprising two bedrooms, living/kitchen area (including a

kitchen sink) • An internal WC/bathroom with shower and sometimes a wash basin

Reinforced concrete floor slab • Block or maxi-brick external/internal walls • GI metal or concrete tile roofing on timber or steel trusses or battens • Steel doors and window frames. There are provincial variations to this typical top structure design and specification. The most significant of these observed by the Assessment Team are: • An irregular floor plan/building footprint still approximately within the 40m² internal

space standard (for example, Polokwane/Seshego Extension 76) • Improved materials specifications (including a false ceiling) for subsidised unit

built by ABSA as part of their joint venture with the PDOH and Ekurhuleni in Chief Albert Luthuli (Extension 6)

• Increased 45m² internal floor space for subsidised units being proposed by the NW Cape PDOH and also in Mpumalanga at Ethandakukanya Ext 4 and 5 Separate WC/bathrooms (for example Polokwane/Seshego Extension 76)

• Non-provision of washing (shower and basin) facilities (for example, Manguang Grasslands)

• Non-provision of bedroom doors (for example, Klerksdorp Jouberton, Kanana, and Khuma projects).

The Assessment Team noted various defects caused by poor standards of workmanship (for example, at Ethandakukhanya Ext 7). This can be addressed by better on-site supervision and inspection. However, there are also inherent design weaknesses in many unit models that need to be addressed. These include:

28

• Failure to adequately secure or otherwise protect roof eaves or gable ends with either fascias or bargeboards. In some cases this has led to roofing materials (tiles and GI metal sheeting) being removed by strong wind action (for example, Klerksdorp / Khuma). Roof cut-backs over irregular plan forms are especially vulnerable to wind action and rainwater penetration.

• Failure to provide any internal washing facility (for example, Mangaung Grasslands)

• Installation of three external doors (for example, Klerksdorp Jouberton, Kanana and Khuma) which severely restricts internal circulation and the use of internal walls and floor space

• Introduction of 2.0-2.5m² internal passage which reduces the living area and increases costs (for example, Chief Albert Luthuli, Extension 6).

There are a number of ways in which it is possible to optimise the design and function of standard units within the given subsidy quantum. An optimum design should seek to ensure that the unit maximises its internal floor space, and that it is stable, weatherproof and functions efficiently. The subsidy allocation therefore should be directed mainly to ensuring that the contractor builds the main structural and servicing elements to a high standard, and directed less on internal non-structural features that can be provided by owners themselves. The inherent defects listed above should be addressed as part of any attempt to improve the standard subsidised housing unit. In addition, and through consultation with intended beneficiaries, the following improvements and cost-saving trade-offs can be discussed and introduced: • Increase the internal floor space to approximately 45m² • Provide roof gutters to allow for rainwater harvesting • Extend north-facing eaves to provide shade • Do not provide bedroom doors initially. Many residents hang curtains to

bedrooms for privacy and only later install standard timber doors • Remove the internal wall separating bedrooms. Owners can replace this with a

wooden or CHB partition at a future date. Depending on household circumstances two bedrooms may not in any case be needed

• Eliminate the painting of all internal walls • Eliminate cut-backs and irregular external walls/plan forms to save costs on

external walls and minimise susceptibility to wind damage and water penetration • Provide combined WC/bathroom to save costs of the internal dividing wall

presently a feature in some subsidised units • Introduce false ceiling to improve internal insulation

Recommendations • The NDOH, relevant government departments and developers must review the

standard unit designs, specifications and cost estimates currently in use to assess if any of the identified design flaws listed above are present, and consider alternatives. In all cases, when considering adjustments and variations to designs prior to construction, there must be detailed consultations with beneficiary households over potential improvements and cost saving trade-offs to determine a preferred approach.

• The NDOH must produce improved standard subsidized house plans and specifications with supporting cost estimates. As well as stand-alone units, these should also be prepared for two storey units, semi-detached units, row houses and 3-4 storey walk-up apartments.

29

• The design of units at project level should always be discussed beforehand between project managers and target beneficiaries to agree any trade-offs needed to support improvements in unit design and specifications.

• The NDOH must continue to recommend the establishment of Housing Support Centres to advise potential beneficiaries on the potential advantages / disadvantages of suggested improvements and trade-offs, and to advise on various aspects of self-help construction.

2.4 Improved Planning Layouts for Greenfield Sites A high proportion of the planning layouts prepared for greenfield relocation sites in the pilot projects are monotonous and monolithic (for example, Polokwane, Rustenburg and Klerksdorp). This characteristic is especially pronounced in larger relocation sites where there are no dominant physical features, such as sloping terrain or natural drainage channels, to influence the layout or create interest and variation. Many of these layouts potentially have a dehumanising effect that runs contrary to the ideal of creating sustainable and identifiable human settlements. The main reason for this tendency towards insensitive planning is the fact that most municipalities and service providers lack experienced physical planners. As a result, engineers (whose preoccupation is primarily with the straightforward application of formal planning and engineering standards) often prepare planning layouts. Not only are these standards often inappropriate in terms of conditions prevailing in most informal settlements, they are insensitive in terms the need to create a sense of community. Especially significant in this regard are the unrealistically high and potentially costly engineering standards applied to the design of internal access roads in informal settlements where there are likely to be extremely low levels of vehicle ownership for the foreseeable future. Such standards are not only spatially disruptive but also uneconomical in that they reduce the percentage of land potentially available for residential development and at the same time increase the maintenance burden on municipalities. The generally monotonous planning layouts prepared for greenfield sites is also an outcome of other factors: • Many residential areas are planned with extremely low residential densities on

the basis of large stand sizes thereby fragmenting the sense of identifiable community space

• Regular placement and orientation of housing units within stands and uniform external treatment, a fact which adds to the somewhat dull aesthetic

• The limited provision in many planning layouts of land for social or community facilities. In addition to their practical use, these amenities add variety and interest. Especially significant in this regard is the need to incorporate a network of pedestrian routes and public open spaces (not necessarily segregated from the road network in all instances) linking community and commercial facilities.

• Lack of attention given to sensitive site clearance and to the landscaping of public open spaces in completed projects.

Response Given the increasing demand for delivery of serviced residential stands and low cost housing, detailed considerations related to the need to create more varied and

30

interesting planning layouts could be considered relatively unimportant. Yet evidence worldwide supports the conclusion that public housing estates in which little or no attention is given to a physical expression of community identity can be a factor in the breakdown of social cohesion and result in significant negative social consequences. While recognising that there may be a trade-off in terms of residential density, efficiency and project cost, there is nevertheless a need to promote more variety and interest in the planning layouts prepared for subsidised housing areas, Recommendations The NDOH must: • Through the NUSP, design and circulate a planning manual illustrating best (and

worst) practice based to the extent possible on RSA examples (sketch layouts and photos).

• Initiate a training programme to accompany the manual, for urban planners, engineers and housing specialists in selected priority municipalities.

• Continue to encourage the township greening initiatives of municipalities and Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, and press for the inclusion of informal settlements in these efforts. Tree and plant nurseries offer opportunities for employment as well as a source of seedlings for public areas, facilities and householders. Greening is an ideal vehicle for generating initiative and fostering improved levels of community organisation and collaboration, which can potentially involve all community members including school children and certain disadvantaged/special needs groups.

2.5 Environmental Efficiency The Assessment Team was disappointed at the lack of any real consideration in the use of environmental efficiency measures to reduce the level of energy and water usage on the pilot projects. To illustrate, in the projects visited, there was: • Only a one example of alternative / renewable energy sources for power

provision (solar power tower at Delft, supplying 11 units) • Only one example of a limited water supply system (Mount Moriah, Ethekwini) • No evidence of solar water heating systems, despite the fact that lack of hot

water provision means showers are virtually redundant during winter months in cold areas

• A general lack of ceilings in top structures in regions that experience cold winter weather

• No planned example of passive energy efficiency though house orientation • The lack of rainwater harvesting features (gutters, downpipes and barrels) as an

integral part of typical house design, especially in areas where there was an acute water shortage (such as Naboomspruit)

Given the scale of subsidised housing projects this represents a massive wasted opportunity to reduce the usage of scarce water and conventional power resources. Recommendations The National Norms and Standards set out in NHC Part 3 include specific requirements on environmental efficiency (2.1.7 Vol 2), as well as detailed guidelines for developing sustainable, energy-efficient housing (2.3 Vol 2). Both these sections

31

cover water supply and thermal efficiency. It is recommended that the inclusion of measures to reduce the use of fossil-fuel power and treated water, and investigation into the use of alternative / renewable energy sources, should be mandatory for all future subsidised housing development projects. The environmental efficiency requirements of the National Housing Code should also be enforced, and the guidelines prioritised. Examples include: • Intermediate pressure water supply systems • Water saving devices for sanitary fittings, roof water harvesting • Provision of solar water heating and hot water plumbing in top structures • Initiatives to provide on-site alternative power generation for top-structures

2.6 Project Plans and Socio-Economic Surveys The Assessment Team noted that certain projects did not have detailed development or business plans – for example, the Limpopo pilot projects. In these cases, development followed a simplistic process of community identification and allocation of a certain numbers of subsidies (regardless of the actual numbers of households in the settlement). Project implementation was then handed over to the main contractor who was tasked with producing the layout and services plan, installing roads and services, building top-structures and managing beneficiaries. This is a very long way from developing sustainable human settlements, as envisaged in Breaking New Ground. It is makeshift, quantitative and ignores any pretension to sensitive, livelihoods-oriented development. No project for upgrading informal settlements should be approved without a clear plan in place, as spelt out clearly in NHC Part 3. The Assessment Team was also concerned to note that project plans often did not have strong foundations in preliminary socio-economic surveys. Where project plans did include survey findings, they were generally limited to shack counts, population estimates and related primarily to beneficiary registration. There were few assessments of livelihoods, social capital, housing preferences or special needs. As well as being essential to an in-depth understanding of community vulnerability, such surveys provide the entry point for community participation. Communities should be involved in carrying out such surveys. Ideally, this leads to direct involvement in decisions over trade-offs about relocation options, house types and density options, for example. In addition, such surveys provide the baseline statistics for the improvement in living conditions to measure project performance required by NHC Part 3. Recommendations • No informal settlement upgrading project must be approved by any level of

government if it does not include a clear plan for development based on a detailed socio-economic survey.

• The quality of such surveys must be improved, and include more comprehensive data in respect of social capital, livelihoods, housing and relocation preferences. Approving authorities should ensure compliance in this respect.

• The NDOH, via the NUSP, must provide a template of issues to be covered in such surveys as a standard for ensuring compliance.

32

2.7 Emergency and Relief Services Local authorities are responsible for ensuring that all households within the municipality - including those residing in informal settlements - receive a basic level of municipal services (water, sanitation, health, electricity, roads and drainage, solid waste removal). However, the Assessment Team observed dire shortages of services in many informal settlements – for example, in Rustenburg, cases include: • Jabula/Donosa: 4 000 shacks, one communal tap • Popo Molefe: 900 shacks, one communal tap supplied by the adjacent mine • Freedom Park: 6 000 shacks, no piped water • Zakhele: 9 000 shacks, water obtained from leaks in pipe supplying adjacent

mine

Compare this to the response in Colesberg, where the municipality provided two communal taps to an evicted farm-worker community of 30 households, squatting in a provincial road reserve. Similar good practice exists in Cape Town, where minimum basic services have been provided to all informal settlements, irrespective of status. Lack of basic services, particularly water, sanitation and solid waste removal, has serious health and environmental consequences within and around the settlement, and is unacceptable from any standpoint. Responses Where informal settlements are located on municipal land, there is no reason why basic engineering services (communal water and sanitation facilities, main access road and stormwater drainage) should not be provided, since these can be grant-funded either through MIG or the Emergency Housing Assistance Programme, depending on the situation. Once the access road is established, weekly solid waste removal can also be introduced. Where such settlements are on private land, and where either the landowner or the municipality is unwilling or unable to provide services onto that land, then the services can be provided to convenient points at the boundary. Municipal managers need to be encouraged to provide the basic services to all informal settlements in their municipality, by applying for the appropriate funding and implementing simple projects to provide basic communal water and sanitation services. A strong programmatic approach, prioritisation of areas of greatest need and rapid responses are essential. Recommendations • Municipalities must, if they have not done already, establish and implement a

programme and prioritisation of informal settlements for the provision of fast-track basic services.

2.8 Solid Waste Collection in Informal Areas / Recycling The extensive volumes of uncontained refuse in and around the majority of informal settlements assessed in the Assessment Team’s mission represent a serious health hazard for the residents. This is an indication of inadequate provision of solid waste collection by the local municipality, despite its obligation to provide this service. The

33

Team noted few examples of municipal waste reduction initiatives or recycling, either on a formal or informal basis. This impacts negatively on the lifespan of landfill sites, and means that informal and formal income opportunities that could be derived from waste reduction / recycling activities are being lost. The 2005 MIG guide for municipalities states that ‘Government requires that a refuse removal service be provided at least once a week’. Specifically in informal settlements, the basic level of service (if provided) is the provision of communal skips on access roads, removed and replaced on a weekly basis. However; unless the skips are located within a reasonable walking distance (250m) of all shacks, rubbish will be dumped elsewhere, and unless the skips are emptied sufficiently frequently to prevent overfilling, and the surrounding area kept clean, the collection area itself becomes rubbish-strewn. An alternative form of service involves community-based contractors who are employed by the municipality to collect rubbish door-to-door and transport rubbish to the collection points using hand or bicycle carts. Both options require active management by the local authority, but are necessary to fulfil its municipal service provision obligations, and the latter option provides employment for local people. There are excellent examples in different municipalities of formal (waste separation at source, commercial recycling, recycling centres, buy-back centres) and informal (street picking, landfill site picking) recycling initiatives in operation, with a variety of sponsors. These need to be publicised and replicated. Recommendations • Municipal integrated waste management plans and programmes must include

informal settlements • Informal settlement upgrading schemes must always include clear plans for

refuse collection, recycling initiatives and related employment creation opportunities

• The operational manuals for informal settlement upgrading, to be produced via the NUSP, must also include case studies on waste management and recycling

2.9 Technical Capacity The Assessment Team was impressed by the commitment and expertise shown by certain exceptional, competent officials in key positions at provincial and local government levels. This was often mirrored by the professional technical support brought in to the projects they manage. However, the numbers of such officials in the pilot projects remain small. This situation is likely rooted in ‘top-down’ official mind-sets, lack of delegation and risk-aversion embedded in bureaucratic processes. It also the case that interference in programme delivery processes by politicians at all levels creates uncertainty, disrupts progress and stability, and stifles initiative. In addition, the overall number of government professionals, community-based organisations and non-governmental organisations engaged in upgrading informal settlements is woefully small. There is relatively little dedicated capacity across the pilot projects, and even less allocated to dealing with informal settlements as a specific genre of housing service delivery. Given a situation of too few human resources, spread too thinly, it is not surprising that there is a lack of experienced ‘wider focus’ project managers, and creative solutions to informal settlement upgrading dilemmas.

34

The decision by some provinces to centralise the developer role exacerbates this issue. It could further marginalise such capacity as already exists at municipal level, without clear public-public partnership arrangements and allocation of roles. Finally, the capacity issues are particularly acute in the secondary cities and towns experiencing resource-driven growth. Such areas need to be identified and targeted for specific extra capacity assistance within clear programmes of informal settlement upgrading. Recommendations • The NDOH, perhaps via the National Housing Development Agency, must play a

targeted role in supplementing existing capacity in areas of acute technical capacity shortages

• The NDOH must, via the NUSP, initiate an Informal Settlement Capacity Building programme, possibly in partnership with Higher Education Institutions

• The NDOH must, via the NUSP develop and circulate operational manuals on good practice in informal settlement upgrading, along with an accompanying training programme in their use

• The NDOH must promote and service communities of practice among informal settlement upgrading practitioners via the NUSP. Such activities could include regular newsletters, seminar and workshop sessions, and a subject-specific annual conference. The South African Cities Network (SACN) has used a similar approach to good effect among urban managers and specialists over the past few years.

2.10 Undue influence of technical consultants The Assessment Team noted that the lack of in-house technical capacity at the level of developer, especially but not exclusively in smaller municipalities, results in a great reliance on the services of technical consultants at all stages of the planning and implementation of capital projects. For informal settlement upgrading projects this usually involves the appointment of a consulting engineer, either an individual or a company, as project manager, who leads a planning / design and supervision team and takes responsibility for driving the project. While this arrangement is often necessary and brings the required technical and managerial skills to the project, it can also introduce some problems if the external engineer is not clearly briefed and closely monitored: • The service provider’s approach to the design and implementation may not be

aligned with some of the policy objectives and realistic funding constraints of the implementing authorities, such as enhanced community participation

• Unless specifically required to do so, the engineer-led planning / design team will have no incentive to investigate innovative approaches and will tend to resort to well-tried, but not necessarily the most appropriate, solutions.

• Hands-off attitude of provinces and municipalities reinforces a more quantitative approach to delivery, and reduces the level of scrutiny and engagement by the commissioning authority

• There is little, if any, programmed skills transfer and/or capacity building for the development authority.

35

Responses The underlying issue here is the capacity shortage within the government spheres. If qualified technical personnel were available, the planning, design and supervision could either be done in-house or if externalised, could be much more closely monitored to ensure alignment with the authority’s policy and funding objectives. Until such time as increased in-house technical capacity is achieved, the following responses need to be considered: The Scope of Work and Terms of Reference for external planning, design and project management consultants need to be very carefully constructed. While the TOR should avoid being too prescriptive or restrictive, it should clearly set out the detailed goals and objectives of the overall project and for each stage, as well as defining the framework (for example, using NHC Part 3) within which the project is to be developed. The TOR should include a structured skills transfer programme with realistic goals, and should include a formal monitoring process comprising regular meetings with and milestone review and approval by qualified engineers and planners within government. The critical time for ensuring that project planning and design conforms to policy objectives and reflects community preferences is at the earliest stages, where the principles are established. Once these are agreed it is time consuming and costly to make changes downstream. Recommendations • The NDOH, provinces and municipalities must avoid project arrangements that

derogate too much responsibility to service providers. In particular, the quality of TORs for service providers, as well as project management arrangements need to be scrutinised to ensure effective control, accountability and skills transfer

2.11 Project Management and Sectoral Coordination In general, the Assessment Team found that the majority of projects had structured management arrangements, involving project steering committees, technical teams and associated variants. This is to be welcomed, as such structures seek to coordinate various levels of government, allow for effective project tracking, and concentrate project responsibilities within a fairly narrow span of control. And if managed and led properly, they can partly compensate for individual weaknesses or less experience. They are most effective if they meet regularly, comprise officials with direct or delegated authority to make project decisions, and are sufficiently representative to include community views, other sectoral departments and key stakeholders. The Grasslands project in Mangaung exhibits effective coordination between provincial and local housing officials and the provincial Department of Social Development. This has led to the concomitant provision of top-structures with the provision of Early Childhood Development facilities. However, project management arrangements are sometimes derailed by non-participation of sectoral departments. The Assessment Team heard numerous citations of health, education, social and police facilities not being planned or provided for newly relocated or upgraded communities. Given that it can take between two and five years from initiation to project completion, this failure of cooperative governance and forward planning is inexcusable. It is probably due to a

36

combination of externalities including: • Institutional rigidity and lack of spatially focused facilities planning • The pervasive bureaucratic attitude that the development of sustainable human

settlements is a responsibility of Housing departments (although the quantitative, top structure-obsessed approach to upgrading in some sub-national governments does little to challenge this view)

• A lack of forward planning and effective business plans for housing projects, that disregards the fact that sectoral departments also have priorities that need attention

The Gauteng Department of Local Government has established a specific unit to redress this type of institutional failure by monitoring IDPs and project plans to identify and rectify gaps in the provision of facilities and forward planning. The NDOH has already acknowledged the difficulties of achieving effective cooperative governance in sustainable human settlement projects - the Social & Economic Amenities component of the National Housing Programme is in effect a substitute for provision that should be the responsibility of other agencies. The Assessment Team were also made aware of instances where project management arrangements were subverted by external interventions by politicians, or by officials from higher levels of government issuing directives without providing extra support or solutions to aid delivery. Recommendations • The NDOH, provinces and municipalities must ensure that programmes, project

plans and Housing Chapters are effectively coordinated with other sectoral aspects in IDPs and Service Delivery and Budget Implementation Plans. This should be scrutinised at both provincial and local level, with IDP managers instructed to pay particular attention to ensuring compliance

• The NDOH must, through briefings and circulars for both politicians and officials, reinforce the message that the development of sustainable human settlements is more than a housing process, and in particular stress the requirement for joint planning and coordinated service delivery from other sector departments

2.12 Monitoring and Evaluation The Assessment Team noted that project monitoring and evaluation frameworks focused primarily on compliance with fiscal and financial prudence legislation (the Public and Municipal Financial Management Acts), and quantitative targets for housing delivery (required by prescripts of the Municipal Infrastructure and Housing Grants). Consequently, project monitoring indicators are concerned with budget spend, services installation, top structure construction and quality. Meeting audit requirements is a key consideration, as reflected by the Eastern Cape reporting methodology where inputs were measured against outputs and variations had to be explained. There were attempts at monitoring the relationship between stakeholders and government particularly with contractors and their performance. In some instances there have been new initiatives in setting up research capacity to look at a variety of issues such as the dynamics in particular settlements, surveying

37

post-occupation perceptions of the beneficiaries and assessments of the development approaches to informal settlements. These initiatives are in their infancy, and little longitudinal data is available. The integrated delivery of infrastructure and services is the key purpose of municipal Service Delivery Budget Implementation Plans, which are linked to IDPs. The Assessment Team found significant cases where houses had been provided with no immediate prospect of service connections (for example, Grasslands, Mangaung). The preparation of IDP Housing Chapters needs to be linked to the related SBDIP. It is essential that, during the IDP assessment process, provincial governments examine closely IDP monitoring and evaluation frameworks and indicators, and ensure that they are relevant. NHC Part 3 sets out a headline set of indicators to measure project performance. These include both quantitative and qualitative measures, although some need to be explained in more detail – for example, measuring the ‘environmental impact of projects’. More specific instructions on reporting timeframes should also be given. Recommendations The NDOH must: • Require that all informal settlement project plans include a clear monitoring and

evaluation framework, along the lines of indicators set out in Part 3 • Include a sample framework and indicators in the upgrading operational manuals

to be provided via the NUSP • Establish and effective mechanism for reviewing project performance on an

annual basis, and provide feedback on findings to municipalities and provinces.

2.13 Beneficiary Administration The Assessment Team noted that the identification of beneficiaries is mainly conducted at the project or locality level, and in general ward councillors and ward committees play a large part in the selection process. Such decisions are usually reported at project steering committees, which rarely include elected representatives from the affected community. There was little evidence of community participation in dispute resolution, which was generally left to the ward councillors to manage. Emalahleni is an exception; here the municipality set up a Housing Action Committee, which has a mandate and criteria to resolve beneficiary disputes, and reports its decisions to council for approval. However, the identification of beneficiaries by ward councillors has been a major issue of contention between political representatives and officials. Improved and updated waiting lists have been compiled in the Matlosana Municipality and City of Cape Town, with clear priority criteria, to address this problem. These criteria are largely based on the Housing Code, although some municipalities (for example, Colesberg, make specific provision to prioritise particularly vulnerable groups. Municipalities face a particular challenge in accommodating backyard shack dwellers, which in some cases have often been longer in residence than those in informal settlements. Tensions and accusations of queue jumping arise as a result. This becomes a problem because in the new projects aimed at accommodating informal settlers a percentage of the dwellings are allocated to backyard shack dwellers

38

More recently there has been initiatives in various provinces and departments, after a instruction issued by the NDOH, to set up housing demand databases to assess both housing backlog and the housing options which people prefer. Response Informal settlement upgrading has to address two specific circumstances. Firstly, any relocation, either within the settlement or away from it, should be planned and carried out with maximum community participation. Secondly, disputes over identification and allocation, particularly when it does not involve community representation, lead to allegations of corruption and patronage. It is therefore desirable that guidelines on the election of community representation on the project steering committees be established and their role in beneficiary administration is defined which would include beneficiary identification, allocation and dispute resolution. However not all disputes can be resolved at locality level and the need for an appeal mechanism (along the lines of the Emalahleni example) be instituted. In addition clear rules must be established of how these matters are handled. In addition, there is a need to find a system of allocation that that is fair and transparent, and to ensure community participation in the process. There has been some tension in relation to housing of people in informal settlements and those in backyard shacks. The need for credible waiting lists with clear rules and transparent processes are required. There are a number of municipalities that have undertaken the process of designing waiting lists and their criteria to suit their local circumstances. In particular the criteria has to address the issue of prioritising vulnerable groups. The requirement is to assist provinces and municipalities in developing a methodology of compiling waiting lists. The requirement in terms of the IDP is to understand the demand more accurately so that supply can be organised accordingly. The development of demand databases has been undertaken in a number of provinces. This has been accompanied by a number of demographic studies. However there is a dearth of demographic data particularly at municipal level. The need to reinforce the collection of household data at provincial and municipal level specifically to produce credible housing sector plans is imperative. This needs to be supported by a more qualitative community- and area -based planning process that involves a more intensive consultation with communities, where it is possible to understand the housing demand. This process of involving communities achieves two outcomes: a better understanding of what kind of housing demand there is which then allows for the supply of more housing options to people and to manage community expectations because they have part of the planning process. A number of municipalities have piloted community-based planning methodologies (such as Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality’s Sustainable Community Planning Guide), and the sharing of these experiences may assist in achieving these two outcomes. Recommendations Project-specific identification and allocation of beneficiaries: the NDOH must develop: • A sample terms of reference for the roles and responsibilities of the various

stakeholders on the project steering committee in relation to the identification, allocation, relocation and dispute resolution regarding beneficiaries

• Guidelines for the election of community representatives onto the project steering committee

39

• Guidelines for relocation and dispute resolution that includes an appeal mechanism.

Waiting lists: the NDOH must: • Ensure that municipal waiting lists are compiled in a clear and accountable

fashion, and include criteria for the prioritisation of vulnerable beneficiaries. If necessary, the NDOH, could provide technical assistance to develop guidelines.

• Ensure that waiting lists are not used in in-situ upgrading projects; in accordance with NHC Part 3, the informal settlement households themselves are the beneficiaries and should not be re-located off-site to make way for others.

Housing Demand Database: the NDOH must: • Ensure that beneficiary information at project level is fed into the Housing

Demand Database, and encourage community- and area-based planning

2.14 Housing Subsidy System The Assessment team found that, across the projects visited, local authorities are responsible for the identification and allocation of beneficiaries, while the province is responsible for the Housing Subsidy System (HSS) that verifies and approves the beneficiaries. This system is becoming more efficient, although turn-round time and data capture problems still remain. These cause difficulties at project level: Long turn around times mean that beneficiaries can be approved, but have moved elsewhere before the decision has been communicated. They then have be contacted or removed from the system, which proves to be administratively laborious Non-qualifiers are often only identified at later stages in the development process, causing difficulties in project management and the ability to respond to these cases. Few municipalities had a specific policy on non-qualifiers, and approaches varied across the projects. In Polokwane, non-qualifiers were dealt with on a case-by-case basis, with illegal immigrants deported directly. Some municipalities entered into deeds of sale for the serviced land with non-qualifiers. A number of municipalities indicated a wish to develop Communal Rental Units or emergency housing as an option for dealing with non-qualifiers. Certain municipalities stated that direct and online access to the system would mitigate these problems and improve their beneficiary management particularly in relation to transparency of the process. Some municipalities already have access to the system as part of their process of being accredited at Level One of the Accreditation Framework. Response It is clear that the primary responsibility for identifying beneficiaries is located at the municipal level but access to the HSS is only available the 18 municipalities that are in the process of accreditation. An appropriate response would be to give direct and online access to the HSS to municipalities, with monitoring and audit functions residing with the provinces. The issue of non-qualifiers is related to the much broader issue of security of tenure and ensuring social cohesion. In some cases, informal settlement households may

40

be non-qualifiers on the basis of income or lack of dependants. The Housing Code gives guidance for entering into deeds of sale with non-qualifiers, but the Assessment Team found few examples where this had been used. The need to communicate this provision within the context of informal settlement upgrading is important. Recommendations It is recommended that the NDoH: • Grant HSS online access to municipalities, subject to a personnel and systems

audit • Issue a directive outlining the roles and responsibilities in regard to the HSS, with

a particular emphasis on the oversight and audit responsibilities of the province • Ensure that training of municipal officials on the HSS be extended to beyond

those of the designated accredited municipalities • Provide assistance to provinces and municipalities to implement the programmes

in the Housing Code that provide alternative options for non-qualifiers through series of workshops and by means of a request-based system for individual queries from authorities using the sections of the department or agencies of the department.

2.15 Improved Public Transport Provision

The Assessment Team noted that the major municipalities in the pilot projects programme were experiencing growth in housing demand through natural population growth, new household formation and in-migration. Shortages of developable land and existing low-density urban development patterns pushes new urban development to peripheral areas. An increased emphasis on in-situ upgrading will reduce this pressure, but there will inevitably be instances of peripheral greenfields and peri-urban development. Relocation to such areas has an impact on household disposable income. A household that has been relocated from Duncan Village to Reeston in East London, assuming they have to travel to the CBD five days per week, will pay around R 400 per month in taxi fares. In this project, the Assessment Team were informed, no special provision has been made for the bussing of school children. The relocation of families from the Joe Slovo informal settlement to the Delft TRA under the N2 Gateway Project has had a similar negative impact on household incomes, documented in the Development Action Group report (Living On The Edge: A Study Of The Delft Temporary Relocation Area, March 2007) Consequently, there is an urgent need to consider the provision of improved affordable public transport as an integral part of the housing sector programmes, with specific actions implemented as part of project plans. Response The identification and development of vacant land either for the relocation of households or for the future provision of low cost housing, needs to be undertaken with reference to the municipal SDF and related IDP which should include comprehensive sector plans/programmes for the timely provision of infrastructure, services and social/community facilities. These plans/programmes should include for the provision of affordable public transport systems linking relocation sites and low

41

cost housing areas to the main social/commercial facilities and urban employment centres. Clearly provision of affordable public transport is especially important in more peripheral low cost housing locations. At the same time, planning layouts for upgrading and relocation areas need to facilitate residents’ access to on-site social/community and commercial facilities and to pick-up points for external public transport systems linking to the main urban centres. On-site internal circulation networks should also facilitate pedestrian and non-motorised transport movement between the main social/community facilities such as schools, clinics, neighbourhood centres, etc. In locations where this is not possible, health and education sector plans and programmes need to include for the provision of school buses and mobile clinics. The Sustainable Community Planning manual developed by the Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality sets out good practice that could be usefully transferred elsewhere. Recommendations • In developing their IDP and SDF plans, municipalities should pay close attention

to transportation sector plans and ensuring connections to upgraded and relocated communities

• Health and education departments should be contacted at a very early stage in the upgrading and / or relocation planning process to ensure provision of mobile clinics and school buses ahead of the development of more permanent facilities

• The Upgrading / relocation site planning manuals developed by the NDOH via the NUSP must include guidance on the integration of internal networks supporting pedestrian and non-motorised transportation movements.

2.16 Land Use Zoning Classifications At present, legislation governing the land use and development control is enacted throughout the country at a municipal level. Apartheid required that land use classifications and development control regulations (such as permitted land uses and densities) applied to planning of white urban areas were different to those applied in black townships. This legacy is still present, and the current land use management system is inconsistent across the country as a whole and within specific municipalities. The fact that a high proportion of municipal land management legislation was prepared before 1990 also points to the fact that much of it is outdated and unresponsive to present land use demand. A number of attempts to regularise and update existing fragmented legislation has been made in recent years. The Land Use Management Bill seeking to introduce a consistent countrywide land management system was tabled before Parliament recently but was rejected. In addition, the Assessment Team found a number of municipalities in the process of revising and unifying their land use management systems (for example, Emahlaleni). Since BNG and the emerging NUSP are based on an integrated approach to urban planning and development, there is a need for all municipalities to review and prepare updated and unified land use zoning and development control regulations, in order to provide a consistent regulatory framework for programme and project preparation and implementation. Given capacity limitations apparent in many municipalities, the assistance of provincial planning departments may be required to help in this effort. This will offer the opportunity to achieve consistency at the provincial as well as the municipal levels.

42

Given the anticipated momentum of the BNG/NUSP initiative needed to address an ever-increasing housing demand and growth of informal settlements in urban areas throughout the country, it is likely that if supporting land management systems are not put in place in a timely manner, they will become increasing irrelevant as effective development control tools. Recommendations • The National and provincial DOHs, in conjunction with the national Department of

Provincial and Local Government and its provincial counterparts, municipalities and the Department of Land Affairs, must continue to promote the preparation of updated and unified urban land use plans, zoning classifications and development control regulations. These should seek to anticipate growth by planning new areas for development, including small infill sights for housing, which are located to achieve more compact urban form, integration and mixed use development.

2.17 Partnerships A key theme of Breaking New Ground is partnerships for delivery of sustainable human settlements. This is continued in NHC Part 3, which refers to partnerships between government structures, especially provincial housing departments and municipalities. It also stresses the importance of community collaboration in promoting participation in projects. The Assessment Team noted a number of positive examples, including: • The ‘Coming Together’ project in Plettenburg Bay, Bitou Municipality, where there

are strong working relationships between the provincial DOH, the municipality, the local business chamber and informal settlement communities in developing joint plans and development approaches

• The working relationship between the Ethekwini municipality and the KwaZulu Natal Project Preparation Trust, in developing more pragmatic and community-oriented approaches in informal settlement projects

• The emerging rapprochement between the Ethekwini municipality and the Abahlali BaseMjondolo shack dwellers movement, which despite a turbulent history of relations, are now moving towards a joint approach to upgrading The role of the Mondi Group in working with the Mkhondo municipality in developing new plans to house forestry workers and informal settlement dwellers

In addition, the Assessment Team observed the formally structured partnership projects involving municipalities, province governments, major banks and development finance institutions. These include the Chief Albert Luthuli project, which encompasses a partnership between the Gauteng DOH, Ekurhuleni Municipality and ABSA. These formally structured projects are built around Memoranda of Understanding, which set out functions, finance and project delivery arrangements – once in place, they provide clarity and a framework within which development can progress. However, they can take time to establish (witness the Klarinet project in Emalahleni municipality, where the MOU has taken two years to negotiate). Response Generally, the pilot projects are generally state-led technical exercises. Genuine partnerships with CBOs, NGOs and communities were few. The Assessment Team’s

43

opinion is that more effective needs to be applied to developing working partnerships, particularly with the communities involved. When stakeholder communities are involved in making decisions to influence project processes and outcomes, problems are likely to be better understood and solutions more effective. More realistic allocations of resources and decisions on development trade-offs are likely to follow. However, project participation must take place within a well-structured process – partnership arrangements must be robust, effectively managed and spell out clear roles and responsibilities. NHC Part 3, and particularly its section 3.9, makes a very clear case for community participation and partnership in informal settlement upgrading, while section 6 on implementation requires that ‘an agreement between the municipality and the community on the participation process’ be put in place. Despite these conditions, the Assessment Team was disappointed to note that few projects demonstrated the ‘effective interactive community participation’ required by NHC Part 3. Possible reasons for this include: • The role of Ward Committees as a structured channel for participation. While

ward committees are supposed to be the interface between councils and communities, the communities affected by informal settlement upgrading do not always consider them representative. NHC Part 3 acknowledges this point – it supplements the requirement for Ward Committees to be involved in participation with the proviso that ‘ongoing effort [is made] in promoting and ensuring the inclusion of key stakeholders and vulnerable groups in the process’

• Communities have different levels of organisation and capacity to participate. Weaker communities need targeted support, usually in the form of socio-technical assistance to build their knowledge, understanding of the upgrading process and organisation

• The unwillingness of municipalities and provinces to actively engage with informal settlement communities. The Assessment Team noted a tendency among some project managers to treat households as passive beneficiaries who, according to one project manager, should be ‘satisfied that they are getting a free house’. This attitude betrays a certain patronising superiority among those officials and service providers, at odds with the government’s stated rights-based approach to the provision of shelter.

Recommendations The NDOH must: • Reinforce the importance of effective, structured community participation in

informal settlement upgrading by reiterating Part 3 through circulars, directives and examples of best practice in the manuals to be developed by the NUSP.

• Commission a specific investigation on the extent and characteristics of partnerships in informal settlement upgrading projects, with a particular focus on community-based participation. This should include surveys of participants’ experiences. The findings should be documented and circulated among government officials and service providers.

2.18 Unequal Standards in Mixed Income Housing Developments The Assessment Team reviewed certain pilot projects that were being developed through public private partnerships. Such joint ventures are commendable and provide opportunities to address problems faced by some municipalities in acquiring

44

land for subsidised and low/medium cost housing projects, and sharing the cost of internal infrastructure and services. The trade-off for land owners is an increase in property value (through land pooling or readjustment) and/or an opportunity to fast track and then access provincial or municipal government provision of bulk infrastructure and services needed for the development of bonded housing or other for development proposals. The potential benefit for all concerned is that this form of public/private partnership focused on housing delivery paves the way for a more integrated approach incorporating not only subsidised, but social and bonded housing. The Chief Albert Luthuli Extension 6 project in Ekurhuleni is a good example of this arrangement, involving ABSA, the Gauteng DOH and the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality. ABSA has insisted on a consistent standard of infrastructure and services provision throughout the entire project area. This may create a greater sense of integration between the two (subsidised and bonded) housing areas, but is intended primarily to support the marketing of bonded housing units. Consequently, the roads and street lighting are at standards well above those normally provided in subsidised housing areas, and visible in the adjacent subsidised housing neighbourhoods. The subsidised top structures, based on NHRBC space standards of 40m², are designed to a far higher specification and cost ceiling (approximately R70 000 per top structure, compared to the current top structure subsidy of R 54 000. The differential between the standard subsidy allocation and actual cost of infrastructure, services and housing is to be recouped by ABSA through the sale of land for bonded housing units. However, the real cause for concern is that the higher standards in subsidised housing areas within Extension 6 may be a source of resentment and reaction in adjacent housing areas with lower standards of provision, and raise expectations in terms of the level of standards in future subsidised housing programmes. Response At stage it is difficult to predict whether these different standards in subsidised units in the same development is likely to be a problem. It was reported to the Assessment team that the previous phases of the Chief Albert Luthuli subsidised housing programme have been implemented under various subsidy limits which had led to different housing products, including the original 36.0m² RDP units. At present there is no evidence that there is any resentment on the part of residents in these areas towards recent housing projects based on a visibly larger and higher specification 40m² top structure. The main concern here is that the higher standards applied in Extension 6 will set a precedent and raise expectations in respect of future subsidised housing areas. Realistically there is no way of resolving this issue other than through activities to explain to future beneficiaries the rationale behind such developments. Such information should be provided by the project steering committees and community organizations with the assistance of ward councillors, community representatives and Community Liaison Officers. Recommendations Attention should be paid to prevent resentment from beneficiaries of different standard subsidised housing in multi-phase, multi-partner projects. Provision of information through project structures and community representatives will help explain the facts and rationale for such variations.

45

2.19 Housing Micro-Finance The Assessment Team noted that the relationships with financial institutions in the pilot projects were limited to formal and structured relationships with the main banks, and related almost entirely to the bonded housing market. Given that the housing needs of the majority of the project beneficiaries were being met through the provision of subsidised units, and that there were few examples of true incremental upgrading in the projects, this is not surprising. However, it does suggest that provinces and municipalities have yet to grasp the significance of encouraging the involvement of micro-finance institutions in informal settlement upgrading projects. Informal settlement inhabitants generally have low levels of disposable income and are unable to service formal loans. In addition, the risk profile of such communities excludes them from accessing such financial products. There are a number of micro-finance institutions (for example, the Kuyasa Fund and those supported by the South African Micro-Finance Apex Fund), which provide financial services to this market. This aspect is dealt with in more detail in the Report on Non-Mortgage Forms of Credit Available for Informal Settlement Upgrading that accompanies the Assessment Team’s report. Suffice to say that both South African and international experience point to the importance of micro-loans in self-build and home improvement in incremental upgrading. Mechanisms for their operations vary, but include the mobilisation of community savings and the provision of credit, as well as relationship-based lending between the institution and the consumer Recommendations The NDOH should encourage provinces and municipalities to facilitate the participation of micro-finance institutions in the incremental upgrading of informal settlements. Facilitation could take the form of providing space and support for savings clubs, space for presentations, and access to community meetings.

46

CHAPTER THREE: NATIONAL UPGRADING SUPPORT PROGRAMME 1 OPTIONS FOR UPGRADING INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS The NDOH finds itself in the awkward position of having two current but contrasting policy positions relating to informal settlement upgrading. On the one hand, there is the incremental approach of NHC Part 3 that prioritises in situ development and staged delivery; on the other the department has the regularly-stated commitment to eradicate all informal settlements in the country by 2014, with ‘eradication’ interpreted as the provision of the ‘full package’ option (full title, serviced site and top structure) to all qualifying residents. In practice, the ‘eradication and full package’ approach dominates housing delivery, and is regularly endorsed in policy statements by the Housing Minister and MECs. The findings of the Assessment mission raise serious questions about the long-term viability of this approach, and the likelihood of the 2014 target being reached. When examining the policy positions, the Assessment indicates the following broad aspects and options: Continue the present approach of full package provision – full title, serviced site and top structure to all qualifying residents Advantages: • It is a long-standing and well-known government commitment • The administrative machinery for delivery is established, and is currently

providing houses • It involves quantifiable delivery, and enables national, provincial and municipal

performance to be measured • It generates employment opportunities in service infrastructure provision, and

more skilled work in house construction Challenges: • This approach is extremely unlikely to meet the 2014 target without a massive

increase of human and financial resources; this seems improbable at a time of heightened economic constraint and international recession

• Its qualitative impacts are not taken into account, which ignores the sustainable human settlements priority of Breaking New Ground

• It requires an inordinate and unsustainable degree of relocation, which turn has negative impacts on households

• It is probably a disincentive to individual self-reliance and self-help in housing • Although the administrative machinery is in place, it is under-capacitated and

unlikely to be able to handle major scaling up of delivery • The approach is land-hungry, and adds to the major land constraints already

facing provincial and municipal developers

47

Place more emphasis of facilitating the structured in situ upgrading of informal settlements (NHC Part 3) Advantages: • The policy is already in place in NHC Part 3, a current national budget line exists,

and it can be promoted as a major complementary programme • Certain provinces and municipalities already have adopted this approach as part

of their overall programme • It places more emphasis on sustainability of human settlements by minimising

relocation, causing less disruption to social networks and encouraging self-reliance

• It can be quantified (and hence performance measured) as a similar target to the 2014 ‘eradication’ – for example, provision of basic infrastructure, services and secure tenure for all informal settlement households by 2014. This target is more certain to be achieved than ‘eradication’.

• It will not require a major expansion of financial resources above the levels currently projected in the national housing budget, only reprioritisation of programmes

• The phased approach to in situ upgrading, as set out in NHC Part 3, has more inherent flexibility than the ‘one-size-fits-all’ scheme of the full package; communities can be upgraded with tenure and services, with state provided housing consolidation or supported self-help provision to follow.

• The phased approach also provides more rapid delivery of tenure and services to more households than an approach that concentrates on full package delivery – it has less demand for land, for example. From a pragmatic and utilitarian standpoint, it has more chance of providing ‘the greatest good to the greatest number’ of people in a shorter period of time.

Challenges: • It requires a clear policy statement on the significance of informal settlements and

livelihoods as a form of shelter provision, and a shift to formal recognition of informal settlements by government structures

• The approach will require developers to deepen their understanding and data on dynamics of communities to be upgraded

• It will necessitate a shift in priorities and programming for developers, although could be in the form of gradual adjustment

• It may be seen as political back-tracking on delivery commitments, rather than an expansion of programmatic delivery

• It will require qualitative and quantitative improvements in human resources in the various developer agencies

• It will require improved sharing of information and experiences between practitioners to build up and embed a consistent body of knowledge in government structures.

When faced with these options, the conclusion to be drawn from the Assessment mission is unambiguous – there has to be more emphasis on facilitating the structured in situ upgrading of informal settlements, rather than the current, almost exclusive weight on relocating communities and full package provision. This is not to say that greenfield, full package development and in situ upgrading are mutually exclusive – there will still be a need for greenfield projects to house backyard dwellers, for example. The point is that there needs to be a more balanced

48

programme that incorporates both approaches, with a greatly increased focus on in situ upgrading. To this end, the idea of establishing and implementing the NUSP becomes more prominent and relevant. It addresses the challenges facing in situ upgrading by providing a clear political statement of support, improving capacity and facilitating the creation of much more sustainable human settlements. 2 NUSP RATIONALE, PRINCIPLES AND OBJECTIVES 2.1 Rationale The findings of the Assessment mission show that more emphasis is needed on the scale, process and developmental approach to upgrading informal settlements. The current BNG Informal Settlement Upgrading Programme is hardly programmatic, consisting at this stage of a set of individual pilot and priority projects. These were generated at provincial level, against a fairly broad set of requirements – each project was to involve the upgrading of informal settlements; and take in around 5 000 subsidies (although not all projects turned out to be at this scale); and there should be a spread of projects across all provinces. The pilot projects met these requirements, and from the original intention to pursue nine (one per province), the NDOH now has around 16, which formed the subjects of the Assessment mission. NHC Part 3 was current at the time of project identification and selection; it is intriguing that it was not stipulated as a required approach in all or some of the projects. This represents an opportunity missed at the time but not lost, as its fundamental approach remains valid. The mission has highlighted a wide range of issues from the projects assessed, leading to the conclusion that a much more focused programme approach is required if the government’s ambitions to turn informal settlements into sustainable and equitable communities is to be achieved. The Assessment mission report also indicates a need for an unambiguous position on incremental upgrading, reinforced by policy statements that recognise the importance of informal settlements and a commitment to work closely with the resident communities in jointly determining the development paths for these areas. The need to establish a National Upgrading Support Programme was identified in the NDOH Cities Alliance partnership proposal in 2006. The findings of the Assessment mission confirm that this need still exists, and indeed given the scale of the informal settlement crisis in some municipalities, has become even more urgent. 2.2 Principles The assessment of the 16 pilot projects reveals that, while a progressive and comprehensive policy framework for the in-situ upgrading of informal settlements has been promulgated in Part 3/Chapter 13 of the National Housing Code and is a core element of the Department of Housing’s Comprehensive Plan for the Creation of Sustainable Human Settlements: Breaking New Ground, local authorities have been slow to embrace in-situ upgrading and have expressed a clear need for implementation support. The NUSP will provide direct support to local authorities working in partnership with informal settlement communities to promote and implement the policy principles and

49

provisions of NHC Part 3 for the incremental in situ upgrading of informal settlements. The policy intent is “to facilitate the structured in situ upgrading of informal settlements, as opposed to relocation…” (Paragraph 2.1 Policy Intent, NHC Part 3). The NUSP will provide technical and capacity building support as close to the point of delivery as possible by working with the 50 or so municipalities which have the vast majority of the nation’s informal settlements. This support will focus on a programmatic approach to city-wide upgrading at the scale of delivery required to meet the 2014 targets, including planning for new area development - the most effective strategy to prevent the growth of new informal settlements. 2.3 Objectives The overarching goal of NUSP is to strengthen the capacity of municipalities working in partnership with informal settlement communities to improve the quantity and quality of the in situ upgrading of informal settlements, targeting the provision of improved basic infrastructure, services and land tenure for all informal settlement households by 2014. The NUSP will promote in situ upgrading as the most expeditious way to achieve the core objectives of the BNG strategy, in particular, to develop sustainable human settlements by overcoming spatial distortions, strengthening social capital and making housing markets work for the poor. By promoting integration and higher densities for the in situ upgrading of well located informal settlements, the NUSP will help municipalities systematically develop alternatives to the current practice of large scale relocations of informal settlement households to greenfield sites on the urban periphery which often result in disrupting communities, their livelihoods and their access to education, health care and other social services. The NUSP will also strengthen the capacity of local authorities to work with informal settlement communities to build trust and partnerships with CBOs and NGOs to support the proactive engagement of communities in addressing their priority development needs, in strengthen their livelihood strategies and in consolidating their housing over time. NHC Part 3 also provides a framework and a specific list of indicators to hold NUSP accountable for achieving these objectives by measuring impacts on both improvements in living conditions, as well as indicators for sustainability (Paragraph 3.12 Measuring Performance, NHC Part 3). 3 INDICATIVE FIRST YEAR NUSP ACTIVITIES AND TARGETS 3.1 Rapid appraisals Drawing on the lessons learned from the pilots, the first step is for municipalities to develop rapid appraisals of all their informal settlements, well supported with socio-economic data, as a basis for the development of a programmatic approach to citywide upgrading. This effort will be mobilised with support and guidelines from

50

NUSP drawing on the experience and expertise of those municipalities which have already made considerable progress in this regard, including, Ekurhuleni, Johannesburg, Ethekwini, Cape Town, Nelson Mandela Bay and Colesberg, among others. 3.2 Citywide inclusion programmes Based on the rapid appraisals municipalities should develop citywide inclusion strategies with time-bound targets to progressively provide all informal settlement households with improved infrastructure, services and tenure, along with support to improve their housing over time. Only those settlements at immediate and significant risk (from frequent flooding, slope slippage, toxic waste, court ordered removals, or strategic public infrastructure improvements such as road widening or airport expansions) should be considered for relocation and their residents should have priority for the new top structures that are being built. All other informal settlements should be targeted to benefit from infrastructure, municipal services and tenure in a process that needs to involve nearly all city departments. The principles guiding this exercise should be upgrading in situ to minimise or eliminate relocations and maximise densities. These programmes also need to incorporate plans to prevent the growth of new slums by identifying areas suitable for new development (including small infill sites) that are located wherever possible to achieve a more compact urban form and mixed land use development. The process of developing these citywide inclusion programmes will be supported by NUSP guidelines and draw on the experience and expertise of the above-mentioned municipalities, as well as on the several provinces which have made considerable progress developing a programmatic approach, including Gauteng and the Western Cape - with its vulnerability index and ‘Isidima - Road Map to Dignified Communities’. These citywide inclusion programmes will then provide the basis for the project identification and implementation phases required under Part 3 of the National Housing Code. 3.3 Participatory planning In parallel with developing the citywide programmes municipalities should initiate participatory planning exercises initially targeting those informal settlements where there are not major land acquisition issues. Informal settlement communities should have already been engaged in the enumeration and socio economic surveys done during the rapid appraisal exercise, but communities need to be at the centre of the detailed upgrading planning process so that they are fully informed of the various trade-offs involved in design decisions regarding densities and standards. Municipalities may want to outsource this participatory planning function to NGOs, competent private sector professional planners, as well as consider mobilising support from local universities. These participatory planning exercises will be supported with NUSP guidelines and draw upon the related work of NGOs including the Project Preparation Trust (PPT) in KZN, as well as guidelines developed by municipalities, such as Nelson Mandela Bay’s “Sustainable Community Planning Guide”.

51

3.4 Mobilising technical capacity Responding to the fact that technical capacity at the local level is often a critical constraint, the NUSP will develop and implement a detailed capacity building strategy. A core component of this strategy will be to promote and service a community of practice of among the informal settlement upgrading practitioners currently working across the country in the public, private and community sectors. The idea will be to support the sharing and leveraging of their considerable practical knowledge and expertise to inspire and foster improved performance at the community, municipal and provincial levels in support of informal settlements upgrading consistent with BNG. The NUSP will also explore working with a consortium of the nation’s major universities with architecture, construction, planning and social development departments by exploring opportunities for mentoring and interning to expand the expertise available to municipalities. This initiative will also provide opportunities for both students and faculty to be exposed to the real world challenges of improving the living conditions of the urban poor, as well as to strengthen curricula related to innovations in informal settlements upgrading. 3.5 Indicative NUSP Timeframe

NUSP activity Timeframe from NUSP initiation

NUSP introduction and consultation with sub-national governments

By end month 1

NUSP implementation plan developed and adopted By end month 2 Participatory planning approach confirmed and introduced into projects

By end month 3

Capacity building strategy developed & implementation begun By end month 4 Rapid appraisals by 50 municipalities By end 6 months Citywide inclusion programmes developed in 50 municipalities By end 9 months

52

APPENDIX ONE: SUMMARY PROJECT PROFILES

53

CHIEF ALBERT LUTHULI EXTENSION 6 A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Project Name Chief Albert Luthuli Extension 6 Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality (EMM). Gauteng Province

Project Type Greenfield relocation project Households affected

3 600 – 3 700 households presently living in the Gabon Informal Settlement that are due to be evicted as a result of a Court Order

Timeframe Currently under construction

Current Status

Project preparation: complete Beneficiary identification: complete Bulk infrastructure & services: complete House construction: ongoing Township registration: Award of title: pending

Institutional Arrangements

EMM: Bulk infrastructure & services Gauteng Department of Housing (GDOH) in partnership with ABSA: Developer and project management for ongoing house construction

Proposed Project Product

3 600 subsidised housing units (48%) 1 780 gap housing units (24%) 2 070 bonded housing units (28%) Water supply, water borne sanitation, electricity supply, and bitumen surfaced roads. Social, community and commercial facilities

Integrated Development Plan Status

The Integrated Development Plan (IDP): i) includes a comprehensive multi-sector development programme based on high levels of inter-sectoral integration; ii) draws extensively on the EMM Growth & Development Strategy; iii) is linked to the Service Delivery & Budget Implementation Plan and Multi-Year Development Plan (2006/7-2008/9); and iv) includes forward projections of population growth. The completed Informal Settlement Upgrading Programme, Migration Plan and Spatial Development Framework are all referred to but should be included in the next IDP iteration.

B. PROJECT ASSESSMENT 1. The GDOH/EMM/ABSA partnership has proved successful to date and potentially acts as a precedent for similar joint venture arrangements elsewhere in the future. 2. The project directly addresses a critical housing need, promotes the concept of mixed residential development and delivers a high standard housing product at scale. 3. Consistently high standards of infrastructure, services and housing across the project, funded in the case of subsidised housing by cross subsidy from land sales of bonded housing, forms part of ABSA’s marketing strategy, but sets precedents and raises expectations in future housing projects 4. Although there is a generally high standard of house construction and workmanship there are certain inherent deficiencies in the house design, such as the unusable internal 2.5m² passageway.

54

5. One of the most severe constraints hampering efforts to address the housing backlog is the limited supply of developable land in EMM and difficulties in acquiring private land. This situation is jeopardised further by a reported lack of internal land management coordination. Aside from addressing this aspect of current operations, EMM needs to consider alternative approaches to the acquisition of private land through, for example, the formation of joint ventures or land readjustment and/or pooling. 6. In view of land availability constraints and in close consultation with beneficiary communities, EMM needs to explore further the possibility of developing subsidised housing projects on the basis of increased residential densities (and by implication) smaller stand sizes, and alternative housing typologies such as 2 storey semi-detached or row housing and 3-4 storey walk- up apartments. There will be a need to convince communities as to the valid trade-off these alternatives represent in terms of a reduced need for relocation. Government needs to support this initiative with a review of the current standard subsidy formula and recognition of the fact that differing conditions will require different housing solutions and correspondingly different housing subsidy allocations. 7. Along with considerations of capacity and land availability, the current shortfall in Municipal Infrastructure Grant funding (MIG), coupled with borrowing restrictions placed on local governments under such legislation as the Municipal Finance Management Act (MFMA) severely limit the ability of EMM to meet 2014 targets as set out in the EMM Operational Plan.

55

ETWATWA EXTENSIONS 9 & 10 A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Project Name Etwatwa Extensions 9 & 10 Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality (EMM). Gauteng Province

Project Type In-situ upgrading project Households affected

Approximately 1 500 households presently living in the area

Timeframe Currently under construction

Current Status

Project preparation: complete Beneficiary identification: complete Bulk infrastructure & services: complete House construction: ongoing Township registration: complete Award of title: complete

Institutional Arrangements

EMM: Bulk infrastructure & services Gauteng Department of Housing: Developer and project management for ongoing house construction

Proposed Project Product

1 500 serviced residential stands & subsidised units Water supply, water borne sanitation, electricity supply, and bitumen surfaced roads. Social, community and commercial facilities

Integrated Development Plan Status

The Integrated Development Plan (IDP): i) includes a comprehensive multi-sector development programme based on high levels of inter-sectoral integration; ii) draws extensively on the EMM Growth & Development Strategy; iii) is linked to the Service Delivery & Budget Implementation Plan and Multi-Year Development Plan (2006/7-2008/9); and iv) includes forward projections of population growth. The completed Informal Settlement Upgrading Programme, Migration Plan and Spatial Development Framework are all referred to but should be included in the next IDP iteration.

B. PROJECT ASSESSMENT 1. There are a number of relatively minor problems associated with locating new subsidised units on relatively small residential stands (120m²) and physically linking these to existing structures and freestanding toilet units built on some stands as part of the previous Etwatwa Township sites and services project. 2. One of the most severe constraints hampering efforts to address the housing backlog is the limited supply of developable land in EMM and difficulties in acquiring private land. This situation jeopardised further by a reported lack of internal land management coordination. Aside from addressing this aspect of current operations, EMM needs to consider alternative approaches to the acquisition of private land through, for example, the formation of joint ventures or land readjustment and/or pooling.

56

3. In view of land availability constraints and in close consultation with beneficiary communities, EMM needs to explore the possibility of developing subsidised housing projects on the basis of increased residential densities (and by implication) smaller stand sizes, and alternative housing typologies such as 2 storey semi-detached or row housing and 3-4 storey walk- up apartments. There will be a need to convince communities as to the valid trade-off these alternatives represent in terms of a reduced need for relocation. Government needs to support this initiative with a review of the current standard subsidy formula and recognition of the fact that differing conditions will require different housing solutions and correspondingly different housing subsidy allocations. 4. Along with considerations of capacity and land availability, the current shortfall in MIG funding coupled with borrowing restrictions placed on local governments under such legislation as the Municipal Finance Management Act (MFMA) severely limit the ability of EMM to meet 2014 targets as set out in the EMM Operational Plan.

57

N2 GATEWAY A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Project Name N2 Gateway Cape Town Metropolitan Municipality (CTMM). Western Cape Province

Project Type Combined upgrading and greenfield relocation project, also incorporating rental and bonded housing, and temporary relocation areas (TRAs).

Households affected

Approximately 30 000 households currently living in informal settlements or backyard shacks located in areas adjacent to the N2 Highway.

Budget

Land Acquisition: R37.5m Infrastructure & Services: R1 154.0m Breaking New Ground (BNG) top structures and stands: R 2 705.1m TRAs: R191m Land Rehabilitation: R107m (Figures based on N2 Business Plan April 2008)

Timeframe 2004-2009; Currently under construction

Current Status

Project preparation: generally complete for most areas. Beneficiary identification: complete for most areas Bulk infrastructure & services: complete in most areas House construction: complete in some areas, ongoing in others Township registration: complete in some areas, ongoing in others Award of title: complete in some areas, ongoing in others

Institutional Arrangements

CTMM: Bulk infrastructure & services Western Cape Department of Housing through Thubelisha Homes: developer and project management for ongoing project preparation and house construction activities

Proposed Project Product

3 830 upgraded serviced residential stands & subsidised housing units 24 600 new serviced residential stands & subsidised housing units (including 1 490 social housing units) 705 Community Rental Units (CRUs) 43 bonded housing units 5 500 TRA units Water supply, water borne sanitation, electricity supply, bitumen surfaced roads / footpaths Social, community and commercial facilities

Integrated Development Plan Status

CTMM is preparing a comprehensive (3-10 year) Informal Settlement Upgrading Programme. This needs to be incorporated into the IDP and linked to: i) the Spatial Development Framework presently being prepared; ii) the Long Term Growth & Development Strategy; and iii) specific sectoral objectives, programmes and plans.

58

B. PROJECT ASSESSMENT 1. The high density residential development in areas such as Joe Slovo (Phase 3) incorporating 2 storey semi detached/row houses and 3-4 storey walk-up apartments, potentially provide model housing typologies for application in other municipalities where with limited land availability (eg Ekurhuleni) or in projects where there is a need to minimise relocation (eg Duncan Village). 2. The application of appropriate engineering standards in the road and footpath designs for the New Rest Upgrading Area potentially provides a model for the adoption of appropriate standards and the maximum utilisation of land elsewhere. 3. The removal of CTMM and take-over of the developer and project management role by PDLGH/Thubelisha under the overall direction of NDOH, has seriously impacted on all aspects of inter-governmental relations, adversely affected current project schedules, and places strain on project handovers, current and future inter-governmental cooperation. 4. Housing need is defined only in terms of the current backlog and does not include consideration of additional demand generated as a result of future population growth.

59

BOSSIESGRIF-QOLWENI A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Project Name Bossiesgwif-Qolweni Bitou Municipality (BM). Plettenburg Bay Western Cape Province

Project Type Upgrading project Households affected

Approximately 1 800 HHs currently living in the area

Timeframe Current

Current Status

Project preparation: complete. Beneficiary identification: complete Bulk infrastructure & services: complete in most areas House construction: ongoing in Phase 1A Township registration: ongoing Award of title: pending

Institutional Arrangements

BM: Bulk infrastructure & services Western Cape Department of Housing: developer and project management for ongoing project preparation and house construction activities

Proposed Project Product

1 300 serviced residential stands and subsidised housing units, including high density units Qualified beneficiaries displaced as a result of the upgrading process will be accommodated in new subsidised housing units in KwaNokuthula Water supply, water borne sanitation, electricity supply, bitumen surfaced roads / footpaths Social, community and commercial facilities

Integrated Development Plan Status

The IDP is fairly general in nature. The next iteration should include more detail on the Coming Together Initiative, as well as sector plans and programmes, including an Informal Settlement Upgrading Programme and/or Housing Sector Chapter.

B. PROJECT ASSESSMENT 1. The Coming Together Initiative (CTI) prepared by the Provincial Departments of Local Government and Housing includes an Urban Integrated Pilot Project Masterplan for Plettenburg Bay. It is in effect an outline Spatial Development Framework, but also a promotional document aimed at potential investors and at developing the town as a major tourist destination. However, it takes little account of the need to improve infrastructure, services, housing and social/community facilities in the main urban population centres such as KwaNokuthula or the Bossiesgif-Qolweni informal settlement. These needs are addressed in a range of sector plans and programmes that at present do not form part of the IDP. There is therefore a need to combine the commercial initiative of the CTI which supports a bold concept of economic growth and development, with more practical urban planning and development considerations linked to ensuring that the economic benefits derived from the CTI are directed to formation of sustainable and well integrated human settlements. It is recommended that the CTI be incorporated in the next IDP iteration. 2. The high level of direct community involvement in all aspects of project planning and development potentially provides a model for informal settlement upgrading projects elsewhere

60

3. The phased incremental approach to upgrading, involving the on-site temporary resettlement of a limited number of households to facilitate ongoing civil works and housing unit construction, potentially provides a model for other projects. 4. The IDP has no estimate of either the current housing backlog or additional demand generated as a result of future population growth

61

PHOMOLONG EXTENSIONS 4, 5 & 6 A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Project Name Phomolong Extensions 4,5 & 6 Mookoophong Municipality (MM) Limpopo Province

Project Type Greenfield relocation project although Extension 6 includes an upgrading component for about 500 households

Households affected

Qualified beneficiaries selected from the current (1 655 households) backlog and (155 households) waiting list

Timeframe First phase complete in 2007. Second phase units completed in 2008

Current Status

Project preparation: complete Beneficiary identification: complete Bulk infrastructure & services: ongoing House construction: complete Township registration: complete Award of title: complete

Institutional Arrangements

MM: Bulk infrastructure & services Limpopo Department of Housing (LDOH): developer and project management for ongoing project preparation and house construction activities

Proposed Project Product

Two phases of 400 and 500 subsidised units. Water supply, water borne sanitation, electricity supply, bitumen surfaced roads / footpaths Social, community & commercial facilities

Integrated Development Plan Status

There is no Spatial Development Frameowrk, Housing Sector Plan or Informal Settlement Upgrading Programme included in the IDP. In view of the revised NHC/Chapter 3/ Sections 3.2/4.1 provisions with reference to IDP and housing chapters, there is probably need for technical assistance to the municipality to ensure these components are included in the next IDP iteration.

B. PROJECT ASSESSMENT 1. LDOH pressure to meet 2014 delivery targets coupled with delayed release of Municipal Infrastructure Grant (MIG) funding has resulted in top structures being erected in many areas without: i) a reticulated water supply (water is presently supplied either by means of tankers or boreholes linked to communal standpipes); ii) any connection to a mains sewer (a deficiency that has resulted in an overflow of raw sewage through manholes in Extension 6); and iii) no electricity supply. 2. Proposals for achieving the 2014 upgrading target are based on estimated backlog and do not take account of any additional demand created as a result of future growth. 3. Official calculations that there is adequate vacant municipal land currently available to accommodate 2 000 households are based on an assumed standard of about 300 units/ha. However, these estimates do not to take into account that actual stand sizes as delivered are much larger – for example, in certain project areas, such as Extension 6, stands are more than 450m² and in some instances more than 500m².

62

DISTENENG / SESHEGO EXTENSION 44 A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Project Name Disteneng (Phase 1) / Seshego Extension 44 Polokwane Municipality (PM) Limpopo Province

Project Type Greenfield relocation project

Households affected

About 1 000 households (of the total 4 500 households) from the Disteneng informal settlement to be relocated to Seshego Extension 44

Timeframe Currently under construction

Current Status

Project preparation: complete Beneficiary identification: complete Bulk infrastructure & services: complete House construction: ongoing Township registration: ongoing Award of title: ongoing

Institutional Arrangements

PM: bulk infrastructure & services Limpopo Department of Housing (LDOH): developer and project management for ongoing house construction

Proposed Project Product

1 000 serviced residential stands/subsidised housing units Water supply, water borne sanitation, electricity supply, bitumen surfaced roads / footpaths Social, community & commercial facilities

Integrated Development Plan Status

PM has completed an Spatial Development Framework and Housing Sector Plan. In view of the revised NHC/Chapter 3 (refer sections 3.2 & 4.1) provisions with reference to IDPs and housing chapters, there is a need to ensure these are included in the next IDP iteration.

B. PROJECT ASSESSMENT 1. The 45m² standard housing unit recently introduced by LDOH has no internal kitchen area and a more complex plan form which makes difficult the provision of effective weatherproof roofing. The LDOH has indicated that it may soon revert to the previous 40m² house type possibly with some variation on materials specifications. 2. In 2005/2006, approximately 1 800 households were relocated from the Tosca informal settlement to Seshego Extension 44 to make way for a proposed industrial zone. This relocation resulted in the households being located closer to the town centre, which is highly commendable. However, the cleared site remains vacant and has still has not been developed for industrial or any other use. 3. Procedures being applied in the relocation of households from Disteneng to Seshego Extension 44 are highly efficient and effective. However, more consideration needs to be given to the disruption and adverse impact such a process can have on affected households. There is a need therefore to comprehensively review present municipal relocation procedures. The National Department of Housing should initiate this review, and compare to contemporary internationally accepted guidelines including those of the World Bank or Asian Development Bank.

63

4. The attempt to break down the apartheid pattern of segregated land use and to forge greater social cohesion through mixed residential development has resulted in an emphasis on relocation rather than in situ upgrading. There is a need to comprehensively review this strategy as in many instances it results in the disruption of well established communities and in some cases the destruction of potentially valuable housing stock, and thus is: i) costly in terms of both financial and social capital; and ii) diminishes rather than augments existing housing stock at a time when there is a rapidly increasing housing backlog. The evidence of the excessive physical devastation caused by the relocation of households from the Greenside informal settlement supports these claims. 5. Proposals for achieving the 2014 upgrading target are based on estimated backlog and do not take account of any additional demand created as a result of future growth. 6. The regular, monotonous planning layouts for various greenfield relocation sites based on extremely low densities and excessive road design standards are completely lacking in any sense of community identity or character.

64

ETHANDAKUKHANYA EXTENSIONS 4 & 5 A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Project Name Ethandakukhanya Extensions 4 & 5 Mkhondo Municipality (MM), Piet Retief Mpumalanga Province

Project Type Greenfield relocation project Households affected

1 500 households from existing informal settlements (40%); backyard shacks (50%); and farm evictions (10%)

Timeframe Currently under construction

Current Status

Project preparation: complete Beneficiary identification: complete Bulk infrastructure & services: complete House construction: ongoing Township registration: ongoing Award of title: ongoing

Institutional Arrangements

MM: bulk infrastructure & services Mpumalanga Department of Local Government & Housing (MDLGH): developer and project management for ongoing project preparation and house construction activities

Project Product

1 500 serviced residential stands and subsidised units. The original project only accommodates about 1 290 units. Consequently the project boundary has been extended to include parts of Extension 9; and an additional overspill of serviced stands and housing units is being built in Extension 7. Water supply, water borne sanitation, electricity supply, bitumen surfaced roads / footpaths Social, community & commercial facilities

Integrated Development Plan Status

In view of the revised NHC/Chapter 3/Sections 3.2 & 4.1 provisions with reference to IDPs and housing chapters, there is a need to prepare a Spatial Development Framework and Informal Settlement Upgrading Programme /Housing Sector Plan (including an estimate of current and future housing demand) and include these in the next IDP review.

B. PROJECT ASSESSMENT 1. Due to MM capacity constraints, project management and works supervision is undertaken directly by MDLGH Gert Sibande Region officials based in Ermelo 100 km away. As a result there are only periodic (weekly) management/inspection visits. Coupled with the limited experience of local contractors currently employed on house construction contracts, this lack of supervision has resulted in an extremely poor standard of workmanship in units presently under construction in Extension 7. 2. The problem of poor workmanship is further exacerbated by extensive vandalism and pilferage of unoccupied structures. This points to the need for constant site supervision and security measures, and the careful synchronisation of completed construction works with turnover to beneficiaries for immediate occupation.

65

3. Project preparation/implementation is being undertaken by the MDLGH in coordination with a Project Steering Committees (PSC) involving ward councillors, committee members, municipal representatives including Community Liaison Officers, Community Development Workers, and service providers. Representatives of key sectors needed to provide essential social services are not involved in the PSC on a regular basis, but only consulted at key junctures of the plan preparation process. As a result inter-sectoral coordination is weak and this is reflected in the deficient IDP, and in delays in providing essential social services. For example, in spite of the fact that Extension 4 has been occupied since 1997, there is still no school provided on the site allocated in the planning layout. 4. Much of the existing housing in Extensions 6 & 8 is well built of mud bricks, timber and metal, and with floor areas in excess of the standard (40-45m2) subsidised unit. Residential densities are low with housing sited in large (about 400-500m2) stands along an internal circulation network made up of wide unsurfaced tracks. An incremental in-situ upgrading approach utilising the existing settlement pattern therefore appears to be relatively straightforward. However, MM proposals for the upgrading of Extensions 6 & 8 are based on planning layouts incorporating regular stand sizes and an excessively high road engineering standards. This approach will require total or partial demolition of almost all existing structures and complete social upheaval. It will also prove more costly. 5. In older parts of Extension 4 many residents have constructed large detached houses on serviced residential stands, many of which are built of high-grade permanent materials. These houses demonstrate the potential benefit of an incremental approach, and are also evidence of considerable initiative and investment. There is a danger that Government’s guarantee of subsidised housing for all qualified SA citizens will in dull such self reliance and result in a dependent and unmotivated society awaiting subsidy hand-outs. In this regard, there is a need to ensure that those residents who have taken some self-help housing initiative but are still eligible for benefit, receive some form of subsidy, possibly in the form of an improvement grant. 6. The municipal documents supplied do not include any estimate of current backlog or future housing demand

66

EMSAGWENI A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Project Name Emsagweni Emalahleni Municipality (EM), Witbank Mpumalanga Province

Project Type In-situ upgrading Households affected

An estimated 934 households resident in Emsagweni (2005 figure).

Timeframe Currently under construction.

Current Status

Project preparation: complete Beneficiary identification: complete Bulk infrastructure & services: water & water borne sewer system complete. Road construction ongoing. House construction: ongoing Township registration: ongoing Award of title: ongoing

Institutional Arrangements

EM: bulk infrastructure & services Mpumalanga Department of Local Government & Housing (MDLGH): developer and project management for ongoing project preparation and HU construction.

Proposed Project Product

Upgrading area: 755 serviced stands and some subsidised units. Greenfield site (Extension 1): 106 serviced stands & units Water supply, water borne sanitation, electricity supply, bitumen surfaced roads / footpaths. Social & community facilities

Integrated Development Plan Status

The EM Housing Delivery Programme includes a Spatial Development Framework and detailed Migration Plan. In view of the revised NHC/Chapter 3/Sections 3.2 & 4.1 provisions with reference to IDPs and housing chapters, the HDP needs to be incorporated in the next IDP review.

B. PROJECT ASSESSMENT 1. The planning layout incorporates markedly high engineering standards for the design of the internal road network, well above the practical requirements of a settlement in which there is unlikely to be a high level of vehicle ownership in the coming years. This results in unnecessary disruption and reduction of the land available for residential use. 2. In addition to MDLGH and EM technical staff, the PSC comprises ward councillors, committee members and community development workers (CDWs). Representatives of other sector departments such as education, health and social welfare were not included in the PSC on a permanent basis, but were involved in the planning process through the circulation of plans for comment at key junctures of the process. This form of ad-hoc engagement with concerned sector departments is far from ideal and results in delayed or otherwise deficient provision of social facilities in the completed project. 3. In order to create an improved sense of community identity and linkage between neighbouring households, there is a need for a more creative siting and orientation of housing in the greenfield (Extension 1) planning layout.

67

4. There was reportedly limited direct involvement of the community in the planning process, especially in the in situ upgrading areas. The reasons for this are unclear, but evidently reflect to some degree on the effectiveness of Ward Councillors, Committee members and CDWs. A more systematic approach to direct community involvement should be incorporated into the larger Empumelelweni project. 5. In spite of the apparent lack of community involvement, the upgrading approach adopted in Emsagweni is one of the most sensitive encountered in the Assessment Team field visits, and generally consistent with provisions of the revised NHC Part 3. As a result, the settlement retains much of its character, identity and established social networks 5. The Housing Delivery Plan aimed at meeting 2014 targets does not take account of any additional demand created as a result of future population growth.

68

OUBOKS A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Project Name Ouboks Umsobomvu Municipality, Colesberg Northern Cape Province

Project Type Upgrading (Phases 4 & 5) / Relocation (Phases 1,2 & 3)

Households affected

Ouboks, New Brighton & Aasnek: 993 households Surrounding informal settlements: 932 households Future growth: 333 HHs

Timeframe Currently under construction

Current Status

Project preparation: complete Beneficiary identification: ongoing Bulk infrastructure & services: complete in Phase 1,2 & 3 House construction: ongoing in Phase 1,2 & 3 Township registration: ongoing Award of title: ongoing

Institutional Arrangements

UM: Bulk infrastructure & services Northern Cape Department of Housing & Local Government (NCDLGH): developer and project management for ongoing project preparation and house construction activities

Proposed Project Product

Water supply, water borne sanitation, electricity supply, bitumen surfaced roads / footpaths Upgrading area: 354 serviced residential stands & housing units Greenfield / relocation site: 1944 subsidised residential stands & housing units Social, community & commercial facilities

Integrated Development Plan Status

A Municipal Annual Report (but no IDP) was made available for review.

B. PROJECT ASSESSMENT 1. Although the number and size of informal settlements in and around Colesberg are relatively small in comparison to larger municipalities, the Municipal Housing Programme is one of the most comprehensive attempts encountered by the Assessment Team to address the issue of sub-standard living conditions in informal settlements. 2. The badly degraded living conditions in informal settlements in and around Colesberg justified their scheduled relocation the greenfield project relocation site (Phase 1-3) with improved living conditions and access to adjacent social/community facilities and centres of employment. 3. The socio-economic survey undertaken in the preparatory stages of the Project was reportedly unsuccessful and of limited use. Possibly linked to this, in some cases the relocation of households from the Ouboks, New Brighton & Aasnek (Phase 4 & 5) upgrading areas appeared to have been proposed without due consideration of residents’ wishes and the relatively good condition of some existing structures. 4. A high proportion of structures in the existing informal settlements are built of permanent materials (stone) or are recently built RDP type units in reasonably good condition. There is no clear policy at present to deal with these types of structure at present. Only about 27-30 of all existing structures will be retained in the course of project implementation.

69

5. There is a need to approach the upgrading of the informal settlements on the basis of a more detailed survey of structural conditions and materials, and on the basis of an in depth household survey highlighting residents’ preference for either retention or relocation, especially as in many instances the floor area of existing structures is well in excess of standard (40m²) subsidised housing types.

70

LERATO PARK A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Project Name Lerato Park Sol Plaatje Municipality. Kimberley Northern Cape Province

Project Type Upgrading Households affected

2006 survey: 1 750 households currently living in Lerato Park.

Timeframe Implementation: Phase 1: 48 months. Phase 2: 48 months

Current Status

Project preparation: layout completed in 2005 (may need revision) Beneficiary identification: completed Bulk infrastructure & services: interim water supply only House construction: pending Township registration: pending Award of title: pending

Institutional Arrangements

Sol Plaatje Municipality (SPM): Bulk infrastructure & services Northern Cape Department of Housing & Local Government (NCDLGH): developer and project management for ongoing project preparation and house construction activities

Proposed Project Product

Phase 1: 1 750 serviced residential stands/subsidised units. Phase 2: 2 080 serviced residential stands/subsidised units. 800 Community Rental Units (CRUs). Water supply, water borne sanitation, electricity supply, bitumen surfaced roads / footpaths Social, community & commercial facilities

Integrated Development Plan Status

Not made available for assessment

B. PROJECT ASSESSMENT 1. The slow pace of development on this project is of concern. 2. There is a need redefine the Spatial Development Framework urban edge as the Lerato Park Upgrading Project Area currently lies outside the urban boundary

71

GRASSLANDS PHASES 2-4 A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Project Name Grasslands (Phases 2-4) Mangaung Municipality (MM), Bloemfontein Free State Province

Project Type Greenfield relocation project

Households affected

Phase 2: 1 950 eligible households & 955 non-qualified beneficiaries (July 2008) Phase 3 & 4: undetermined as yet

Timeframe Phase 2 house construction complete.

Current Status

Project preparation: Phase 2/3: completed Beneficiary identification: Phase 2: completed but status of non-qualified beneficiaries being resolved. Phase 3: pending Bulk infrastructure & services: Phase 2/3: only interim services (communal standpipes, pit latrines and gravel roads). House construction: Phase 2: 1,885 units completed (July 2008) Township registration: Phase 2: complete. Phase 3: ongoing Award of title: Phase 2: ongoing pending resolution of non-qualified beneficiary status. Phase 3: pending

Institutional Arrangements

MM: Bulk infrastructure & services Free State Department of Housing (FSDOH): developer and project management for ongoing project preparation and house construction activities

Proposed Project Product

Phase 1: middle income housing 1 241 units Phase 2: 2 831 serviced residential stands & subsidised units Phase 3: 2 814 serviced residential stands & subsidised units Phase 4: further development is halted pending resolution of illegal invasion Water supply, water borne sanitation, electricity supply, bitumen surfaced roads / footpaths Social, community & commercial facilities in all phases including municipal institutions, schools, crèches, churches & public open spaces.

Integrated Development Plan Status

The next MM IDP review needs to include an Informal Settlement Upgrading Programme.

B. PROJECT ASSESSMENT 1. The estimated housing backlog and Housing Sector Programme (HSP) aimed at meeting 2014 targets do not take account of any additional demand created as a result of future population growth. 2. Although house construction is ongoing in Phase 2 and 3, the lack of Municipal Infrastructure Grant (MIG) funds has meant that only interim services (communal standpipes, pit latrines and gravel roads) are in place in Phases 2/3 at present. 3. Due to inadequate policing and control land invasion is a serious problem. MM has had to evict illegal occupants from the Phase 3 area under the provisions of the Prevention of Illegal Evictions and Unlawful Occupation Act (PIE). In Phase 4, officially planned for middle income residential development, there is a significant ongoing invasion of the area which threatens realisation of the proposed project. IDP land management plans for 2008-09 include the acquisition of 100ha of land in Grasslands for Phase 4 development, even though much of this area has already been invaded and settled.

72

4. Lack of funds has meant that MM has only been able to purchase a small part (12 of 80 smallholdings) needed to implement Phase 4 proposals. As a result of the failure to secure the area, many other smallholders have become disaffected with municipal plans and have sold their smallholdings privately, in some instances to speculators who reportedly are consolidating and holding the land and waiting for the inevitable increase in price once the municipality is forced to acquire the land either for the planned Phase 4 development or the in-situ upgrading of the rapidly expanding informal settlement. 5. There is a need to prepare and audit of all public and private lands in the Municipality, with special emphasis on municipal land 6. There is a need to utilise the Spatial Development Framework and Housing Sector Plan as the basis for forward planning, the preparation of updated land use plans and development control regulations, and a policy to address the issue of illegal land invasion and shack construction

73

SERALENG A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Project Name Seraleng Rustenburg Municipality (RM) North West Province

Project Type Greenfield relocation project. Mixed residential development

Households affected Vulnerable households from informal settlements at Mbeki Sun, Portion 14, Popo Molefe, Yizo Yizo and Zakhele.

Timeframe Construction complete

Current Status

Project preparation: completed Beneficiary identification: completed Bulk infrastructure & services: completed House construction: completed Township registration: ongoing Award of title: ongoing

Institutional Arrangements

RM: Bulk infrastructure & services North West Department of Developmental Local Government & Housing (NWLGH): developer and project management for ongoing project preparation and house construction activities

Proposed Project Product

Water supply, water borne sanitation, electricity supply, bitumen surfaced roads / footpaths 5 000 serviced residential stands comprising: 3 200 subsidised units (68%); 1 000 social housing units (20%); 800 bonded units (12%).

Integrated Development Plan Status

Not made available for assessment

B. PROJECT ASSESSMENT 1. There is a need to apply far more stringent and transparent risk/vulnerability criteria for the prioritisation of informal settlement interventions. Although environmental conditions in Yizo Yizo are sub-standard, they far worse in Jabula-Donosa where 4 000 households share a single stand pipe and live in extremely degraded conditions in shacks built on and around a land fill site. Part of the relocation from Yizo Yizo is to make way for development of a new cemetery rather than be used for housing. 2. Estimates of the current housing backlog and the related Housing Sector Plan take no account of population growth since 2005 or likely future population growth. This is critical as Rustenburg’s population is presently growing at an estimated 6.0% p.a., and is projected to increase at a rate of about 20 000 persons p.a., a high percentage of these being migrants seeking employment in the mining industry. 3. Vacant municipal land suitable for development is limited. A high percentage of land is owned by mining companies or is under the jurisdiction of the Royal Bafokeng Authority (RBA). RM has commissioned an audit of all municipal land, scheduled for completion by late 2008. In order to meet current and future housing demand, there is a need for RM to: i) seek Department of Land Affairs assistance in accessing additional land; ii) form partnerships with mining companies and with RBA to access their lands and provide funding support for housing development; iii) develop inner city infill areas for low cost housing; and iv) introduce higher residential densities with reduced stand sizes and alternative house types, including 2 storey semi-detached and row houses and multi-storey units.

74

4. RM is presently seeking NWLGH assistance for purchase of aerial photography as the basis for a detailed audit of all informal settlements and preparation of a Housing Strategy based on the existing Housing Sector Plan (HSP), but appears not to be aware of the photography and satellite imagery already in existence used for preparation of the CSIR data base on informal settlements throughout the Province. There is a need for improved inter-governmental coordination 5. Mining companies do not provide accommodation for their workers but instead pay a housing allowance. This leads to high levels of demand for rental accommodation and in turn shack farming throughout RM. However, mining companies reportedly view the payment of this housing allowance as absolving them of any need for involvement in the RM’s forward planning and developmental efforts. There is a need to change this mind-set and bring about greater mining company involvement in forward planning initiatives, including preparation of the HSP and Housing Strategy. 6. There is a similar need to involve RBA more directly in forward municipal planning and development efforts. 7. The scope of socio-economic surveys in informal settlements is limited and lacking in depth. As a result, there is little knowledge of household characteristics other than information needed to determine their eligibility for subsidy. Apart from details of size, income, etc, especially important in this regard are characteristics necessary to ensure that the project is responsive to households needs and minimises the impact and disruption of relocation. Socio-economic surveys therefore need to include data on households attitudes towards relocation, housing preferences and special needs. The generally superficial nature of socio-economic surveys coupled with limited direct community involvement in the planning and development process means that projects such as Seraleng are not generally responsive to communities’ needs. 8. RM has undertaken a number of People’s Housing process (PHP) projects but these have not generally been successful. This outcome also reflects NWLGH experience across the Province. The PHP process is slow, and communities are not always willing to participate fully, often abandoning the project as soon as their component is complete. There is little acceptance of ‘sweat equity’ arrangements and beneficiaries now insist on payment for their inputs. NWLGH will continue to implement the PHP concept based on the Managed PHP approach, involving the appointment of a contractor to drive the process. 9. Acting on NWLGH directives, RM has prepared draft byelaws making the removal of all shacks by beneficiaries compulsory and prohibiting the re-erection of shacks on completed serviced residential stands. These requirements are to be put forward as a condition for the award of title to serviced stands and housing units. These byelaws imply that existing informal settlements will be recognised, and households registered for redevelopment; the municipality will dismantle new shacks. The requirement that households destroy their shacks in return for receiving a new unit does not rtake into account the value of shacks or other self built structures as a major investment by that household; a potential source of rental income and contribution to achieving a sustainable livelihood; or an additional shelter over and above the 40m² subsidised unit provision that may be needed to accommodate additional household members.

75

JOUBERTON EXTENSION 24, KANANA EXTENSION 14 and KHUMA EXTENSION 11 A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Project Name Jouberton Extension 24, Kanana Extension 14, & Khuma Extension 11 Matlosana Municipality (MM), Klerksdorp North West Province:

Project Type Greenfield relocation projects

Households affected

Priority households from the identified 13 000 households in informal settlements and 9 000 households in backyard shacks, identified in the Klerkdorp Municipal Business Plan (2005).

Timeframe Partly complete

Current Status

Project preparation: completed Beneficiary identification: completed Bulk infrastructure & services: complete (but out of service at present) Housing: approximately 3 000 units completed (about 10% forcibly occupied) Township registration: pending Award of title: pending

Institutional Arrangements

MM: Bulk infrastructure & services North West Department of Developmental Local Government & Housing (NWLGH): developer and project management for ongoing project preparation and house construction activities

Proposed Project Product

Jouberton: 2 084 serviced residential stands and units, and social community facilities including schools, municipal offices, crèches, churches, public open space. Kanana: 2 600 serviced residential stands and units, and undefined social, community & commercial facilities. Khuma: 336 serviced residential stands and units, public open spaces and other unidentified social, community & commercial uses. Water supply, water borne sanitation, electricity supply, bitumen surfaced roads / footpaths to all project sites. Social, community and commercial facilities in some areas

Integrated Development Plan Status

The next IDP review should include a Spatial Development Framework, Housing Sector Plan and Housing Chapter

B. PROJECT ASSESSMENT 1. Acting on NWLGH directives, MM is reportedly considering the preparation of byelaws similar to those in RM that would prohibit shack retention or re-erection as a condition of title award. However as with RM, this regulatory initiative needs to be reconsidered. 2. The IDP includes a projection that population growth over the next five years will result in a requirement for a further 10 480 units. However this needs to be substantiated and incorporated in a comprehensive Housing Sector Plan.

76

3. Poor contract management and site supervision has resulted in allegations of financial irregularities and sub-standard construction in all projects. Pending resolution of the ongoing litigation between the MM and contractors, Council is attempting to prohibit the occupation of completed units by beneficiaries, most recently by cutting water supply (in Khuma) to the project. Many households in urgent need of accommodation have forced entry into about 10% of all completed structures, and illegal connections have been made to water pipes. Elsewhere there is evidence of vandalism and deterioration of units due to lack of maintenance, poor workmanship and design (for example, wind damage to roofs). A small number of units have been demolished on Council’s instructions. The estimated cost of rehabilitation/renovation at present is R260 million. This unresolved situation is resulting in a growing sense of frustration amongst beneficiaries.

77

DUNCAN VILLAGE A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Project Name Duncan Village Buffalo City Municipality (BCM). East London Eastern Cape Province

Project Type Some in situ upgrading, but with very high levels of relocation

Households affected

Duncan Village population is about 21 395 households comprising: 15 000 in informal shacks; 3 400 in backyard shacks; and 2 925 households in the formal Gompo township area. At the time of this assessment some 14 000 households were scheduled for removal from Duncan Village to the greenfield development at Reeston, 14kms away.

Timeframe Currently under development

Current Status

Project preparation: ongoing Beneficiary identification: ongoing Bulk infrastructure & services: complete in most areas House construction: ongoing Township registration: ongoing Award of title: ongoing

Institutional Arrangements

BCM: Acts as overall developer through its Duncan Village Redevelopment Initiative (DVRI). Provides bulk infrastructure and services, and project management for ongoing project preparation and house construction activities

Proposed Project Product

Duncan Village: between 3 000 - 4 570 upgraded serviced residential stands/HUs in (depending on densities); Reeston Phases 1-3: 6 800 serviced residential stands/HUs Reeston Phase 4, Scenery Park & other relocation sites: identified for residual relocations Water supply, water borne sanitation, electricity supply, bitumen surfaced roads / footpaths to all upgraded & relocation sites Social, community & commercial facilities

Integrated Development Plan Status

There is a need to estimate the current backlog and future housing demand, and to incorporate these in a Housing Sector Plan which will form part of a Housing Chapter to be included in the next IDP review.

B. PROJECT ASSESSMENT 1. Current Duncan Village Redevelopment Initiative (DVRI) proposals require the relocation of almost 80% of all households presently living in shacks, and will severely disrupt the considerable social capital built up in Duncan Village over recent decades. The BCM/DVRI project management team need to re-engage with the community to reduce level of relocation by: i) increasing proposed residential densities in Duncan Village (especially for C-Section); and ii) further develop and present to the community the prototype high density, multi-storey housing types presently being constructed as pilot projects, as well as those being considered by the BCM Housing Division at present. 2. The DVRI Project Management Team appears to be undertaking redevelopment of Duncan Village on the basis of relatively low residential densities that will require wholesale relocation, without considering the relevance alternative two storey or multi-storey housing unit typologies presently being developed as pilots or prototypes. There is therefore a need to improve the level of in-house inter-departmental coordination and information sharing.

78

3. Given the limited supply of developable land within or close to Duncan Village, BCM needs to consider alternative approaches to the acquisition of private land through, for example, the formation of joint ventures or land readjustment and/or pooling. 4. Rectification of existing RDP housing units in some areas is taking precedent over the construction of new subsidised units. There is a need to reconsider the criteria by which this was defined as a priority intervention, and the impact it is having on other residents still awaiting infrastructure, service and housing improvements. 5. In cases where there is a (genuine) need for relocation, there should be direct consultation with affected households in order to: i) offer more choice on preferred location and unit types suited to household conditions; ii) undertake relocation on a block by block basis in a manner that retains neighbourhood and family ties. 6. There is a need to re-examine the location of Temporary Relocation Areas – at least one site appears to be vulnerable to flooding and land slips. 7. In order to complete a comprehensive Informal Settlement Upgrading Programme and Housing Sector Plan, there is a need first to identify all existing informal settlements, and prepare estimates of the current backlog and future housing demand.

79

ZANEMVULA A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Project Name Zanemvula Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality (NMBMM), Port Elizabeth Eastern Cape Province

Project Type Greenfield relocation project (located mostly in Chatty Extensions 5,12,13 & 15 and Chatty Extensions 18 & 22)

Households affected

Almost 6 500 households from vulnerable areas and backyard shacks in Soweto-on-Sea and Veeplas, and from the de-densification of other informal settlements

Timeframe Currently underway

Current Status

Project preparation: completed. Beneficiary identification: completed Bulk infrastructure & services: completed House construction: Chatty (18/22): complete: Chatty (5/12/13/15) ongoing Township registration: ongoing Award of title: ongoing

Institutional Arrangements

NMBM: Bulk infrastructure & services Eastern Cape Department of Local Government & Housing (ECLGH) through Thubelisha Homes: developer and project management for ongoing project preparation and house construction activities

Proposed Project Product

Chatty 18/22: 2 800 serviced residential stands and subsidised units. Chatty 5/12/13/15: 5 932 and other high-density housing (including Community Rental Units (CRUs). All areas: water supply, water borne sanitation, electricity supply, bitumen surfaced roads/footpaths. Social, community & commercial uses including: business premises, health facilities, schools, crèches, religious buildings, community facilities, public open spaces & playgrounds. Temporary relocation areas (TRA)

Integrated Development Plan Status

NMBMM has a comprehensive Spatial Development Framework, Informal Settlement Upgrading Programme and Housing Sector Plan. These should be incorporated as an integral part of the next IDP iteration.

B. PROJECT ASSESSMENT 1. At present ECLGH acts as developer, with Thubelisha as its agent. Thubelisha is performing satisfactorily, has a good working relationship with NMBMM and is delivering housing more or less on schedule. Nevertheless there appears to be a disconnect between NMBMM and ECLGH. NMBMM seeks to assume full responsibility for all aspects of the project as implementing agent in line with the comprehensive human settlements approach outlined in its IDP documents, although has made little progress in this regard. 2. The NMBMM has developed an innovative and comprehensive approach to sustainable community planning which is worthy of wider circulation to otherb municipalities.

80

3. There is a need to estimate future housing demand and to incorporate this into a revised Housing Chapter to be included in the next IDP review

81

MOUNT MORIAH A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Project Name Mount Moriah Ethekwini Metro Municipality (EMM), Durban KwaZulu Natal Province

Project Type Greenfield relocation project

Households affected

Households relocated from high risk informal settlements vulnerable in terms of public health and safety or displaced as a result of upgrading activities in other informal settlements.

Timeframe All construction complete

Current Status

Project preparation: completed Beneficiary identification: completed Bulk infrastructure & services: completed House construction: completed Township registration: ongoing Award of title: ongoing

Institutional Arrangements

EMM: Bulk infrastructure & services KwaZulu Natal Department of Housing (KZNDH): developer and project management for ongoing project preparation and house construction activities

Project Product 2 100 serviced residential stands and subsidised housing units Water supply, water borne sanitation, electricity supply, bitumen surfaced roads / footpaths Social, community and commercial facilities

Integrated Development Plan Status

An Informal Settlement Upgrading Programme has been prepared and forms part of the Housing Sector Plan. These need to be included as an integral part of the next IDP review.

B. PROJECT ASSESSMENT 1. There is a need to reconsider the current practice involving ‘temporary’ removal of all existing households and shacks from informal settlements to Temporary Relocation Areas (TRAs) as part of the upgrading process. This may facilitate the planning and implementation process, but does not conform to generally accepted norms for in-situ upgrading. Relocation also has a disruptive impact on affected households, both practically (affecting journeys to work, school, health and commercial facilities), as well as socially, through disruption to established community and household networks. 2. Due to delays and complications in the upgrading process many households are retained in TRAs for extended periods. Some residents of the Ridgeview TRA, which accommodates around 700 households, have been living there for about 3 years, and still have no indication of when they will be moved into their allocated permanent serviced stand and unit. 3. There is a need to streamline official approval processes. At present it takes about 18 months to complete the 80 or so steps required in the project preparation cycle. Given the rapid rate of informal settlement growth, by the time approval requirements are completed the physical and socio-economic parameters guiding the project have altered, as a result of which the project response is often already outdated 4. There is a need to estimate future housing demand and to incorporate this into a Housing Chapter to be included in the next IDP review.

82

APPENDIX TWO ASSESSMENT TEAM Sizwe Diko Non-Public Finance Expert Mark Hildebrand International Upgrading Advisor John Lowsby Municipal Engineer Tony Mann Urban Planner Monty Narsoo Governance Expert Steve Topham Team Leader Alan Yorke Public Finance Expert

83

APPENDIX TWO ASSESSMENT TEAM Sizwe Diko Non-Public Finance Expert Mark Hildebrand International Upgrading Advisor John Lowsby Municipal Engineer Tony Mann Urban Planner Monty Narsoo Governance Expert Steve Topham Team Leader Alan Yorke Public Finance Expert