Human Settlements Committee Reports on Oversight Visits to Eastern Cape and Lenasia, Gauteng

Human Settlements, Water and Sanitation

27 November 2012
Chairperson: Ms B Dambuza (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Committee noted, at the outset of the meeting, that it had recently been notified of a Toilet Summit Workshop on the following day. Members would be attending, and the Research Unit would assist in preparing a paper on the perspective of Parliament. However, they were critical of the fact that Parliament had not been allocated a slot to put its views, that Members should not merely be expected to be spectators since in all likelihood this Report would come back to Parliament for adoption, and that the Committee could not be expected to act as a foil for, or reflect the views of the Department of Human Settlements (DHS). This would be made clear in the future.

The Committee then considered a report on its oversight visit to Eastern Cape, during July and August 2012. It had included a follow up to a previous visit to the OR Tambo District Municipality. Members noted their disapproval that municipal officials tended to proffer an excuse of difficult terrain, rather than getting resources and planning together to implement. They also commented on the lack of a Needs Register, the slow pace of upgrading of informal settlements, and said that municipalities should not be used as developers when they were not capacitated. Blocked projects, many in rectification, that had been ongoing for years, were another concern. Many projects showed stacked material that had never been used, was not protected from the elements, or half-completed projects, and this was simply wasteful expenditure. They agreed to meet with counterparts from the Portfolio Committees on Tourism and Economic Development, who had also conducted oversight, to discuss the potential of the areas, and follow up on allegations of land being stolen and projects that were no longer being used.

The Committee considered a draft report on the visit of a delegation of the Committee, at very short notice, to Lenasia, after media reports had shown houses being demolished. They had discovered that this had apparently been an ongoing problem since 2002, and that although the Provincial Department of Human Settlements had originally obtained an eviction order, in 2010, it had not implemented it until now. An action plan had instead been drawn, but the Department decided also to abandon this, on its own, without getting permission from the new MEC. The situation was further complicated by the South African Human Rights Commission intervention which resulted in another court order halting the demolitions. Those occupying the houses had apparently been “sold” the land, on official Departmental letterheads, by municipal officials, although there were inconsistencies in that they had been told they must first build before getting title deeds. The houses now demolished were not occupied, but not all empty houses were demolished, so there were still inconsistencies. The Gauteng Housing Committee was prepared to safeguard the land, but was physically incapable of maintaining a 24-hour presence.

The Committee had recommended that the fraudulent sales should be the subject of criminal charges.  Protection may need to be offered to witnesses. The Province and DHS must provide resources for proper patrolling to ensure that no more houses were built, and the DHS must stop demolishing until the Minister had intervened. The role of the national DHS should be more visible. Provincial and national legislatures should work together on the recommendations. A DA Member added that the circumstances further suggested that the role of the City Council must be investigated, as someone had given planning approval, and linked up electricity and water. Another ANC Member added that the views of the legal residents, who were concerned about devaluation of their own properties, and theft of water and electricity, must also be considered. Other options should be considered, apart from demolition. The problem seemed to be availability of land, rather than affordability.

The Committee adopted both reports, with the necessary amendments.

Meeting report

Opening Remarks
The Chairperson informed the Committee that the purpose of the meeting was to adopt the two oversight reports of the Committee. The Report of the Committee on its performance should be written by the end of March 2013.

She noted that on the following day, the Committee would be attending the Toilet Summit Workshop and urged all Members to prepare thoroughly for it.

Mr J Matshoba (ANC) emphasised that not only should this Committee be visible but should also make some inputs, perhaps including a statement that highlighted the perspective of Parliament, to be presented at the workshop.

The Chairperson noted a request to the Parliamentary Research Unit to prepare a paper for the Committee that indicated the perspective of Parliament.

Mr S Mokgalapa (DA) supported Mr Matshoba, saying that visibility was not enough, and thought a specific slot should be allocated in the programme. Members could not merely be spectators. The resolutions which would come out of those gatherings would eventually come before Parliament, hence the need for the Members to be more participatory.

He asked if government or civil society had organised the workshop.

The Chairperson responded that the workshop was an international event, organised by international role players, who had the event to the attention of the Department of Human Settlements. This Committee had to guard against the Department of Human Settlements (DHS) acting in a manner that undermined the role of Parliament.

Mr Mokgalapa repeated his concerns that these kinds of events were hosted by someone else, without necessarily including Parliament, although eventually the documentation would come to Parliament for ratification. He suggested that it must clearly be indicated that, from now on, the Committee would not merely rubber-stamp what the Department was doing.

Draft Committee Report on the Oversight Visit to the Eastern Cape, 29 July to 3 August 2012
The Chairperson tabled the draft Report, and reminded Members that the Committee had, during this oversight visit, met with the provincial Department and received a presentation on the OR Tambo Municipality, as a follow-up to a previous visit there. No particular challenges were raised. The presentation had highlighted the projects that would run in the district municipalities like Umhlontlo and Enyandeni Municipalities.

The Committee had been concerned at the tendency of the municipality, when it was reluctant to do something or install infrastructure, to claim that the “topography” was a problem, instead of gathering together the resources to actually implement the projects. This excuse did not go down well with the Committee.

Another challenge was that the municipality simply started projects without having drawn a Needs Register.

A further challenge was that the upgrading of informal settlements was happening at a very slow pace, or was not visible at all.

The Committee had further observed that municipalities were being used as developers, yet were not capacitated with developer status. This tendency had to be halted.

Mr Mokgalapa added that the other major item was that of blocked projects. Rectification was another concern, because most of the projects in rectification were old projects.

The Chairperson said that previously this Committee had made reference to several old projects that were not running properly. The Department’s efforts were not visible.

She further noted that there were problems around toilets without any running water. The Department of Human Settlements (DHS or the Department) had been requested to come and put temporary structures in place.

Mr Mokgalapa emphasised that there was a serious problem with sanitation overall.

The Chairperson remembered also that the Committee had been shown stocks of materials in temporary relocation units, which were not used. People were still complaining that they had not received what was promised. Once again, when visiting Lusikisiki it had found stacked toilets which were not being used. All of this was wasteful expenditure.

Mr Mokgalapa agreed, pointing out that materials were just lying gathering rust, without being used, that they were not protected from the elements, and would eventually deteriorate to the point where they could  not be used anywhere else, which was fruitless and wasteful expenditure.

Mr Matshoba added that the Committee had also seen toilet pits dug out, but simply left as open holes, into which animals were falling.

Mr Mokgalapa pointed out that when this Committee had visited Eastern Cape, at Port St Johns, the Portfolio Committee on Tourism was also conducting oversight. He suggested that this Committee should engage with its counterparts on Tourism and Economic Development, to get a common approach and understanding of the challenges, and of the potential of the areas. There was significant potential for housing in Port St Johns. However, the considerations for the area should not relate to housing alone. A multi-faceted approach was needed.

Mr Matshoba agreed, and recommended officially that a meeting be held with the Portfolio Committees on Tourism Committee and on Economic Development.

Mr Mogkalapa proposed that the Mayor of Port St Johns Municipality be invited to a stakeholder meeting.

The Chairperson commented that problems had been raised of land being stolen. There were negotiations between the municipalities and traditional leaders in that regard.

Mr Mokgalapa said there were also municipalities whose major projects had merely become “white elephants”, and suggested that the Committee should follow up on those.

The Committee adopted the Report with amendments.

Report on Oversight Visit to Lenasia, Gauteng Province
The Chairperson summarised that a delegation from the Committee had visited Lenasia on a fact finding mission, after seeing media reports on the demolishing of houses. However, on arrival, they were surprised to be told that the Department and the Gauteng Housing Committee had recently heard of this for the first time, because this had apparently been an ongoing problem since 2002, when the DHS first discovered the illegal occupation of State land. The DHS had firstly decided to approach the Court for eviction orders against the illegal occupiers, but had later resolved not to evict, and an independent mediation was proposed. This, however, had failed because people were intimidated against raising their issues with the mediator. The most important point to note was that although DHS had obtained a court order in 2010, authorizing the demolition of the houses, it had not acted on it. When the Committee’s delegation had questioned this, the DHS said that it was following certain processes. Another action plan had been abandoned because there was a change of the MEC for Housing. The question was why the DHS had taken the decision to abandon this action plan, when the new MEC did not say it should be abandoned. The Administration simply seemed to act on its own. The action plan was not followed, and eventually the DHS had demolished the houses. None of those demolished were occupied. However, there were also some empty houses that had not been demolished, so the process of demolition was not consistent.

The Chairperson said the delegation from the Committee had managed to meet with the affected community. Community members explained that they had been given maps, and displayed them, indicating stands allocated to beneficiaries. It must be remembered that these beneficiaries were desperate for a house. They had fallen into a trap of fraud by municipal officials, who led them to believe that the land had been sold to them by government. However, some of the people had acquired the land in March, but were told by the fraudulent sellers that they had to complete their building by April, in order to get title deeds. 

The Chairperson said the recommendation of the Committee was that these instances of fraud must be treated as the crime that they were. The courts should continue with their work and investigate those allegations. People were being threatened, and it would be necessary to protect witnesses. The Gauteng Housing Committee, together with the Department, were prepared to safeguard the land, but there were no resources to do this when houses were built and occupied during the night.

The Committee delegation had resolved that the Province and DHS had to provide the resources and vehicles to patrol the area so that people did not build houses at night. Furthermore, they had recommended that the DHS should stop demolishing houses until the Minister had intervened in that situation, as well as the national DHS, whose role was not presently visible. It was also agreed that provincial and national legislatures would work together to ensure that all those recommendations were implemented. Finally, she noted that the Committee had noted that the Municipal by-laws were not adhered to, and there was no commitment to implement those.

Mr Mokgalapa commended the Committee for going to Lenasia, especially at such short notice, and said it was unfortunate that some Members were unable to attend. However, this was a very delicate situation.  He would agree that the law should take its course, and he also agreed with the coordination amongst stakeholders. He said that questions must be asked how the Department of Housing in Gauteng was not aware of this, since the “sales” of the stands were apparently confirmed on the Department’s letterheads. He added that in any township development there should be town planning process approval, and therefore it must be asked who approved those building plans in the City of Johannesburg, because no building was built without city council approval, Thirdly, questions must be asked how people got access to water and electricity, as they surely had to apply for this from the City of Johannesburg. The issue clearly involved both the City of Johannesburg and the Gauteng Department of Housing, but their roles should be separated out. The Special Investigating Unit (SIU) and the Hawks should be called in. There was a serious legal conundrum because the Court had now apparently reversed its earlier order to demolish, with a later injunction against demolishing, once the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) had intervened. This was now a new precedent.

Mr Mokgalapa added that another group of legal residents were calling for illegal houses to be demolished. They pointed out that the illegal buildings were devaluing their own legally-acquired properties, and the illegal residents were stealing their water and electricity. That was another scenario which the Committee needed to investigate – how the two communities could be distinguished.

The Minister of Human Settlements had visited Lenasia and had suggested there should be a joint forum. The Gauteng Housing Department was following the legal route.

The Chairperson said that a recommendation had been made that those who had already built houses should be made aware that they had built on land owned by government. The Department had said that the government could sell the houses to the individuals, at a market price. Other options also needed to be considered, apart from demolition.

 Ms M Njobe (ANC) said this situation showed that people were able to pay R40 000 for stands and build large houses on land. This indicated that the problem was not so much that people were poor and could not afford housing, but a problem of availability of land for housing. Even if it took a lifetime to pay off, people may wish to and could afford to buy the land.

The Chairperson said that Government departments and officials should be robust and vocal in campaigning against illegal occupation of Government land, not simply discuss these issues in the boardroom.

The Committee adopted the Report, with amendments.

 The meeting was adjourned.

Documents

No related documents

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: