Department of Human Settlements on the Diepsloot and Harry Gwala informal settlements

Meeting report

The Chairperson opened the meeting when the delegation from the Department of Human Settlements (DOHS) arrived. She pointed out that the delegates were 35 minutes late for the meeting and that some of the Members had been waiting for more than an hour.

Ms M Borman (ANC) said that the Committee required an explanation from the DOHS delegation for the late arrival.  The Committee was serious about its business and they needed the Department’s support to ensure service delivery. The Members had visited many housing projects and there were serious problems that needed to be dealt with.  The Committee needed to cooperate with the Department, and they needed communicate on where the problems lay.  The backlog in the provision of housing had to be addressed.

Mr A Steyn (DA) said that the Committee was short on time.  The Committee’s report on the visit to the Eastern Cape had to be tabled before the end of the current Parliamentary term.  The matter on the agenda for this meeting was perhaps not as urgent.

Mr R Mdakane (ANC) suggested that the issue was raised with the Minister and that the Committee proceeded with its business.  Departmental staff members were answerable to the Committee but the Ministry was accountable.  It was a rare occasion when Members had to wait for the arrival of Departmental staff.

Ms Julie Bayat (Chief Director, DOHS) apologised for the late arrival of the delegation.  They were not aware that the original time and venue had changed.  They had been under the impression that the meeting would start at 09h30 and not at 09h00.  She said that the Department was also serious about its work and had also faced some challenges regarding this meeting.  In particular, they did not understand how the details were to be presented.  She would raise the matter of how the communication concerning the changed time of the meeting had been handled with the office of the Director-General.

The Chairperson accepted the explanation and ruled that the DOHS should be given the opportunity to brief the Committee.  The Members were aware of what was happening in Diepsloot.  The Committee should have visited the area, but they wanted the DOHS to do its work first and compile a report.  The whole country was aware of the situation there.

Ms Borman concurred with the Chairperson.  The communication problem was not a matter for this meeting.  There was a cost implication to bringing people to Parliament and the DOHS team was now present.  The unrest in Diepsloot had been covered on television.

Presentation by the Provincial Department of Local Government and Housing (DLGH) on the Diepsloot informal settlement
Ms Linda Ngcobo (Chief Director, Gauteng DLGH) explained that there were two informal settlements in the Diepsloot area.  The area known as Diepsloot West was home to approximately 10 000 families.  The Gauteng DLGH and the Municipality of Johannesburg had installed basic facilities and contractors were on site.  The area was very densely populated and alternative land had been identified.  This was the area known as Diepsloot East.  The Department had engaged with the landowner and had agreed to purchase the land for R60 million.  The area was approximately 80 ha.  The sale agreement had been concluded in the previous two months.

Ms Ngcobo advised that the landowner had been brought in as the developer.  This agreement had led to a discounted price on the sale of the land.  A feasibility study had been conducted, the pre-planning phase had been completed and an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) had been completed and submitted to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) for approval.  The final stages of the development would commence in the 2011/12 financial year.  The Gauteng DLGH had already started to install services and once completed, people would be moved from the West to the East settlements.  It would be a green fields development and some 12 000 housing units would be built, including so-called RDP houses, rental stock and bonded houses.  Schools, shops, clinics and other facilities were included in the plans.  Phase 1A would commence in the 2011/12 financial year

Ms Ngcobo said that Phase 2 was currently on hold because a colony of bullfrogs would have to be relocated before the land could be developed.  A site was being identified but this process could take up to two years.  Phase 2 would be implemented during the 2012/13 financial year.  The cost of the project would be approximately R200 million, which would be spread across different phases.

Discussion
Mr J Matshoba (ANC) asked for more detail on the relationship between the landowner and the developer.

Ms Borman asked if the budget took cost escalations into account.  Substantial amounts were involved.  She asked how the lists of beneficiaries were managed.  She asked how the current situation was being managed.  She pointed out that overcrowded conditions led to anger amongst residents.  She asked whether the people of Diepsloot understood that this was a long-term project while they wished for an overnight solution.

Mr Steyn presumed that the right to develop the land was given to the landowner in order to purchase the land at a lower price.  He asked if any conditions had been included in the agreement should the developer fail to deliver.  He asked if R60 million was a fair price as land values were often inflated when Government was the buyer.  He noted that there was already an in-situ project in Diepsloot West.  He presumed that people would be systematically moved to the East development as the houses were completed.  The West area could then be upgraded, but this could upset the residents again.  Some people would still be living in squalor while their neighbours were moving into decent housing.  It would be preferable if all the current residents could be accommodated in the East development.  Diepsloot West could then be used to accommodate new arrivals and the overspill.

Mr T Botha (COPE) asked what the distance was between the two areas.  He asked what system was in place for the relocation of residents to the new area.  He asked how the Department would ensure that there was not an influx of people into Diepsloot West as the new area was being developed.  When people heard that a new area was being opened they tended to flood into the old area in order to get onto the beneficiary list for new houses.  While the population of Diepsloot West was currently 10 000 families this could easily increase to 15 000, especially given the long timeframes for the development.  He asked if the new area bordered the R555 road, as there were other informal settlements in that area.

Mr Mdakane remarked that people from Alexandra would move into Diepsloot even though it was further away.  Families were sharing shacks and Government had set a target of eliminating all shacks by 2014.  He asked if this target was still realistic.  The new Diepsloot would be a nice development but there were infrastructure problems.  The Johannesburg sewerage system was already overloaded.  He asked if the provision of basic services infrastructure was included in the estimated R200 million.

Mr R Bhoola (MF) said that much had already been done for the 2011/12 phase of the project.  People needed homes and the development was welcome.  He noted that two years would be needed to relocate the bullfrog colony but he would not like to see this issue slowing the project.  He noted the mix of housing types and asked how a single project could cope with the different demands.  He asked if the Housing Development Authority (HAD) was playing a role in the development.

The Chairperson asked what role was played by the Department.  She asked if the Municipality was involved in the project.  The Municipality would need the support of the Department.  She asked if basic services were being provided while the people waited for the project to be completed.  The Provincial and Local Government had formed a joint committee to oversee the project and she asked if this arrangement was viable.

Ms Ngcobo replied that the Gauteng DLGH had negotiated with the landowner on the purchase of the land.  The original price had been high but a discounted price was offered if the landowner was taken on as the developer.  The Gauteng DLGH had conducted a verification audit and found that the landowner was also a registered developer.  The deal was then agreed to.  The information was available to the Committee and the value of the land could be compared to other areas.  The projected cost of the development of R200 million was based on current costs and would increase with inflation.  The Gauteng DLGH had information on the beneficiaries on the waiting list and had indicated their different needs for the three types of housing on offer.  The Municipality had a register of the occupants of each shack.  The number of residents was expected to increase.  Municipal bylaws would be applied to manage the influx into the area.  A project steering committee was in place and included representatives from both the Gauteng DLGH and the Johannesburg Municipality.  The steering committee met on a monthly basis.  There was a current upgrade project in Diepsloot West and some services had been installed but the population was too dense for proper development.  Some RDP-type houses had been built in the area.  Diepsloot East was less than three kilometres away from the existing settlement.  The Johannesburg Municipality had conducted an audit on the infrastructure problems and the report would be available by the following month.  Additional bulk services were required and the report would indicate where the problems were.

Ms Ngcobo said that the area where the bullfrog colony was located was part of the Phase 2 development.  This issue would be addressed while Phase 1A was under construction.  The agreement to purchase the land had been concluded in the previous financial year and the transfer of funds would occur during the current financial year.  The Johannesburg Municipality was providing basic services to Diepsloot West and Johannesburg Water was supplying water.  Public taps and toilets had been provided and there was a refuse collection service.

Mr Bongani More (Acting Chief Operations Officer, Gauteng DLGH) said that the community needed to understand the long-term nature of the project.  People were restless.  Leadership positions were continuously contested and the balance of power was shifting.  Government had to interact with the residents and consistent communication was necessary.  People were flooding into the area but most did not qualify for housing subsidies, for example foreigners.  Another difficulty was that people were allocated houses only to sell the houses, to rent them out or to accommodate extra families in their houses.  The Department was trying to determine if the houses were occupied by the rightful owners.  The limited availability of land was another challenge. Developers wanted to get the best deal for themselves and took advantage of the pressure on Government.  In the case of Diepsloot, the whole area was being developed to minimise movement of people.  There had been a successful programme in Alexandra that had won a United Nations habitat award. The demand continued to increase while resources were decreasing.  The Johannesburg Municipality had a budget of R600 million for housing, which had to be split between four regions.  Developments were underway in the areas where protests were being held.  He felt that the Government target of eliminating all shacks by 2014 was not possible with the limited funding available.  There was an increasing demand for housing but Government had to face the financial realities.  The economic climate was also encouraging migration into Gauteng.  Many people did not intend to settle permanently in the region and this led to a demand for rental accommodation.  This was one of the reasons for applying the mixed development model in Diepsloot East.  A very successful project was the conversion of hostels to rental units in the Tshwane Municipality.

Mr Matshoba felt that his question on the relationship between the landowner and the developer had not been answered.  There had been problems with identifying beneficiaries at the housing project in Matatiele.  Doubts were raised and Councillors needed to make the lists of beneficiaries available.

Mr Botha was pleased that the distance between the two Diepsloot areas was relatively short as the relocation of residents could be problematic.  There had been incidents of unrest over relocations in the Spruit area of Tshwane.  Even a relatively short distance of 3 km could be a problem.  The matter of the bullfrogs illustrated the conflict between environmental and development interests.  Environmental issues could delay housing projects.  A fast-track project was successfully completed within a year in Oliewenhoutsbosch with support from the Provincial Government and ABSA bank.  Regular meetings were held.  He asked if the project was being fast-tracked.  He wanted to know if the zoning applications had been submitted.  He observed that people were living in flood-plain areas and other uninhabitable conditions. In principle, he had no objection to the link between the landowner and the developer but wanted to know how the deal was negotiated.  Diepsloot was now prime city land and prices had increased.  The market would determine the price unless the land was expropriated.  High density areas were another issue and he asked if the country could afford the ever-increasing urban sprawl.  There was very little land available for development.

Mr Steyn asked if the previous landowner (and future developer) was aware of the bullfrog colony and if this matter was taken into consideration during the negotiations.  Such an environmental problem could impact on the value of the land.  He asked what provision was being made for housing bonds and economic activities in the project plan.  He asked if the DOHS had engaged with other Government Departments responsible for schools, clinics and other infrastructure.

Ms Borman remarked that there were a large number of beneficiaries.  Some residents would be moved out of Diepsloot West while others would have to remain behind.  She asked what the criteria would be to select beneficiaries to occupy the new units as this should not happen on an ad-hoc basis.  Cases involving corruption had been uncovered in the allocation process and the applicable criteria had to be clearly stated.  Scarce resources were required for housing projects and the quality of housing was an issue.  Rectifications programmes to repair defective buildings cost millions of Rand.  She asked if the contractors were credible and if there was a monitoring system in place.

Mr Mdakane commented that Diepsloot East was a high-density development.  Diepsloot had become prime land as it was situated between Johannesburg and Pretoria.  Urban sprawl was becoming a bigger problem as settlements continued to expand.  Another problem was that people refused to pay for services.  Many residents of the settlements were indigent.  It was necessary to engage effectively with the residents.  The principle of reserving a stand for a single family was not practical, especially in Gauteng.  Another problem was that houses were completed but it took up to eighteen months before the water and electricity supplies were connected. The integration of the community was a highly desirable result as well.

Mr Bhoola was enthusiastic over the proposed development.  The beneficiary list was in place and transformation was necessary.  Funding was not readily available for all the housing developments required.  He did not support the willing buyer/willing seller principle in cases where Government had to acquire land for development.  Prices escalated by up to 200% when Government was interested in purchasing land.  The available funds were not always utilised for the intended purpose.  The issues of corruption and the influx of foreigners into informal settlements needed to be addressed.  The Johannesburg Municipality had a waiting list that was monitored by the Gauteng DLGH but he wanted to know who was responsible for the beneficiary list.  He felt that South Africa had to move towards becoming a non-racial society.

Ms T Gasebonwe (ANC) asked how the Provincial authorities planned to prevent an influx into Diepsloot.  She said that Government was responsible for providing services to the residents.

The Chairperson said that emerging contractors must be empowered.  The DOHS was required to report on urban spread.  She said that it was understandable that people moved out of RDP houses and wanted to know what condition the dwellings in Diepsloot West were in.  Experience showed that most of these units were in a bad condition.  She asked if there was a rectification programme to repair existing units.  The experience in Alexandra had been that people were supposed to be moved from an old settlement to the Marlborough area.  Houses had been built but many remained unoccupied as many of the beneficiaries refused to move.

Mr Matshoba remarked that protest marches were initially held to protest against the lack of service delivery.  However, there appeared to be a different motivation behind many marches and the instigators were faceless.

Mr More replied that it was very different to be on the other side of the toyi-toying masses.  The anatomy of the protest marches revolved around what was going on in the community.  He had been involved with protest action in Eldorado Park the previous day.  Negotiations were held but then one of the leaders involved in the negotiations went to the people and told them to occupy the land that was identified for development.  Most leaders tried to mobilise the people around a cause.  The people relied on local leadership but when things did not go their way, they called on the Councillors to resign.

Mr More said that land negotiations were based on the need, the price and the urgency of establishing a settlement.  Settlements could be flooded in a short space of time.  Communities had their own way of dealing with issues and the Department relied on political leadership to intervene when necessary.  The Provincial Government would not relax its approach to service delivery despite the former landowner becoming the developer.  The developer had to be accredited and be able to provide the necessary documentation.  Quality assurance was a part of every development.  The Daily Sun newspaper had reported on one house in poor repair, but this was only one of thousands of houses.  There were no problems with the vast majority of houses that had been built.  The quality of construction was monitored at various stages during the development.

Ms Ngcobo said that the Provincial Department relied on the relevant Municipality to manage the relocation of residents.  In the Cosmo City development, residents in the River Bend and Sewenfontein settlements were moved on a block-by-block basis.  The vacated sites had to be managed to prevent resettlement before the sites could be upgraded.  The allocation policy took special needs into account.  The landowner of the Diepsloot East area had already started with the rezoning applications.  The Gauteng DLGH had engaged with the DARD on the rezoning of the land.  The area was zoned as commercial but had to be changed to residential.  The bullfrogs did not occupy the entire site envisaged for Phase 2 but only a small area.  The environmental problem might delay the later phases of the development.  The landowner was aware of the status of the bullfrogs.  She was unable to confirm who would be responsible for the costs of relocation.  The Gauteng DLGH participated in a forum with other affected Government Departments.  There was a clause in the agreement that catered for the promotion of emerging contractors.  The developer had to remain registered and the Department conducted regular site inspections.  Beneficiaries were able to lodge complaints with the Municipality or the Provincial Department if there were problems with the houses.  The development would include two or three-storey units.  The allocation of houses in Alexandra had commenced during the previous week.  No complaints were received about the houses in Diepsloot West.  Some of the houses in the area were new while others were between two and three years old.

Ms Bayat was aware of the concerns over the accreditation of the developer and undertook to submit the information to the Committee.  The RDP-style houses were no longer being built.  The current style was called Breaking New Ground (BNG) and was a slightly different design.  Costs were determined in phases and budgets were submitted to the Member of the Executive Council (MEC) for approval.  Provision was made for escalating prices.  The Minister had visited Diepsloot on 3 August 2009 as part of a community outreach programme.  The cause of the protests was that certain people were under the erroneous impression that they would be moved to the North West Province.

Mr Steyn remarked that there had been little opportunity to educate the community during the Minister’s visit.  He asked if there were plans by the Department for follow-up visits.  The Minister had observed the poor living conditions in the settlement.  He asked if there were short-term plans to alleviate the dire living conditions.

Ms Bayat replied that the Minister had attempted to bring basic principles across to the residents during his visit.  He told the community that they should not be in a rush to sell their houses but rather see their houses as an investment.  A structured approach was needed and the Department had to visit all the areas.  The Diepsloot project fell within the ambit of the Gauteng Provincial and Johannesburg municipal administrations and both parties should work as a cohesive unit.  Policy directives were in place and the available funds had been disbursed.

Ms Borman noted that two different landowners were indicated on the map presented by Ms Ngcobo.

Ms Ngcobo replied that not all of the areas shown on the map were part of the Diepsloot East project.

Mr Steyn asked if the Local or Provincial Government authorities had made any progress in addressing the concerns raised by the Minister.

Ms Bayat said that the DOHS held a strategic oversight role.

Ms Ngcobo said that discussions had been held with Johannesburg Water and the Municipality.  The area was too densely populated to install sewerage lines and permanent toilets.  She was unsure which of the Ministers concerns had been addressed to date.

The Chairperson noted that the Minister’s visit had taken place in August 2009.  Ms Ngcobo was the project manager and should have more information on what action had been taken.  The authorities could not afford to have inadequate sanitary measures in place even for one day.  She was aware of many overlooked communities, for example settlements in the Eastern Cape where residents had no toilets but Government officials were driving around in flashy cars.

Mr More gave the assurance that the Gauteng DLGH would engage with the DOHS.  Interaction between the various stakeholders was taking place.  He conceded that the bulk services infrastructure was inadequate and significant funding input was required to address this issue.

Ms Borman expressed concern over Mr More’s response. She said that development plans and transformation were on the agenda.  The Committee was aware of water supply problems but not about other areas that needed to be addressed.

Mr Matshoba felt that Ms Ngcobo was being honest with the Committee and admitted when she did not know what was going on.  She should indicate who would be able to answer the Member’s questions and provide their contact details.

Mr Bhoola felt that the subject was now exhausted.  He agreed that the situation was unacceptable and asked what the purpose of the Minister’s visit had been.  He asked what plans were in place and what challenges remained.

The Chairperson reminded the delegation that the Committee was serious about its responsibilities and could not allow the housing situation in the country to deteriorate further. People were living under inhumane conditions and all concerned should work tirelessly to provide the necessary facilities.

Presentation on the Harry Gwala Informal Settlement
Ms Esther Ngobeni (Project Manager, Gauteng DLGH) explained that the Harry Gwala informal settlement was situated in an area known as Rietfontein, close to the town of Benoni and fell within the Ekhuruleni Municipality.  In 2006, a service provider was appointed to assess the suitability of the area for development and had found that the area was not fit for human settlement.  The ground had high dolomite content and the water table was very high.  There were problems with the location of the settlement due to servitudes, power lines and wetlands.  Only 389 stands could be developed. Alternative land was identified at Chief Albert Luthuli Park in the Modderfontein area.  Work on the development had commenced and to date, 277 houses had been built of which 165 had been approved.  The completed houses allowed the Gauteng DLGH to relocate 165 beneficiaries.  Most of the members of the Harry Gwala community were reluctant to move to the alternative area and had made a case in the Constitutional Court against the Ekhuruleni Municipality.

A public water tap had been provided for every ten families in the Harry Gwala informal settlement. The Department had appointed external consultants to investigate the situation.  Approximately 1 600 people occupied the current site.  Most of the details of the complaints of the residents would be apparent in the subsequent presentation on the court case.

Discussion
The Chairperson noted that the presentation differed from the printed copy of the presentation circulated to the Members.

Mr More explained that the presentation document had been forwarded to the Committee a few weeks prior to the meeting.

Mr Steyn presumed that the land occupied by the informal settlement was unsuitable for development. He asked if the land belonged to the Government.  He was concerned that the alternative land was identified without properly consulting with the community.  He remarked that there were many people on the waiting lists for houses but there were houses standing empty.

Ms M Njobe (COPE) asked why the people did not want to move from the informal settlement to the new development.

Mr Bhoola asked what the situation was with the vacant houses.  He asked how far apart the water taps provided were situated.

Ms Gasebonwe asked if the status of the land occupied by the informal settlement had been checked with the Land Claims Commission (LCC).

Ms Ngobeni replied that most of the current land was unsuitable for development and only 389 stands could be safely occupied.  The land was owned by the Ekhuruleni Municipality.  Several consultants had confirmed that not all the occupants from the informal settlement could be accommodated.  The current location was near Wattville, which was a source of employment.  The site at Chief Albert Luthuli Park was more than 25km further away and access to transport, schools and employment opportunities was a problem.  The contractors were still on site.  Negotiations with the community had been halted because of the court case. The Department had indeed checked the status of the land with the LCC.  The alternative site was identified by the Municipality.

Presentation on the Constitutional Court Case – Residents of Harry Gwala informal settlement vs the Ekhuruleni Municipality
Mr Jan Tladi (Chief Director, Department of Human Settlements) advised that the court case was a class action brought by the residents of the Harry Gwala informal settlement against the Ekhuruleni Municipality. The residents had sought an interim order compelling the Municipality to comply with certain provisions of the Constitution and the Housing Act.  The specific requests were for communal taps, temporary sanitation, refuse removal and high-mast lighting.  The community had previously been provided with a number of communal taps in various locations and plastic bins had been provided for refuse.

The case had been heard in the Witwatersrand Local Division of the Supreme Court.  Relief had been granted in the form of water supplies and refuse removal services, but the other demands were dismissed.  The residents took the matter to the Constitutional Court on appeal.  The Ekhuruleni Municipality had been the sole respondent in the original case.  The Constitutional Court Judges ruled that the MEC, the Minister of Human Settlements and the Director-General of the DOHS should be added as respondents.

It was the DOHS’s observation that the Constitutional Court wanted to see that the State fulfilled its obligations.  Various meetings had been held and the DOHS had taken legal advice on housing issues.  Implementation of housing policy was the responsibility of all three levels of Government.  The DOHS wished to present the Court with a level of commitment.  Legal opinion was that the living conditions of the residents were unacceptable but the Harry Gwala informal settlement did not qualify for emergency relief and there were people living elsewhere under worse conditions.

The State was advised to provide interim sanitary measures.  The high-mast lighting was a problem.  The Ekhuruleni Municipality had a plan to provide chemical toilets for all informal settlements at a cost of R50 million.  This would provide one toilet for every ten households.  R1.8 million would be needed to provide interim sanitation to the Harry Gwala settlement but the Municipality only had R720 000 available.  The Gauteng DLGH undertook to provide the remaining R1.1 million.

Originally one advocate was appointed to represent the State.  However, after the matter was reconsidered, separate advocates were appointed for each respondent.  The high-mast lighting could not be provided and the applicants were finding it difficult to justify the demand.  An application to upgrade the area was pending.  Judgement on the matter was also pending.

Discussion
Mr Steyn asked when the leave to appeal was granted.

Mr Tladi replied that the leave to appeal was granted by implication.

Mr Steyn felt that the Provincial and Municipal authorities were more concerned over the lighting issue than the provision of chemical toilets.  He asked if the land could be upgraded as the study had shown that it was unsuitable.  There were many settlements in a similar condition in the country and there was a danger of a precedent being set.  The provision of the services demanded was a strain on the resources of municipalities.  He referred to the conflicting statements made in the presentations - in one part of the presentation it was stated that the Municipality would provide one toilet for every four families but in another part it was stated that one toilet per family would be provided. He asked if the R1.8 million cost of the provision of sanitary services was applicable for a specific time.  He pointed out that chemical toilets needed to be maintained.

Mr Bhoola referred to the application for an upgrade of the land.  The respondents were being provided with basic services.  He felt that good money was being thrown after bad.  He asked if it was the State’s responsibility to provide sanitation.  He considered lighting to be a bonus.  He asked what the legal costs incurred would amount to.

Ms Njobe asked what lessons had been learned.  In rural areas, people settled on unsuitable land and she asked why this was allowed.  Programmes resulted from court actions and protests.  Court cases would lead to more complaints and expense and she wanted to know how this could be prevented.  She asked what the Department’s plans were.  A long-term plan was needed to address the housing issue.  She observed that many new townships had sprung up since 1994 but there was often no work available for the residents.  The matter at hand was the Harry Gwala settlement but there were many similar areas in the Eastern Cape.

The Chairperson remarked that communication was important.  The Committee relied on correspondence but there was a need for closer interaction with the people to avoid clashes.  She asked where Government was going wrong.  A “bosberaad” on the subject of housing was necessary.  Government had a constitutional obligation to provide services.

Mr More replied that the development of informal settlements was not all that spontaneous.  There was usually an organised movement of people into an area and often the organisers collected rent from the residents.  Movement out of established to new areas was often the product of in-fighting and power struggles.  Once people had settled on a site for more than 72 hours, matters became very complicated.  Basic services had to be provided but the responsible authorities did not have the budget available at short notice.  The Harry Gwala community was unhappy with the ratio of one toilet for every four families and wanted a toilet for each family.  The Municipality would assist over time but was unable to provide this level of service at present.

Mr More said that people did not want to go to areas that had been identified by Government for settlements.  They preferred to remain where they were and the authorities were forced to spend money to provide services in areas other than the planned developments.  Government relied on Municipalities to provide land, as they owned most of the land available for development.  In some of the disputed areas, the Municipal police had been attacked by protesters and forced to withdraw until reinforcements could be provided.  People then took their protests to the national roads.  The MEC had insisted that the Ward Committee system was used to discuss the issues with communities but these meetings were not held and many Ward Committees were not functional.  Instead, the Community Development Workers were relied on as they were doing a good job.  Councillors were expected to satisfy the demands of protesting residents and if they failed to do so, they were told to resign.  Government was aware that many issues would be raised during the run-up to the Local Government elections and it would be difficult to contain the protests.  He expected many more protests in Gauteng as people believed that their protests would only be heard if they resorted to violence.  The protests were often based on incorrect information.

The Chairperson asked for more clarity on the State’s obligations and wanted to know if the chemical toilets were adequate.

Mr More advised that the Provincial Department provided assistance to the Municipality.  The Ekhuruleni Municipality had attempted to identify funds that were not earmarked for other developments.  The provision of one toilet for every four families was a temporary measure and more funding was needed.  He understood the difficulties with the location of schools and other facilities.  The matter concerning the Harry Gwala settlement was not tied up in court and Councillors were engaged with the community on a daily basis. 

Mr Botha said that current legislation prevented Municipalities from removing people once they had settled in an area.  Municipalities needed to have police and intelligence sources in place to monitor the movement of people into settlements.  The Red Ants were called in to prevent permanent settlements from developing where they were not planned.  He understood the good intentions but a balance was needed.  Budgets were provided for planned developments but a permanent emergency situation would divert funding resources.  Unplanned informal settlements brought unexpected expenditure, including having to build roads to allow emergency services to gain access to the area.

Mr Tlali replied that the reference in the presentation to one toilet per family was an error and should have read one toilet to four families.  Reports on the upgrade of the area were awaited.  The MEC would make a decision once all the information was available.  Where similar cases arose, each would be treated on its own merits.  Other settlements could be expected to approach the courts.  He was unsure of the costs of the legal action as the State Attorney was handling that aspect at present.

Mr Steyn said that the Gauteng DLGH should have a Head of Department rather than a Chief Executive Officer.

Mr More replied that he was in fact the Acting Chief Operational Officer, responsible for Housing.  There was a Head of Department as well.  He explained that the functions of Local Government and Housing were recently merged into a single Department.  The Head of Department performed a bridging function.

The Chairperson appreciated the efforts being made but remained concerned.  She felt that the meeting had ended in a better atmosphere than when it had started.  She gave the assurance that the Committee was available to provide assistance, leadership and advice and to correct what was wrong.

The meeting was adjourned.