Newtown & Lenasia housing interventions: progress report by Department of Human Settlements

Human Settlements, Water and Sanitation

06 November 2013
Chairperson: Ms B Dambuza (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The National Department of Human Settlements (NDHS) presented a progress report on Government intervention in the Lenasia Housing problem. The Minister created the Special Lenasia Intervention Team (SPLIT) as a result of a court order which called on all the parties to engage in a mediated process to find a solution to the Lenasia housing dispute. This was after the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) had taken the department to court to halt demolitions after 113 illegally built houses were bulldozed by the department after land had been sold to residents by corrupt officials.

Following the court order, the Gauteng Department conducted an audit in Lenasia and the National Home Builders Registration Council (NHBRC) conducted an audit and forensic investigation to determine the suitability of houses/structures for habitation. There were challenges due to illegal construction, and also selling and buying of property. Inspections were done to establish the financial status of each of the households. With regards to applications for low-income housing, 101 houses were approved. Some Government officials who had been involved in fraudulent activity had been convicted. There were 496 completed houses in Lenasia extension 4 and 13 and of these, only 12 had approved building plans. The City of Johannesburg was looking through these to ensure all approvals were legal. Of the 496 house, 98 had legal water meters.

The Members were disappointed by the report as they felt much still needed to be done. There were concerns about the approvals for low income houses and the issue of houses older than five years not being enrolled with the NHBRC. There were threats of a march by the community and Members asked what the Department would do about this. The Members felt that the report was not detailed enough for proper scrutiny and engagement. The Members said a proper town planning assessment was needed and the Department had to be more proactive in their fraud investigations. The Department replied to the questions and said they would provide a follow up report.

For the progress report on the Newtown housing co-operative, the relevant department official was not present at the meeting to provide the progress report. There were no representatives from the community either to contribute to the meeting engagement. It appeared that no meetings with the tenants and the SAHRC had materialised. The Members were disappointed by this and the presentation document itself was not detailed. The Chairperson postponed the meeting until a consolidated report was available and when all relevant entities were present with the right department official briefing them.

Meeting report

The Chairperson welcomed everyone. She acknowledged all the entities present at the meeting and then requested everyone in the meeting to introduce themselves and disclose which organisation they were from. She said she expected a very short meeting today as the Department had been given ample time by the Portfolio Committee to present. She then gave the Department on opportunity to commence with the presentation on Lenasia housing as she felt that it would be a straight-forward feedback presentation on progress thus far.

Progress Report on Lenasia Housing Problem
Mr Mbongeni Shabangu, Director: Special Investigations at the NDHS, gave a progress report on the government intervention into the Lenasia Housing problem. The Minister of Human Settlements established the Special Lenasia Intervention Team (SPLIT) on 28 November 2012 which followed the demolition of illegally constructed houses by Gauteng Department of Housing. The purpose of SPLIT was for Government and affected parties to find a solution to the problem. The Gauteng Department conducted an audit in Lenasia and the NHBRC conducted both an audit and forensic investigation to determine the suitability of the houses/structures for habitation. There were challenges due to illegal construction, and also selling and buying of property. Inspections were done to establish the financial status of each household. With regards to applications for low-income housing, 101 houses were approved for the housing subsidy system (HSS). Sixty people who applied for housing failed as they did not meet the qualifying criteria. The National Home Builders Registration Council (NHBRC) inspection looked at structure, safety and established whether due process set by law was followed. NHBRC had to determine which houses could remain standing. NDHS would ensure houses were safe and all requirements were met. The matter of servitudes was being looked at as some areas required upgrades. The NDHS was coming with rectification measures to regularize and to ensure people comply with laws and by-laws so that that their houses meet requirements. The City of Johannesburg looked conducted inspections on water and electricity – there were illegal connections. The NDHS was coming up with a process where people pay for services they utilize and this would form part of implementation plan. The report on an implementation plan was finalized circulated to government structures on 4 November. It would be taken to the broader SPLIT forum for discussion and finalisation on 11 November. All government entities, organizations, and residents would be involved in the meeting. The Lenasia Intervention Framework (LIF) would be approved by these entities so that all parties were in agreement on how to improve life in Lenasia as NDHS had the mandate to normalize life in Lenasia. The South African Human Rights Commission needed to approve the plan as well.

There had been media reports on continued illegal activities. People were illegally connecting power from lamp street poles. There was a process where these were being reported. With regards to what government was doing about criminal elements, seven people were arrested. One suspect was convicted last week and arrested on various counts for defrauding the community – there was even evidence of this. Another couple was also found guilty for fraud including misusing government letterheads. So there were people who were being sentenced now. The NDHS was still working with the Hawks to gather more statements and witnesses. Some contractors had even appeared before the court. No one was immune from the system and anyone found guilty would be prosecuted. Some Government officials who were involved had also been convicted. A progress report on SPLIT had been finalised and would be taken to the Minister and the government. Further progress would be reported to the Portfolio Committee at the next quarterly meeting.

Ms Phumzile Maseko Seipobi, Director of Quality Assurance: Gauteng Department of Human Settlements (GDHS), gave some input on audit findings. There were 496 complete houses in Lenasia extension 4 and 13. Of these houses, only 12 had approved building plans. The City of Johannesburg was looking through these houses to ensure all approvals were legal. Of the 496 house, 98 had legal water meters. 50 of the houses were encroachments, meaning that they were built over the boundary line. Some of them would have to be demolished. Only four were enrolled with the NHBRC and only 12 were built by NHBRC registered builders. New names in terms of criminality were revealed during the audits and had been forwarded to the Hawks for investigation. The 496 fully-built houses were older than five years so they did not qualify for NHBRC enrolment so they fell out of the five-year warranty cover. There were 17 houses from the NHBRC report which were poorly constructed and should be demolished.

Occupants of these houses must formalise their relationship with City Power and Johannesburg water entities. The intervention process had different steps in terms of regularizing fully built houses: land surveying to identify encroachments would be first step. Most encroachments were boundary walls being built in the wrong position. The NHBRC would do a detailed forensic for enrollable houses. Then the land would be evaluated on fully built houses and sold to occupants of the houses. Transfer of ownership would be the last step. Lands were zoned for different uses – educational sites and parks, public open spaces. This would be handed over to the municipality. People in structurally unsound houses would be accommodated in other projects. Any cost of rectification to the house to bring them up to a structurally sound stage would be borne by home-owner themselves and not the Department. On development of planned housing projects, the NHBRC had identified 127 vacant stands in section 13. The houses had been submitted for enrolment at NHBRC and contractors had been appointed to start construction and adoption of these proposals by SPLIT. In terms of town planning, properties in section four had been submitted for sub-division and consolidation and plans had been submitted for approval

Discussion
The Chairperson said the report was good, but not good enough for the Portfolio Committee and the people. Much had been said but the report was too short. The report was lacking, thus denying the Portfolio Committee an opportunity to engage as they did not have access to all the information. They would forgive the Department but the Members want this matter to be closed. Much still needs to be done with the Lenasia case. So the Portfolio Committee would respond to the information only once they had a detailed report. She then gave the Members an opportunity to interact with the Department.

Ms M Borman (ANC) said she was disappointed by the report. A year ago the Portfolio Committee was impressed with the Department. Things should have come together by now, but it had not. She said the Members heard last night that there would possibly be a march by the community in Newtown or Lenasia. She asked how the Department would engage with the community under these circumstances. The people were going through a traumatic time with their homes being bulldozed. The Portfolio Committee cannot do anything without sufficient information. The Department was moving too slowly. It was not enough to say that the NHBRC cannot help due to the five-year rule: the issues were too pressing to make any excuses.

Mr K Sithole (COPE) said the Members were disappointed because nothing had been said about the continuation of illegal occupations. He asked about the 595 people classified as poor when the approval of providing low-income housing was only for 101 people, and 60 applications had failed. He said something must be done to address the fact that nothing could be done about the houses older than five years for enrolment with the NHBRC. A complete report should be provided to assist the committee.

Mr S Mokgalapa (DA) said there had been a dropping of the ball – many gaps and loopholes with the progress. It had been 12 months since there was intervention in steering things forward. He said the people were justified by marching. He asked if the new Minister was aware of the march. He said that the figures that the presenter mentioned were not in writing so the Members cannot scrutinize them. Only one person had been convicted despite illegal activities were still happening, which was quite a concern. Members need a follow up report on this. A proper town planning process was also needed. He asked if the Department had done this yet. He asked what was being done with the issue of most of the contractors being unregistered. He added that the problem with the houses older than five years was a big deal and asked what would be done about this. The Lenasia housing problem was a test case for the rest of South Africa so the intervention needed to move fast. He acknowledged the pockets of progress but much still needed to be done. He said the figures did not add up. He repeated that the ball had been dropped over the year and this was disappointing.

Mr R Bhoola (MF) said the situation still remained paralyzed because something was not synchronized. There were problems of legal interpretation. He asked the Department what the destabilizing factor was that precluded them from resolving problems of regularisation. SPLIT was a positive direction, but more should be done. He asked if the issue of beneficiaries/applicants had been concluded correctly and within the database of the controlling authority. On contractors that continue to defraud – someone was not serious about the rectification of the problems here. He asked who was in charge of contracting the contractors and whether a screening process existed. When speaking of subsidies and beneficiaries and who qualifies for what benefit, this should have been put in a database according to subsidy codes. He welcomed the audit, but it did point out problematic areas. He asked if the Auditor-General (AG) findings were used to bring about solutions and rectify the situation.

Ms J Sosibo (ANC) said the Department was not there yet with figures. This was done deliberately so the Members did not ask too many questions. The presentation document was not very helpful. She asked what actually happened after the meeting in January. Issues that were supposed to have been resolved by July 2013 were still not concluded. It seems as though they were going back to the drawing board. She asked what went wrong. There had only been one conviction. She asked which people from Government had been convicted and whether it was at local, provincial, or national level. Members need a better document that would speak to everyone clearly so that things could get better. Members cannot provide answers to the people marching as Members did not know anything due to the scanty report.

Ms P Duncan (DA) said it was important that the spheres of government were specified. It was not the first time non-detailed reports were provided to the Portfolio Committee. She asked if the issue of the 496 houses included the special development framework (SDF).

Ms A Mashishi (ANC) said all her questions had been covered by the Members.

Ms M Mnisi (ANC) said the SPLIT was established on 28 November last year. It was now a year later and the report was still to be distributed to Government and other structures. She asked how long would the process keep dragging on. There was no fixed date for a report to the Minister and the MEC either. The report lacked any element of public participation, hence the march by the community. Nothing could be achieved without community involvement. It was a cause for concern that nothing about the community was mentioned in the report.

The Chairperson said this situation had to be managed. She asked how the Department addressed the people prior to the threats about the march. The work the Department did was not only for the beneficiaries, but the community as a whole. The Government was trying to solve this issue, and Parliament had to oversee the process, but it was the onus of the Department to get the work done. Some of the NDHS technicalities did not work under some conditions. The Department failed to implement private investigation, and the Department could not point any fingers. The Portfolio Committee strongly condemns what happened in Lenasia. She advised the Department to do some introspection and consider their contribution to the mess. She asked what the Department had done about the problems. The Department must be careful as they might be the cause of the current situation. The Portfolio Committee was fully behind the Department in their efforts to resolve the issues amicably and legally. On the 12 houses whose building plans were approved, were the plans were approved before the houses were built or only recently. On the 50 encroached-upon houses, re-zoning had to be addressed. The Portfolio Committee had said long ago that officials were involved. This should not be ignored because people were misled due to misrepresentation by people who dressed as Government officials. She asked what lessons the Department had learnt from this process so they could be shared with the nation so the same mistakes did not happen again.

Mr Mongezi Mnyani, CEO of the NHBRC, apologized for the lack in the reporting on behalf of the Department as the NHBRC and NDHS came before the Portfolio Committee before consolidating report. The Department was supposed to meet on Monday to consolidate the report. He added they had not been able to inspect all the houses because some people refused to open their doors.

Mr C Mathale (ANC) asked if Mr Mnyani meant the previous Monday or the next week Monday.

Mr Mnyani said he meant next Monday 11 November. The Department was working to implement a framework and would come back to present a detailed report to the Portfolio Committee. He explained that the officials cited in this matter were from the City of Johannesburg and there had been convictions. The court cases were still continuing. Some suspects kept changing lawyers which dragged out the process. A report on this would also be provided. He apologized for not providing a consolidated report on time.

Mr Mokgalapa asked whether the convictions were only within the City of Johannesburg and provincial officials. How far along was the process of convicting?.

The Chairperson said this information should be left to the consolidated report. She asked why the Department could not get a legal warrant to search the homes of suspected people who refuse to open their doors.

Mr Shabangu said that it was possible to apply to for a warrant.

Mr Mnyani said they had the erf numbers of these houses. The NHBRC needed to access inside the house to do forensic investigation but sometimes they get to these houses and no one was there. The Department would get law enforcement to accompany them to access the houses.

Mr Mathale said that Mr Mnyani contradicted himself as nobody could stop NHBRC from accessing the houses.

The Chairperson said people were doing it deliberately – keeping their doors and curtains closed. The Department must get law enforcement to gain access to search the homes of these people. Parliament needed to close this case finally.

Progress Report on Newtown Housing Co-operative Interventions
The Chairperson asked who in the Department was responsible for the programme.

Mr Shabangu said it was Mr William Jiyane, who was in charge of Stakeholder and Intergovernmental Relations, who was not present at the moment because he was away on international business. He said the NHBRC was requested to lead the presentation.

Mr Mnyani said the team had met twice to go through the report and even the City of Johannesburg was present at the meetings. They agreed that Mr Samson Moraba from the National Housing Finance Corporation (NHFC) would present the report.

The Chairperson asked who represented the affected persons today in the meeting.

Mr Samson Moraba, Chief Executive of the NHFC, said he was not mindful that the representatives had to be present at the meeting. There had been media reports and government had had to respond and provide information on this and that was why the Government had met. He said he did not think there was an issue that they were trying to resolve with the tenants at the moment but they would like to give the Committee an opportunity……

The Chairperson interjected and said the Portfolio Committee had wanted to ascertain what was in the media about Newtown. The Committee had a meeting on the 25 July meeting with NDHS and others for government to come and explain to us. You, Mr Moraba, were not part of that meeting. There was an explanation and a resolution was even taken. Nothing could be said about the affected people without them. The NHFC and the Department should have met with the South African Human Right Commission (SAHRC), and the representatives of the people but these meetings never materialized. She stressed that the representatives were not here today so a position could not be taken.

Mr Mokgalapa said this was a dilemma and the Department had not taken any responsibility. Even the DDG was not here. The Johannesburg Housing Corporation along with the Department and the NHFC and all other entities involved should have co-operated. He said it would do no justice for someone else instead of the DDG to present.

The Chairperson said the Portfolio Committee was clear on the 25 July meeting about the Committee's expectations. She then asked Members for the way forward.

Mr Sithole said the Department and the NHFC should just go home and come back once things had been sorted out.

Mr Matshoba seconded Mr Sithole’s comment.

The Chairperson said the Members required more information in the report because this was important to them. The detailed report on Newtown Housing arrive so the Portfolio Committee did not have enough time to read through it and ask the right questions. It was not acceptable that the DDG was absent at this meeting. He should have at least delegated another official or the CEO of the Department to make the presentation. She dismissed the meeting and said the Department would hear from the Portfolio Committee.

The meeting was adjourned.


 

Share this page: