sustainable low-cost housing – a review of three low …

AN ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND LOW-COST HOUSING IN GAUTENG WITH AN EMPHASIS ON BIODIVERSITY AND SOCIO-POLITICSHOUSING DEVELOPMENTS IN GAUTENG PROVINCE
by
Mini-dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
at the
Jukskei River Floods at Alexandra Township, Johannesburg, 12 February 2000
ABSTRACT
The social and environmental effects of inequitable development programmes inherited by South Africa’s new dispensation are aggravated by a substantial housing backlog. Tenure security and slow land release for development has motivated land invasions and the development of informal settlements. Subsequent environmental degradation in affected areas is mainly due to the lack of basic infrastructure and services including energy supply, water, sanitation, and waste management facilities. The Housing Act of 1997 has provided the means for developing housing delivery and township upgrade programmes aimed at addressing such problems.
In light of South Africa’s Constitution (1996), the National Environmental Management Act (1998) and the Habitat Agenda (1996), the importance of environmentally sensitive and sustainable housing developments has been highlighted. However, socio-political pressure to address the housing backlog may demand a compromise in sustainability criteria over the long term, in order to achieve the shorter-term transformation targets.
Within the context of South Africa’s transformation objectives, a question has developed about the extent to which low-cost townships are meeting sustainability criteria. This dissertation contributes towards answering the above question; three housing projects in Gauteng were selected and reviewed. For each project, the ecological risks, social sensitivity, economic stability, and available technology were analysed.
The analysis indicated that in all three cases, the projects did not meet all defined sustainability criteria, concluding that under current conditions they are unlikely to be sustainable over the long-term. Factors that influenced the projects’ sustainability potential included the geographical location of each project, compliance with landuse development objectives, the township approval process, views of interested and affected parties, ecological sensitivity, and availability of resources and infrastructure.
In order to improve housing delivery, the study further concluded that the process for housing and service provision should be more efficient, low-cost developments should be adequately addressed in landuse development strategies, improved communication between role-players and stakeholders including government departments is required, and alternative and affordable technologies should be considered, with the associated training and awareness for sustainable environmental management.
KEYWORDS:
Page i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to thank the following persons who provided guidance, information and valuable time in the preparation of this dissertation:
• Prof. JT. Harmse, my supervisor, for his input and time spent on the review of this study.
• Dr Brian Tibbles (Environmental Outsource cc), for his help and support during the completion of this study.
• Mr Stephan du Toit (Environmental Manager Mogale City), for his time during consultation on Rietfontein Village and Leratong Informal Settlement.
• Messrs Johan Louw and Tefo Kelebonye (Department of Housing and Land, Mogale City) for their time and provision of supporting documentation relating to Rietfontein Informal Settlement.
• Mr Chris Theron (Hunter, Theron & Zietzman Inc. Town Planners) for his time and the provision of information relating to Leratong Informal Settlement.
• Mr Georg van Rensburg (Gauteng Province Department of Housing & Land Affairs) for his time during consultation on Gauteng’s housing programmes.
I wish also to thank my family for their encouragement and support during this study.
Page ii
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Brief History of the Housing Problem 1 1.2 Institutional Development 2 1.3 The Housing Backlog 4 1.4 Sustainable Development 5 1.5 Low-Cost Housing and the Environment 7
2 PROBLEM STATEMENT AND METHODOLOGY 10
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 12
3.1 Case Study One – Rietfontein Village 12 3.1.1 Introduction 12 3.1.2 Landuse Plans 13 3.1.3 Project Background and Description 15 3.1.4 Environmental Impacts 18 3.2 Case Study Two – Heidelberg Ext 23 21 3.2.1 Introduction 21 3.2.2 Land Development Objectives (LDOs) of the HTLC 22 3.2.3 Project Background and Description 24 3.2.4 Environmental Impacts 27 3.3 Case Study Three – Leratong Informal Settlement 31 3.3.1 Introduction 31 3.3.2 Land Development Objectives (LDOs) 31 3.3.3 Project Background 32 3.3.4 Environmental Impacts 36 3.4 Assessment of Sustainability Potential 38 3.4.1 Legal Approach adopted for Township Approval 38 3.4.2 Geographical Location and Compliance with Landuse Plans 40 3.4.3 Social and Economic Sustainability 41 3.4.4 Ecological and Technical Sustainability 44
4 CONCLUSION 48
REFERENCE LIST 51
List of Figures
Figure 1.1: Shacks of Alexandra Township on the banks of the Jukskei River 2
Figure 1.2: Alexandra households without access to adequate sanitation infrastructure 5
Figure 1.3: Improper surface water management at Leratong Informal Settlement 8
Figure 1.4: Dumping sites at Leratong Informal Settlement 9
Figure 3.1: Topographical map indicating the location of Rietfontein Farm 12
Figure 3.2: Orthophoto map of the Muldersdrift area 13
Figure 3.3: View looking west of the settlement on Rietfontein Farm 16
Figure 3.4: Rietfontein settlement located on a sloping topography 19
Figure 3.5: Land transformation and removal of vegetation at Rietfontein 20
Figure 3.6: Map indicating the Greater Heidelberg LDOs 23
Figure 3.7: Topographical map indicating the location of Heidelberg Ext 23 26
Figure 3.8: View from the southern boundary of Heidelberg Ext 23 28
Figure 3.9: Harvesting of plant products 29
Figure 3.10: Topographical map indicating the location of Leratong Informal Settlement 33
Figure 3.11: Proximity of Leratong to water and sewage services 35
Figure 3.12: Water provision at Leratong included reservoirs and pumps 35
Figure 3.13: Map indicating the accessibility of transport to Leratong residents 36
Figure 3.14: Proximity of Leratong to employment opportunities 36
Figure 3.15: Inadequate stormwater management at Leratong results in severe erosion 38
List of Tables
Table 3.1: Summary of sustainability potential for each case study 43
Page iv
1.1 Brief History of the Housing Problem
During the years of World War II (1939 – 1945), there was a powerful inflow of
people of ethnic African origin (‘Blacks’) into Johannesburg. This influx was
encouraged by growing labour demands in industrial sectors, and by the poverty
experienced in the rural Reserves (Davenport, 1991). A considerable housing shortage
meant that at least 58 per cent of the urban Black population were squatters on un-
serviced land. In addition, a high labour turnover in the urban centre became
associated with rising levels of unrest, unemployment and further housing shortages
and appalling living conditions (Posel, 1991).
The National Party came to power in 1948, and brought with it a set of policies that
were to become the backbone of the Apartheid system. The laws that were passed
aimed at separate development policies for Whites and Blacks, thereby rendering
Blacks vulnerable to discriminatory action so that they became progressively more
marginalized, both economically and politically (Khan, 2002). The confinement of
Blacks to small rural areas, led to overpopulation, where increased levels of poverty,
and a lack of basic services resulted in widespread environmental degradation (Khan,
2002). More specifically, land invasions were widespread, settlements were situated
in dangerous environments (see Figure 1.1), and as there were no water or sanitation
services, the potential for disease increased (Gauteng Province, 1999).
According to Khan (2002), the cumulative effects of Apartheid’s discriminatory laws
also alienated Blacks from mainstream environmentalism. The areas where Blacks
were forced to live were often devoid of natural or scenic value, and located in close
proximity to sewage treatment plants, heavy industries and landfill sites. Also, the
exclusion of Blacks from White amenities (parks and nature reserves) had a
detrimental effect on environmental attitude and perception, and in some instances,
hostility to the concept of conservation. Apartheid thus resulted in serious socio-
economic imbalance, including a drastic shortage of Black housing, and massive
environmental neglect (Thomas, Seager & Mathee, 2002).
Page 1
Introduction
Figure 1.1: Shacks of Alexandra Township on the banks of the Jukskei River. Floods in February
2000 revealed the risks of structures located within the floodplain of the Jukskei River.
1.2 Institutional Development
The provision of services and infrastructure to meet the basic needs of historically
disadvantaged populations, and the elimination of the backlog in Black amenities in
particular, became a priority of South Africa’s new government (Beall, Crankshaw &
Parnell, 2000). However, since the administration of housing under Apartheid
included seven ministries and housing departments, four provincial authorities and six
homeland authorities, over and above 60 national and regional corporations, the post-
Apartheid integration of these numerous authorities proved problematic for the
delivery of housing (Ismail and Billy, 1998).
Directives from the National Department of Housing were in general, to develop
affordable housing on well-located land that promotes integration in all aspects of
South African society (The African Planning Partnership, 1998). The principle step
forward in this regard was the establishment of the Reconstruction and Development
Programme (RDP) in 1994, which intended to co-ordinate the new Government’s
developmental policies through national reconstruction, development, growth,
employment and redistribution. The RDP recognised the lack of adequate housing and
basic services in urban townships and rural settlements, and endorsed the principle
Page 2
Introduction
that all South Africans have the right to a secure place to live (ANC, 1994; National
Department of Housing, 2000).
The subsequent development of the Housing White Paper and the Housing Policy in
1994 provided the framework for the Housing Act of 1997. The Housing Act aligned
the Housing Policy with the South African Constitution, and defined the roles and
responsibilities of the three tires of Government: National, Provincial and Municipal
(Gauteng Province, 1999; National Department of Housing, 2000; Huchzermeyer,
2001).
In order to meet those responsibilities created by the substantial backlog, the Gauteng
Department of Housing and Land Affairs developed two distinct processes of housing
delivery: 1) formal housing delivery mechanisms, and 2) informal housing delivery
mechanisms. The former relied on developers to deliver land, services and housing
through one uninterrupted process, while the latter relied on beneficiaries being
involved in a staged process of land delivery, followed by the installation of services,
and the construction of top structure, over an indefinite period of time. Both
mechanisms identified security of tenure as essential, particularly since Apartheid
policy denied or removed secure tenure rights for Black people (Gauteng Province,
1999).
Since the process of formal housing delivery was considered to be lengthy and not
able to address the growing influx of people into Gauteng from neighbouring states
and provinces, the Gauteng Department recognised the benefits of the informal
housing delivery process and a number of specific land release programmes were
initiated. These included the ‘Rapid Land Development Programme’, ‘Upgrading of
Informal Settlements’ and the ‘Mayibuye Programme’. These programmes were
designed to ensure planned and orderly settlements and secure tenure, as well as to
accommodate households living under stressed and dangerous conditions such as on
flood plains or on dolomite. These programmes are unique to Gauteng Province
(CASE, 1998; Gauteng Province, 1999).
The main objectives of the programmes were to address landlessness, control land
allocation, plan settlement before occupation, provide security of tenure, introduce
Page 3
settlement) (CASE, 1998; Gauteng Province, 1999).
The three project studies of this dissertation are examples of the above-mentioned
informal housing programmes (see below).
1.3 The Housing Backlog
According to the Housing White Paper (National Department of Housing, 1994),
approximately 13.5% of all households (1.06 million) lived in squatter housing
nationwide, i.e. settlements on the periphery of cities and towns, and in the backyards
of formal dwellings. Ismail and Billy (1998) indicated that the urban housing backlog
was estimated at about 1.5 million units in 1995. In addition to this, an approximate
720 000 serviced sites in the urban areas required upgrading to meet minimum
standards of accommodation; a large percentage of rural houses lacked access to basic
services and would also require upgrades. In 1997, the National Housing Department
estimated that the number of families without adequate housing was 2.2 million. Due
to the population growth, this figure increases by approximately 204 000 every year
(Gauteng Province, 1999).
According to the 1999 Gauteng statistics, about 209 094 households resided within
informal settlements without any tenure security (Gauteng Province, 1999).
Approximately 336 378 households did not have access to adequate sanitation
infrastructure, and 305 681 households did not have access to satisfactory water
facilities (see Figure 1.2). The top structure backlog (any existing housing structure
smaller than a 30m² formal top structure) was estimated at about 482 837 units
(Gauteng Province, 1999).
The abolition of Apartheid policies was essential at starting the social transformation
process and attacking the housing backlog, while the advancement of effective
strategies to deal with housing in a ‘sustainable’ manner constituted a fundamental
challenge to the South African government (Wilson & Ramphele, 1994; Barberton,
1998).
Figure 1.2: Alexandra households without access to adequate sanitation infrastructure. During the
February 2000 floods at Alexandra Township, large amounts of sewage and other waste were
washed into the Jukskei River causing pollution. Several cases of suspected cholera were reported
after the floods.
1.4 Sustainable Development
As a result of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, several nations adopted
Agenda 21, that is a plan detailing initiatives in the achievement of sustainable
development. It includes policies and programmes to ensure a balance between
population, resource consumption, and the earth’s supporting capacity (Department of
Environmental Affairs and Tourism [DEAT], 1998; DEAT, 2000).
Following the development of Agenda 21, the 2nd United Nations Conference for
Human Settlements (Habitat II) was held in Istanbul in 1996. This conference dealt
specifically with sustainable human settlements, from which the Habitat Agenda
originated. The Habitat Agenda (to which the South African government is a
signatory) provides a description of what characterises sustainable human settlements.
It offers a vision of settlements where residents have adequate shelter, basic services,
and access to employment, all within a safe environment (DEAT, 2000).
The principle of sustainable development is addressed under the Bill of Rights of the
South African Constitution (1996). It makes provision for the sustainable use and
Page 5
Introduction
development of the environment, and aims to ensure its protection and conservation
(Savage, 1998). Further, findings from the CSIR’s report into the state of human
settlements in South Africa (1999) indicated that South African human settlement
policy is generally in line with the Habitat Agenda (Huchzermeyer, 2001).
The growing concern about sustainability in South Africa has resulted in
environmental law playing a role in the development and implementation of human
settlement and low-cost housing projects (Kidd, 1997). Legislation provides the
means for environmentally sustainable land development process and practice, for
example: the Environment Conservation Act (ECA, 1989), the Development
Facilitation Act (DFA, 1995), and the National Environmental Management
Act (1998). The National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) aims at ensuring
proper integration of environmental best practice into new developments. It indicates
that sustainable development must avoid pollution and degradation of the
environment and its resources, or where this cannot be avoided, measures be adopted
to reduce or mitigate negative impact. Chapter One of NEMA also emphasises that
development must be environmentally, socially and economically sustainable.
According to Sowman and Urquhart (1998), low-cost housing developments have to
meet four main criteria in order to be sustainable, i.e. ecologically, economically,
socially and technically sustainable. This means that the establishment of a township
has to conserve the available resources, and ensure that the natural environment can
absorb the pollution and waste generated. Capital costs and ongoing service
maintenance costs have to be affordable and accessible to beneficiaries and to local
authorities. The township establishment needs to ensure the physical and
psychological well being of its people and surrounding communities with whom they
will share resources and facilities. Appropriate, affordable and efficient technologies
are required where environmental conditions prescribe it.
Despite growing commitment to sustainable and environmentally sensitive
development, the National Department of Housing’s focus on quantity has meant that
fewer resources were available for addressing long-term sustainability and
quality (CSIR, 2002a). There is evidence that township projects have continued
without due consideration for the environment (Sowman & Urquhart, 1998). In CSIR
(2002b) it was indicated that the impacts of current low-cost housing settlement
Page 6
Introduction
design norms denote the opposite of resource efficiency. High maintenance costs are
incurred by local authorities as well as by beneficiaries as a result of unsuitable and
poorly planned developments. Building in areas that are seasonally wet creates several
problems for residents - periodic flooding damages services, houses deteriorate with
rising damp, and health problems increase (Sowman & Urquhart, 1998). Physical
constraints, including topography, geology, soils and hydrology, are not properly
considered when selecting a site for settlement. Under these circumstances, the
sustainability of human settlements is questionable (CSIR, 2002a).
1.5 Low-Cost Housing and the Environment
History has indicated that provision of inadequate services and structures can result in
significant impacts on the quality of the local land, water, and air, affecting health and
entrenching poverty and causing further environmental decay (Sowman & Urquhart,
1998; CSIR, 2002b; McDonald, 2002; Thomas, Seager & Mathee, 2002). For
example, during Apartheid, poor agricultural practices in over-crowded homelands
led to soil erosion and desertification, while the biased supply of electricity to White-
owned industry resulted in almost two-thirds of South Africans without this amenity
harvesting trees for fuel (contributing to desertification) in addition to the use of fossil
fuels like coal, which causes significant atmospheric pollution (McDonald, 2002;
Spalding-Fecher, Clark, Davis & Simmonds, 2002).
The distribution of water was also skewed. While mega-litres of potable water were
used in White suburban gardens per day, some African communities were dependant
on one unreliable tap. This situation worsened by the lack of proper sewage facilities
in informal settlements and ‘squatter camps’. Inadequate sewage removal and
treatment adds to the potential transmission of enteric diseases. Contaminated runoff
pollutes nearby surface and groundwater courses (McDonald, 2002) (see Figure 1.3).
Page 7
Figure 1.3: Improper surface water management at Leratong Informal Settlement. Erosion
contributes to increased levels of silt being transported to nearby watercourses. The lack of water
and sanitation systems contribute to contaminated runoff from the settlement.
The impacts of water pollution from sewage and the disposal of waste food products
on an aquatic ecosystem are similar to the effects caused by suspended solids and
excessive nutrients in surface runoff from settlements. Sudden loading of nutrients to
a surface water body may lead to a rapid proliferation of plant material, and
consequently, a state of decomposition. Excessive oxygen is utilised during this
process, thereby reducing oxygen concentrations in the water body, and resulting in
an insufficient quantity to sustain most organisms. Nutrient enrichment can therefore
cause the collapse of an entire ecosystem, recovery from which is difficult or even
impossible. Also, some nutrients such as ammonia nitrate and nitrite are toxic to
humans above certain levels (Booth, 1994). Improper waste management encourages
the establishment of vermin and a host of related diseases, notwithstanding odours
and significant visual impact on the landscape (Booth, 1994; Environmental
Outsource, 2001) (see Figure 1.4).
Page 8
Introduction
Figure 1.4: Dumping sites at Leratong Informal Settlement. Without a waste removal service,
litter accumulated around dwellings and in open spaces at Leratong, affecting the visual landscape
and attracting pests and related diseases.
Economic pressures on residents may also compound environmental impacts
associated with low-cost townships. For example, where insufficient funds are
available for a proper gravesite in an established cemetery, graves may be constructed
in-between dwellings, posing a significant risk of groundwater pollution (Du Toit,
2001; Personal Communication). In addition, income can be derived from renting out
back-yard shacks of existing households. A township’s water and sewage services
would not have the capacity for additional loading resulting from back-yard dwellers.
Therefore, maintenance costs would increase as the infrastructure is put under
pressure (van Rensburg, 1999; Personal Communication).
Page 9
2 PROBLEM STATEMENT AND METHODOLOGY
South Africa is faced with environmental and health problems borne from a legacy of
poverty and inequality (Thomas, Seager & Mathee, 2002). As the government reforms
itself, these difficulties, including high levels of poverty, unemployment, inadequate
housing and basic services, need to be overcome (Beall, Crankshaw & Parnell, 2000).
Combined with these local pressures, is South Africa’s international commitment to
sustainable development. As the main institution responsible for the development of
human settlements, the National Department of Housing has delivered substantially
on housing projects although a significant backlog still exists. In this context, the
pressure to deliver as many housing units as possible has had compromising
consequences for quality and sustainability measures. Similarly, resource constraints
have impacted on the delivery of supporting infrastructure. Several development
agencies active in South Africa have raised concerns about the sustainability of low-
cost housing provision (Mahomed, 2000; CSIR, 2002a; CSIR, 2002b). For this
reason, the long-term sustainability of low-cost townships still remains in question.
In order to address its commitments under Agenda 21 and the Habitat Agenda, the
National Department of Housing needs to develop a strategy for the delivery of
sustainable human settlements (CSIR, 2002a). Since literature indicates that there is
no standard model for sustainable settlements, an understanding of the main factors
influencing the sustainability potential of South African low-cost townships is
required (Mahomed, 2000; CSIR, 2002a; National Department of Housing, 2002).
This dissertation therefore attempts to contribute towards the identification and better
understanding of the challenges and threats to sustainable low-cost housing in
Gauteng Province, South Africa, where there is a severe housing backlog and
consequent socio-political pressure to address the problem under challenging
environmental conditions.
Initially, the basic historical background of the serious housing problem in Gauteng
was examined. Personal interviews with Provincial Government and Local Authority
representatives were conducted to determine and discuss the methods and
programmes employed to address the provision of low-cost housing in Gauteng
Province.
Problem Statement and Methodology
Three low-cost housing projects were then selected to include differences in legal and
administrative frameworks, geographical (and therefore environmental and social)
locations, and planning considerations. The three projects, with which the author had
direct or indirect consulting experience, included:
1) Rietfontein Village – a project to formalise an existing informal settlement in
Muldersdrift, north of Johannesburg;
2) Heidelberg Ext 23 – a greenfield site (vacant land) identified for low-income
housing located in Heidelberg, south of Johannesburg; and
3) Leratong Informal Settlement – a project to upgrade an existing informal
settlement, west of Johannesburg.
A review of the three projects was carried out in order to assess the sustainability
potential of each case in terms of the criteria as defined by Sowman and Urquhart
(1998), viz. ecological, social, economical and technical sustainability. The review
also considered selected sustainability profile determinants described in the CSIR’s
Sustainability Analysis of Human Settlements in South Africa (CSIR, 2002a). These
determinants included access to services such as sanitation, water and energy, access
to employment opportunities, mobility and transportation, resource usage, waste
management, conservation issues, and financial capacity. Aspects influencing the
sustainability potential of each project were also reviewed.
Reference material for the case studies included documentation prepared in terms of
legal township approval procedures. Follow-up interviews were held with local
government representatives and town planners. Information was applicable to the
status of township establishment at the time of research.
Page 11
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Each case study is presented below, followed by a discussion in terms of the defined
sustainability criteria.
3.1.1 Introduction
Illegal occupation of a portion of vacant land in Muldersdrift, Northern Johannesburg,
(south of the N14 - formally the R28) led the Krugersdorp Local Council (KLC - now
known as Mogale City) to plan formalisation of the settlement. Formalisation would
provide residents with adequate housing and service infrastructure, in order to control
degradation associated with the densification of the settlement. The settlement is
located on Portions of the farm Rietfontein 189 IQ, situated east of the M5 and south
of the N14, between Muldersdrift and Randburg (see Figures 3.1 and 3.2). Results of
a review of the spatial development plans for the area and an evaluation of the
associated environmental impacts of the settlement are presented below.
X
M5
N
m
Figure 3.1: Topographical map indicating the location of Rietfontein Farm
1:50 000 2627 BB Roodepoort, 5th Edition, 1995, Published by the Chief Dire
and Land Information, Private Bag X10, Mowbray).
1k
Farm
N
m
Figure 3.2: Orthophoto map of the Muldersdrift area. The location of Rietfo
line (original source 1:10 000 2627 BB 3 Rietfontein, 3rd Edition, 1993,
Surveys and Land Information, Private Bag X10, Mowbray).
3.1.2 Landuse Plans
address landuse policy and infrastructure availability in
increasing pressure for the identification of land for low-in
aimed at indicating:
1k
Published by the Chief Directorate:
of 1997 was developed to
the area, as well as the
come housing. The strategy
• What locations were suitable for non-residential development, and
• The issues surrounding the provision of low-income housing in the area.
According to the MSDS (prepared by APS Planafrica, 1997) the socio-demographic
profile of the area indicated that the population density of the Muldersdrift area was
very low, and the majority of the population fell within the ‘Black’ race group. The
skills profile of the residents suggested an unskilled workforce with low incomes, thus
home ownership was not common. The employment structure of the area suggested
that a large percentage of the people were not economically active. Of the 63% that
were active, most (23%) participated in the agricultural sector, and 11% and 16% in
the secondary and tertiary sectors respectively. About 6% were involved in trade and
7% in other activities (APS Planafrica, 1997).
The MSDS emphasised the importance of accessibility to and availability of
waterborne sewerage for new developments – areas that were already serviced by a
sewer line were considered more suitable for development than those that were not.
Development where infrastructure could be upgraded would also be considered
favourable (APS Planafrica, 1997).
Although municipal water is available in the Muldersdrift area, water capacity was
limited and the physical infrastructure of the network unable to withstand provision of
large volumes. It was suggested in the MSDS that only limited selective
developments requiring water should be allowed. The implications for the
Muldersdrift area were that no large-scale water-reliant development would be
appropriate.
The complex networks of local roads in the Muldersdrift area provide access to
smallholdings and farm portions. Since roads were mostly property-access oriented
(for private use only), there was no co-ordinated grid or pattern, limiting public
transport routes (APS Planafrica, 1997).
The MSDS indicated that the limited capacity of the infrastructure (water, sewer and
roads) would restrict development in Muldersdrift until such time as the infrastructure
was upgraded. The MSDS intended therefore not only to restrict the extent of
development, but also to concentrate development in selected nodes in order to
maximise the efficient use and capacity of existing infrastructure wherever possible.
Page 14
In line with this, its stated principle aims were to:
• Discourage urban sprawl;
• Encourage environmentally sustainable development;
• Meet the basic needs of people through the provision of housing and
appropriate employment opportunities;
infrastructure capacity;
• Permit small scale or low impact businesses (subject to appropriate
restrictions);
criteria; and
• Consider the needs of the resident communities in order to ensure a
balance between the need for development and the need to maintain the
rural-residential environment (APS Planafrica, 1997).
According to the MSDS, low-income housing establishments had to conform to the
specified parameters relating to the provision of services, the prevention of pollution,
the capacity of the road and transportation infrastructure, access to municipal water
and waterborne sewer, or an appropriate alternative, and the interrelationship with
surrounding landuse.
3.1.3 Project Background and Description
According to the KLC, a Muldersdrift landowner made available his vacant property
for informal dwellings. In addition to rental fees, the landowner collected funds from
the provision of water to the ‘squatters’. Due to complaints from various surrounding
residents, the KLC issued the landowner notice to evict the settlers on the grounds
that the informal building structures were not of an acceptable building standard. In
response, the landowner withdrew water supply to the developing community in an
attempt to encourage their settlement elsewhere. The landowner was allegedly
murdered following these actions. By this time, the settlement had expanded
substantially, and required urgent intervention in order to control any further
development (Du Toit, 2001; Personal Communication) (see Figure 3.3).
Page 15
Enviro
N
3.3: View looking west of the settlement on Rietfontein Farm. The site is typical of the rural-
ltural area of Muldersdrift. Informal residents constructed their shelters amongst a grove of Eucalyptus
The property was not formally serviced with municipal water, sanitation, electricity or roads; residents
ucted pit latrines and harvested wood for fuel.
98, the Gauteng Department of Housing and Land Affairs requested Local
rities to submit subsidy applications for low-cost housing projects. The
tunity to develop and formalise the settlement at Rietfontein Farm was
ied by the KLC, who then submitted an application under the Mayibuye
amme to the Department (Du Toit, 2001; Personal Communication).
ril of 1999, the Gauteng Department of Housing and Land Affairs confirmed
bsidies for 203 erven for Portion 4 of the farm Rietfontein, and a subsidy
ct was agreed between the Department and the KLC. The contract was based on
ations including costs for the land, geotechnical and environmental studies,
hip establishment, and the installation of essential services. It was estimated that
7 500.00 of the standard subsidy amount of R16 000.00 (per erf) would be
d for development planning, while the remaining amount of R8 500.00 would
d for the construction of houses.
LC then approached the Gauteng Department of Agriculture, Conservation and
nment (GDACE) for guidance on how to obtain environmental approval for
Page 16
Results and Discussion
township establishment. GDACE indicated that an application in terms of s.22 of the
ECA would be required, including preparation of environmental impact assessment
report; is was anticipated that a Record of Decision would be issued after more than
six months. Concerned about the time necessary to obtain environmental approval, the
Gauteng Department of Housing and Land Affairs resolved that they would withhold
the provision of all funds for the project until GDACE had endorsed the proposed
development (Du Toit, 2001; Personal Communication).
In an attempt to reduce the risk of losing the Department’s subsidy, the KLC applied
for exemption from compliance with the Environmental Impact Assessment
Regulations; the process of obtaining environmental approval by exemption was
anticipated to be significantly shorter. The exemption process included public
consultation through various advertisements. Amid some public concern, the project
was eventually approved by GDACE. However, the geotechnical investigation
identified a portion of the development site to be unstable and inadequate for
construction purposes, presenting unsafe conditions for settlement and possible
township expansion. In order to provide sufficient land for the 203 erven, additional
land had to be purchased. The KLC applied for a second exemption from the
Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations for the new inclusion, and conducted
a second public consultation and advertisement process. Again interested parties
raised concerns, although the issues were sufficiently addressed. In July 2001, the
KLC received approval from GDACE for the proposed township formalisation.
Notwithstanding their approval, the subsidy contract was entirely reviewed by the
Gauteng Department of Housing and Land Affairs and remained unresolved for a
further six months.
Due to the delays experienced during subsidy provision, the KLC provided bridging
finance for the project in order to reduce the negative environmental impacts resulting
from a lack of basic services; the land was acquired, a town planner and land surveyor
appointed, and geotechnical and environmental experts consulted. Also of concern
was the number of potential beneficiaries. Subsidies were originally granted for 203
erven, although substantially more individuals began to reside on the project site,
including some ‘illegal’ residents. There was then the need to relocate those
Page 17
individuals who did not qualify for the subsidy programme. Additional funds would
be required for this process, with obvious economic limitations for the KLC.
3.1.4 Environmental Impacts
Onsite investigations, personal consultation with the KLC’s Environmental Manager
(Mr Stephan du Toit) and participation by the author of this dissertation in the
compilation of an Environmental Management Plan (Environmental Outsource, 2001)
for the township revealed the following environmental issues:
The most significant environmental impacts were related to the lack of formal or
municipal services such as stormwater control, sewage management, potable water
supply, power supply, waste management and basic road infrastructure. According to
the geotechnical investigations for the project site (VGIconsult, 2000a & 2000b),
failure to design and install proper sewage, sullage and stormwater systems across the
site could result in the introduction to and transmission of pollutants into the principal
groundwater system, resulting in pollution of water bodies in the local and sub-
regional catchment area over time (a significant concern raised by members of the
Muldersdrift community who derive much of their water from boreholes). Since the
nearest bulk sewer is located some distance from the site, the incorporation of interim
solutions was essential – only pit latrines (or the open veld) were being used at the
time of this study. Also of concern was the capacity of the existing sewer line after the
installation of formal sewage facilities. The Environmental Manager of the KLC
indicated that the existing sewage infrastructure was almost at maximum capacity and
could not accommodate the pressure of a new township (Du Toit, 2001; Personal
Communication).
The project site was bisected by a functional, seasonal wetland that supported a
species-rich ecosystem downstream. The site with its sloping topography was
susceptible to erosion, specifically in some areas where anthropogenic disturbance
and the lack of a storm water management system had contributed negatively. The
wetland area received a large proportion of runoff from the site (see Figure 3.4).
Excessive silt levels caused by vegetation removal and increased traffic through
dwellings, could affect the health of downstream aquatic ecosystems. In addition,
suspended solids may smother plants and animals, thus altering community
Page 18
building materials (sand and cement), particulates, sand and soil from un-vegetated or
uncovered areas, and exposed spoil dumps (Environmental Outsource, 2001).
Rietfontein Village
In
do
an
of
tow
Ri
fro
Th
ph
co
Cr
N
Figure 3.4: Rietfontein settlement located on a sloping topography. The land is bisected by a functional,
seasonal wetland that receives runoff (silt, sand and cement) from the settlement. Members of the public
also raised concern about potential groundwater contamination as a result of the use of pit latrines.
addition to an increase of suspended solids entering the wetland system and
wnstream watercourses, there was a potential for increase of total dissolved solids,
d changes to pH levels – physical parameters that can affect the biological integrity
aquatic communities. Depending on their source, effluents released from the
nship may have alkaline or acidic properties. Potential sources of pH change at
etfontein Village are final effluents from washing processes, detergents, and lime
m building materials.
e Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) has prescribed special
osphate limits for effluent released to the Crocodile River Catchment, in order to
ntrol the impact of eutrophication. The locality of the township within the
ocodile River catchment is of concern where release of effluent to this catchment is
Page 19
not controlled in terms of the requirements prescribed by DWAF (Environmental
Outsource, 2001).
As with most township establishments, there was the likelihood of small to micro
enterprise development at Rietfontein. Uncontrolled vehicle servicing is a major risk
to the environment, where hazardous materials including waste oil, batteries and tyres
are not disposed of in the appropriate manner. This scenario is however not limited to
business development, but during the township upgrade as well. Heavy engineering
machinery and equipment may require onsite servicing and maintenance causing
impacts on the environment where petrochemical spills are not properly rehabilitated
(Environmental Outsource, 2001).
The transformation of land and removal of vegetation for informal purposes, and for
the formal construction of roads / houses, as well as the eventual installation of
services at Rietfontein Village may destabilise soils and expose the landscape making
it more susceptible to erosion (see Figure 3.5).
Figure 3.5: Land transformation and removal of vegetation at Rietfontein. These activities contribute to
the destabilisation of soils and erosion.
Page 20
Fairly large quantities of different types of wastes, in liquid, solid and gaseous form
were generated by the informal settlement, and posed a serious pollution risk since
they were not handled or disposed of properly; there were no municipal waste
disposal services for the settlement. Open waste pits were susceptible to vermin and
related diseases, and contributed to odours and visual impact. Liquid waste was likely
to enter the soil and ground and surface water systems.
The project site was not linked to the main power grid. Informal residents burned
wood and coal for heating and cooking. Increased atmospheric pollution levels were
evident. Excessive dust from informal dirt roads and disturbed and devegetated
portions of the property also affected air quality in the surrounding area. There was in
addition the risk of uncontrolled fire, threatening the resident community, surrounding
landowners as well as birds, mammals and reptiles that occur in the area
(Environmental Outsource, 2001).
When the planned township achieved formal status, there would be the potential for
light and noise pollution. Township floodlights could affect the rural nature of the
Muldersdrift area, while the social activities of township residents and the
establishment of a taxi rank and related traffic would increase noise levels.
Furthermore, the township would affect the agri-rural land character. Another concern
included the use of asbestos sheeting, a hazardous material, for construction purposes.
3.2 Case Study Two – Heidelberg Ext 23
3.2.1 Introduction
Heidelberg, established in 1865, is characteristic of a typical rural Victorian town
supporting the local farming community. It is located approximately 50km south east
of Johannesburg, along the N3 highway. In response to a severe shortage of low-cost
housing in the area, the Heidelberg Transitional Local Council (HTLC) proposed to
develop the township of Heidelberg Ext 23 south west of Heidelberg’s urban centre.
An overview of the landuse development objectives for Greater Heidelberg, and
environmental issues associated with the proposed development are presented below.
Page 21
3.2.2 Land Development Objectives (LDOs) of the HTLC
Greater Heidelberg is divided into two distinct units: Heidelberg town and its
surrounding suburbs (previously ‘White’ and ‘Asian’), and Ratanda, a previously
‘Black’ town located at the southern edge of the municipal area.
According to the LDOs (HTLC, 1998), the socio-economic profiles of the Heidelberg
and Ratanda communities were vastly different. The community of Heidelberg
generally exhibited relative affluence, high education levels, small family units,
mobility, and good access to employment opportunities. The Ratanda community
generally exhibited poverty, low skills levels, large family units, low mobility, and
inadequate development standards. Inhabitants were poor and located far from
employment and services provided in the urban centre.
Of the estimated 9 400 houses in Greater Heidelberg, 5 900 units were located in
Ratanda, and approximately 3 500 of these units were informal structures or shacks.
On reviewing the housing situation, it was established that there were a large number
of vacant, serviced stands in Heidelberg, and a large number of shacks in Ratanda; a
result of the under provision of low-income or subsidy linked housing. In 1998, the
housing backlog was estimated at approximately 6 000 units (HTLC, 1998).
The empowerment and upliftment of the Ratanda community was of importance to
the sustainable and successful functioning of the area. The spatial development
framework for Greater Heidelberg defined major strategic development zones:
Ratanda and its surrounds were classified as a ‘zone for upliftment and intervention’,
and the sparsely developed vacant land between Ratanda and Heidelberg was
classified as a ‘zone of integration’, an area earmarked for low-cost housing initiatives
(HTLC, 1998) (see Figure 3.6).
Specifically, strategies described in the LDOs of the HTLC were aimed at reaching
the following objectives:
• Institutional capacity building;
• Prevention and control of land invasion and ‘squatter settlements’;
• Initiation and facilitation of mass housing programmes for the homeless;
Page 22
• Prevention of environmental degradation.
Figure 3.6: Map indicating the Greater Heidelberg LDOs (original source, The African Planning Partnership in
Environmental Outsource, 1999).
3.2.3 Project Background and Description
The Land Development Objectives (LDOs) for the Greater Heidelberg (HTLC, 1998)
identified a need for housing, based on existing settlement patterns and the ever-
increasing squatter settlements that had developed on the outskirts of Heidelberg;
there was a waiting list of at least 6 000 housing units. While attempts by the HTLC
to address housing problems had previously been made in terms of an Essential
Services Programme (implemented in various extensions of Ratanda), at least 3 000
families could not be accommodated. They continued to live under disabling
conditions, from a health and social perspective, far removed from the urban
amenities and employment opportunities available in Heidelberg (The African
Planning Partnership, 1998).
In response to this situation, a Mayibuye application was submitted to the Gauteng
Department of Housing and Land Affairs for provincial funding for a low-cost
housing project ‘Heidelberg Extension 23’, to provide 3 000 residential sites. The
Department duly approved the application. In addition to the application for funding,
suitable sites for the housing development were considered in terms of the Spatial
Development Framework Plan for Greater Heidelberg.
Of four possible options, Part of Portion 124 of the farm Houtpoort 392 IR, in the
Heidelberg Municipal Area of Gauteng, was selected for the following reasons:
• The land formed part of the ‘zone of integration’ and was designated a
priority for housing provision;
• The land already belonged to the HTLC – other land in the area was
predominantly private owned;
• Geotechnical conditions were considered good with no dolomite or clay
present on site;
• The land was close to existing job opportunities and other urban
amenities of Heidelberg;
• Bulk water supply and limited electrical supply were already available,
and
• Residential development at this locality was in line with the principles
for land development as described in the Development Facilitation Act
of 1995.
Page 24
The farm portion of 130.35 hectares is located between two arterial roads, viz. the R23
and the R549 to the south of Heidelberg (see Figure 3.7). The site is trapezoidal in
shape, and slopes (about 1:50) downhill towards the northwest. The maximum
elevation of the property is about 1585m above mean sea level, with a 40m fall in
height over the site (van Niekerk, Kleyn, & Edwards, 1993).
The Alice Glöckner Nature Reserve is located approximately 1.5 km south of the
southern most boundary of the site. The Blesbokspruit lies about 1.5km to the east of
the property, beyond which is the Suikerbosrand Nature Reserve (further east). The
site is not formally utilised; informally it is used for harvesting of thatching grass.
Rensburg town is located northeast of the site, Heidelberg CBD north of the site, and
Ratanda to the southwest of the site. Agricultural holdings are located to the east,
west, and south of the site (Environmental Outsource, 1999).
Plans for township development included a total of 3 153 erven, of which 3 095 were
planned for residential use. In the first instance, 2 503 residential erven and 51
‘exotic’ (any use except residential) use erven were to be developed as Heidelberg
Extension 23. Remaining erven would be developed at a later stage. The number of
individuals per household was estimated at between 3.5 and 4.5, therefore an
approximate total of 14 000 people were likely to eventually reside in the township.
The provision of township services in the following phases was originally proposed:
• Phase 1: Rudimentary Services (Prior to Settlement): Graded streets,
water per standpipe in street reserve, and night soil removal via bucket
system;
• Phase 2: Essential Services: Water connection on a per erf basis, water
borne sewerage system, stormwater construction, and graded roads, and
• Phase 3: Top Structure: Houses, electricity, tarring of major collector
roads, and installation of piped stormwater system.
(Above information adapted from Environmental Outsource, 1999).
Page 25
Figure 3.7: Topographical map indicating the location of Heidelberg Ext 23; after Environmental Outsource, 1999 (original source 1:50 000 2628 CB
Heidelberg (Gauteng), 3rd Edition, 1995, Published by the Chief Directorate: Surveys and Land Information, Private Bag X10, Mowbray).
Page 26
Public concern and opposition encountered during the town planning process for this
project motivated a recommendation from the provincial authorities that authorisation
be obtained in terms of Section 22 of the Environment Conservation Act (ECA, 1989)
for the change of landuse for the purposes of township establishment.
In terms of the ECA’s Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, an
Environmental Scoping Report (co-authored by the author of this dissertation) for the
proposed township development was submitted for review and decision-making to
GDACE in June 1999. In October 1999, GDACE issued a Record of Decision stating
that the scoping report was approved, but that a Full Environmental Impact
Assessment including specialist studies was required. A final Record of Decision with
conditions for implementation, based on the full EIA Report was issued by GDACE
on 22 December 2000. This Record of Decision under Condition 3 stated the
Heidelberg Council must confirm that: “…full service provision will be provided for
the entire township. No occupation of sites prior to full service provision may take
place”. The Gauteng Department of Housing and Land Affairs confirmed approval for
essential services for 2 500 units.
3.2.4 Environmental Impacts
According to the Environmental Scoping Report for Heidelberg Ext 23 Low-cost
Township (Environmental Outsource, 1999) the main anticipated environmental
impacts included the following:
Approximately one hundred and thirty ha of the site would be transformed (de-
vegetated) as most of the grassland is removed for the development (see Figure 3.8).
Removal of vegetation would increase the potential for soil erosion, especially during
heavy rains when increased surface runoff and inadequate stormwater diversion could
result in stream channelling and the undercutting of adjacent roads.
Due to the slope of the land and the soft sandy surface layer, uncontrolled surface
runoff may be contaminated with sediment, waste materials such as detergents and
oils, as well as other by-products of small-scale business operations. Furthermore,
ineffective stormwater diversion could result in the collection of pollutants in
localised areas – stagnant ponds could pose health risks to residents.
Page 27
Figure 3.8: View from the southern boundary of Heidelberg Ext 23. Approximately one hundred and thirty
ha of the site would be transformed (de-vegetated) as most of the grassland and alien invasive tree species
are removed for the development. Thatching grass is currently harvested from the site (original source,
Environmental Outsource, 1999).
Inadequate waste management facilities at the township could result in pollution of
land and water. Incorrect disposal of solid and liquid wastes (including hazardous
materials such as car tyres, batteries, oil and chemical contaminated items generated
by small business operations on site) would negatively impact on the environment.
The effectiveness of a stormwater drainage system would also be compromised by the
accumulation of litter, also impacting on the aesthetics of the area.
The night-soil bucket system, originally proposed prior to the Scoping Study,
represented a significant pollution risk. It would depend on the co-operation of
informed users and collectors. Without complete efficiency of all factors, uncontrolled
release to the environment would be inevitable, with serious implications for the
health of the community and the pollution of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.
Improper management of liquid wastes such as detergents, spent oils from vehicle
servicing, and sewage is a common cause of groundwater pollution, the risk of which
is greater in the vicinity of a high water table. Comments received during the Public
Participation Process indicated that there were existing concerns about sewage and
groundwater pollution on the agricultural holdings adjacent to the site. Objectors
Page 28
feared that an influx of people to the area would put pressure on the physical
environment, exacerbating the problems already experienced by local communities.
Transformation of the 130Ha site would not only affect the immediate habitat of
resident and transient fauna, but nearby natural areas as well. The Alice Glöckner and
Suikerbosrand Reserves would be susceptible due to ease of access to the reserves and
due to encroachment as a result of township expansion. The collection of wood for
structural purposes and fuel could pose a serious threat to local indigenous woody
vegetation – a threat that would be exacerbated under conditions of the developer’s
original proposal that electricity would not be provided until Phase 3. Furthermore,
township residents could exploit plant products that are commonly harvested for
medicinal purposes, threatening this resource; at least twenty-six well-known
medicinal plant species are found on Suikerbosrand, from where plant collection is
known to occur (Pfab, 1999; Personal Communication) (see Figure 3.9). Red Data
plant species would likely be at risk of disturbance, damage and or removal. Also at
risk due to poaching and trapping, would be small mammals and game birds occurring
on the neighbouring reserves and agricultural holdings.
Figure 3.9: Harvesting of plant products. This issue was of concern considering the close proximity of the
development site to the nearby nature reserves; the Alice Glöckner Reserve is situated to the right of the
view (original source, Environmental Outsource, 1999).
Page 29
In view of the above, the Gauteng Department of Nature Conservation was concerned
about the future integrity of the two nature reserves located at more or less opposite
sides to the proposed development site. It was indicated that the priority objective of
both reserves is the conservation of biodiversity, an aspect receiving due
consideration on both a local and international scale. Both reserves are representative
of Highveld Grassland, of which 0.8% is currently conserved in South Africa.
Nineteen of the 53 Red Data plant species that occur in Gauteng are located in the
Suikerbosrand Reserve and surrounding farms. The Alice Glöckner Reserve is also
extremely rich in other invertebrate species.
Of particular concern was the potential impact on the rare Heidelberg Copper
Butterfly (Poecilimitis aureus). According to Nature Conservation, the healthiest
population of P. aureus occurs on the Alice Glöckner Nature Reserve. Most of the
plant species on which P. aureus adults predominantly feed are used as traditional
medicines. In addition, the butterfly’s host plant, Clutia pulchella has been identified
for medicinal use; there is also a high risk of trampling of and disturbance to
P. aureus nests as a result of human activity in the area. The possibility of habitat
fragmentation and transformation could result in a barrier to genetic exchange
between P. aureus colonies in Suikerbosrand Reserve, Heidelberg, Heidelberg Kloof,
Heidelberg Training Centre Natural Heritage Site and Alice Glöckner Reserve.
Also of concern was the potential effect of air pollution. Increased emissions from
burning wood and fossil fuels for energy, and the greater risk of uncontrolled veld
fires, would pose a health risk to local inhabitants as well as impact on the air quality.
High levels of dust would be produced from vehicle traffic on unsurfaced roads
together with high winds. Chemical pollution would negatively impact the butterfly
populations and disrupt chemical associations between individuals and host ant
species, as well as all other invertebrates relying on pheromones (Environmental
Outsource, 1999).
Due to the nature of the biodiversity of the region, the Wildlife and Environment
Society of South Africa had proposed the establishment of a conservancy in the area,
with Alice Glöckner and Suikerbosrand representing core conservation areas. The
Gauteng Department of Nature Conservation viewed the proposed township as a
threat to the development of the area as a conservancy and to the potential special
Page 30
Outsource, 1999).
3.3.1 Introduction
An application in terms of the Mayibuye Programme was lodged with the Gauteng
Department of Housing and Land Affairs for the upgrading of Leratong Informal
Settlement in 1997. The settlement is located on Portion 212 of the farm Witpoortjie
245 IQ. The site is situated at the intersection of two identified development corridors
viz. Main Reef and Zuurbekom Roads on the West Rand (Hunter, Theron & Zietsman,
[HTZ], 1998).
This case was selected to provide an example of a township approval in terms of the
DFA (1995), compared to the previous cases that were in terms of the ECA (1989).
The results of an investigation into this township application and the environmental
considerations are discussed below.
3.3.2 Land Development Objectives (LDOs)
In terms of spatial trends, the Leratong township site falls within an area where social
and economic upliftment was necessary to enhance its sustainability, viz. the Leratong
development node. Economic growth and development of this area could be achieved
through the promotion of SMMEs (small, micro and medium enterprises), the
establishment of a township, marketing and development of the area, and
establishment of an investor friendly environment to support SMMEs (HTZ, 1998).
Action strategies to eradicate the housing backlog in this development node included
the identification of land for housing development, planning and design,
implementation of plans, and development of at least 18 000 houses over a five year
period (HTZ, 1998).
According to HTZ (1998), the Leratong Informal Settlement had been identified as an
informal settlement in the Western Metropolitan Local Council’s Land Development
Objectives (WMLC LDOs). The LDOs had several strategies and priorities in terms
Page 31
services and environment. These included:
• The upgrading of settlements;
and safety standards;
• Upgrading of tenure;
• Recognition and support of SMMEs;
• Encouragement of industrial development;
• Provision of bulk services and the upgrading of internal services within
informal areas, and
important areas.
3.3.3 Project Background
Subsequent to a land invasion in July 1995 of Council owned property viz. portion 46
of the farm Brink’s Vlakfontein 238IQ, the Western Metropolitan Local Council
(WMLC) temporarily relocated 71 families to the Farm Witpoortjie 245 IQ, (see
Figure 3.10). This arrangement was allegedly for a period of one month until
alternative accommodation could be identified. During the period 6-14 November
1995, an invasion of about 1 000 families took place on this project site, where the
settlement underwent substantial growth to an estimated size of 3 500 units. This
settlement became known as Leratong Informal Settlement (HTZ, 1998).
The project site is owned by the Gauteng Provincial Administration, and falls under
the jurisdiction of the Krugersdorp Transitional Local Council (KTLC). However, the
settlement is administered, managed and funded by the WMLC; it was resolved that
the WMLC would assume responsibility for the provisional supply of water,
sanitation and refuse removal services to the settlement (HTZ, 1998).
Page 32
Private Bag X10, Mowbray).
proposed for upgrading, would be allocated
1 000 of the 3 500 family units residing at the
the site, while the remaining families would be
In August 1997, the Gauteng Provincial Adm
with the WMLC, under which terms the WML
ratong Informal Settlement (original sou
Chief Directorate: Surveys and Land
e Gauteng Department of Hou
that erven in the informal s
to the existing residents. On
project site could be accommo
allocated to other housing pro
inistration entered into an a
C would establish the townsh
1km
services and construct houses, at which time the Gauteng Provincial Administration
would transfer erven to individual beneficiaries. While the WMLC was committed to
the installation of services, the construction of houses was conditional on the
availability of funds for this work (HTZ, 1998).
The township upgrade was to be established in terms of relevant legislation: the DFA
recognises the need for effective socio-economic transformation in South Africa, and
intends to provide a speedy mechanism to facilitate developments that aim to address
such transformation. To achieve the “fast-track” objective, the DFA tribunal is
awarded executive powers to supersede requirements of other Acts, such as the ECA
that requires an application for township approval.
The DFA does however recognise the importance of environmentally sustainable
development under Section 28 where there is a requirement for such applications to
include an evaluation of the environmental impacts of a proposed development in line
with the Integrated Environmental Management Guidelines issued by the Department
of Environment Affairs and Tourism.
The Leratong upgrade proposal included the formalisation of the settlement to include
about 1 000 residential stands, a primary school, a mixed industrial area, a petrol
filling station, and three churches, to be serviced by tar-surfaced roads and a
stormwater and formal sewerage system. The erf sizes ranged from 150m² to 300m²,
thus dramatically de-densifying the settlement from about 100 units per hectare to
about 40 units per hectare.
Some bulk services were available for use: a Rand Water Board pipeline lies
alongside the site to the west, and a municipal outfall sewer to the east where it drains
to the main western outfall sewer, and eventually on to the Olifantsvlei Treatment
Works (see Figure 3.11). While bulk services were available, there was no evidence
of installation at the time of this case study assessment (see Figure 3.12).
The K15 roadway borders the site to the west and Randfontein Road to the north
(Environmental Impact Management Services, EIMS, 1998). The site is well serviced
by both informal (taxis) and formal (buses) road based transport systems (see Figure
3.13). The project site is positioned at the centre of two recognised urban corridors, of
which the focus is economic development and mass-transportation systems.
Page 34
In addition, its proximity to existing job opportunities is noted (see Figure 3.14):
Leratong Hospital is located 500m from the site, Chamdor Industrial area and
Vlakfontein Commercial area are about 1km from the site, Roodepoort CBD 3km
from the site, and Technicon Industrial area and DRD Mine are located 5km from the
site (information adapted from the Leratong Mayibuye Application, Supplementary
Memorandum [Western Metropolitan Substructure, 1997]).
N
Figur
erode
Figure 3.11: Proximity of Leratong to water and sewage services (map not to scale;
original source, Western Metropolitan Substructure, 1997).
e 3.12: Water provision at Leratong included reservoirs and pumps. Continuous leaking
d soils around the base of the structure.
Page 35
and throu
were ident
Figure 3.13: Map indicating the accessibility of transport to Leratong residents (not to
scale; original source, Western Metropolitan Substructure, 1997).
N
Figure 3.14: Proximity of Leratong to employment opportunities (map not to scale;
original source, Western Metropolitan Substructure, 1997).
nvironmental Impacts
to the Environmental Evaluation Report prepared by EIMS in May 1998,
gh personal investigation of the site, the following environmental impacts
ified.
The site evaluation process identified a petroleum pipeline that runs directly under the
site. Damage to this pipeline that may be caused during and / or after construction
activities would result in a pollution risk to ground and surface water. While caution
was recommended during the construction and operational phases, realignment of the
pipeline on the outskirts of the township was considered to be a safer alternative; this
option would need to consider township expansion, land transformation, realignment
costs, and costs associated with petroleum flow interruption (EIMS, 1998).
Provision was made for the development of a petrol filling station in the township. In
this instance, the proximity of the settlement to the Klein Klip River and the potential
occurrence of a perched aquifer raised concern about possible petrochemical pollution
of this watercourse. It was suggested that hydro-geological studies could provide
information that would assist in the planning and proper management of a filling
station (EIMS, 1998).
A common feature of informal settlements is the lack of permanent cover such as
vegetation or impermeable surfaces. The soils at Leratong were fine grained and non-
cohesive and thus susceptible to erosion (see Figure 3.15). It was anticipated that
surface runoff channelled into the Klein Klip River might increase flow rates at points
of entry, as well as promote sudden flooding. Runoff from roads would increase
pollution levels, especially during first seasonal downpours. Formal roads with an
effective stormwater system, and appropriate landscaping might alleviate the erosion
potential of the site, and minimise the negative impacts associated with uncontrolled
runoff (EIMS, 1998).
Separate to the initial proposal for township formalisation and development, were
other plans to develop the area; a mixed-use industrial component was also proposed
for Leratong. According to the Environmental Evaluation Report (EIMS, 1998), exact
details on what industries would be allowed in the township were not available. In
general, business would comprise retail stores, motor vehicle maintenance and other
services; an adjacent property was focussing on mixed industrial land use.
Page 37
Figure 3.15: Inadequate stormwater management at Leratong results in severe erosion. Waste materials
collect in the gully causing further pollution and contamination of runoff to the Klein Klip River
(original source, Environmental Outsource, 1999).
Informal industrial activities can pose significant environmental risks where adequate
management plans are not developed and implemented. Common issues include
hazardous liquid disposal (e.g. oil and car products such as antifreeze, break fluid and
engine coolant), and solid disposal (e.g. tyres, batteries and contaminated containers)
(Booth, 1994).
3.4 Assessment of Sustainability Potential
The following sections discuss the case studies in terms of the assessment criteria
3.4.1 Legal Approach adopted for Township Approval
Each case study pursued a different legal route in terms of obtaining environmental
approval. The legal process followed for Heidelberg Ext 23 was an application for
authorisation in terms of Section 22 of the ECA. The process for Rietfontein Village
included a Section 28a ECA exemption application, in an attempt to obtain
environmental approval within the shortest possible timeframe. The application for
Leratong Informal Settlement was in terms of the DFA. The decision-making
authority for the first two case studies was GDACE, and in the case of Leratong, a
tribunal.
Disadvantages of the s.22 ECA application process are usually experienced in terms
of time and money; the longer the approval process takes, the greater risk of
government funds being withdrawn for subsidising other projects. The studies showed
that the period for the s.28a exemption for Rietfontein Village included six months. In
comparison, Heidelberg Ext 23’s s.22 EIA application was initiated in April 1999,
and the final Record of Decision (after extensive consultation and specialist studies)
was issued 20 months later in December 2000 (it is accepted that Heidelberg may
have been environmentally more complex than Rietfontein). Delays experienced
during the approval process can put pressure on already vulnerable environments. For
example, during the approval process for Heidelberg Ext 23, the population density in
the nearby town of Ratanda increased over the 20 months, impacting on employment
opportunities as well as basic service infrastructure.
The DFA application for Leratong Informal Settlement was aimed at fast-tracking the
township approval process. Under normal conditions, advantages of a DFA
application include a strict timeframe for deliverables, and therefore assurance in
terms of government fund allocation. There is also representation from several role-
players at the tribunal, unlike the ECA review process that is carried out by a single,
possibly subjective, decision-making body.
However, disagreement during a tribunal can jeopardise the success of an application.
In the case of Leratong, an objection by the Krugersdorp Transitional Local Council
was raised and the tribunal dissolved. Correspondence reviewed after termination of
the tribunal stated: “The [Gauteng] Department of Housing and Land Affairs will
terminate the informal settlement upgrading programme contract for the money
allocated…[and] applications for essential services…will not be
considered…Leratong Informal Settlement will remain as it is”. A compromise
between the contesting parties needed to be reached, and conditions for the township
upgrade had to be re-negotiated (Theron, 2001; Personal Communication).
The outcomes of any of the three approval methods reviewed can be unpredictable
and prolonged. Delays experienced because of environmental risk, insufficient
capacity within decision-making authorities, or disputes between interested and
affected parties, can potentially stall or even cancel the provision of funding by donor
institutions such as provincial government. For a township to be sustainable,
Page 39
confirmed funding is a necessary factor to ensure proper planning and provision of
basic service infrastructure.
3.4.2 Geographical Location and Compliance with Landuse Plans
The three case studies were geographically isolated from each other, falling under
different local authorities and landuse development objectives. Rietfontein Village,
north of Johannesburg, was subject to the Muldersdrift Spatial Development Strategy,
overseen by the Krugersdorp Transitional Local Council (KTLC). Heidelberg Ext 23,
located south of Johannesburg, fell under the jurisdiction of the Heidelberg
Transitional Local Council (HTLC) and its landuse development objectives. Leratong
Informal Settlement, located to the west of Johannesburg, was controlled and
managed by the Western Metropolitan Local Council (WMLC).
Although the occupation of Rietfontein Village clearly demonstrated the demand for
low-income housing in the Muldersdrift area, the project needed to comply with the
development conditions described in the MSDS. It is stated that while the need for
low-income housing is localised (meaning that the local population who reside, work
and contribute to the local economy should have opportunities to access formalised
affordable housing), Muldersdrift, because of its specific nature, should not be
regarded as a suitable location for large-scale, sub-regional low-income housing.
Low-income housing must conform to parameters relating to the provision of
services, prevention of pollution, capacity of road and transportation infrastructure,
and compatibility with surrounding landuse. In addition, there has to be access to
municipal water and a waterborne sewer, or an appropriate alternative (APS
Planafrica, 1997). Rietfontein Village did not comply with the objectives of the
MSDS.
According to available information, the Leratong DFA application for township
establishment was considered in full compliance with the WMLC’s Land
Development Objectives (HTZ, 1998). The project aimed at upgrading the informal
settlement, providing services and facilities to promote a sustainable residential
development, enabling the previously disadvantaged the opportunity for home
ownership - a small step in addressing the housing backlog in the area (HTZ, 1998).
Page 40
Specific targets under the Land Development Objectives for Heidelberg included the
construction of approximately 7 000 housing units, the upgrading of existing facilities
and infrastructure, and the prevention of environmental degradation (HTLC, 1998).
The establishment of Heidelberg Ext 23 was considered to comply with the LDOs.
The proposed higher residential density would discourage ‘urban sprawl’ and
contribute to a more compact town promoting social, economic and institutional
integration with physical land aspects, and correct distorted settlement patterns (The
African Planning Partnership, 1998).
Co-operation and partnerships between different groups in society are important
factors in sustainable development. A society needs to work together to determine the
future they want for themselves and their children. Without social support of or
agreement to development of a low-cost township, its sustainability may be
compromised (DEAT, 2000). In addition, a township and its services should be
affordable for residents and the institution that is responsible for the upkeep of those
services (Soman & Urquhart, 1998; CSIR, 2002a). Therefore, employment
opportunities must be available for beneficiaries, and sufficient budget guaranteed for
the institution.
Although the establishment of Heidelberg Ext 23 Township complied with the
relevant LDOs, vehement objections were raised during the public consultation
process. Objections recorded related mostly to a possible increase in crime in the area,
and potential air, land, and ground and surface water pollution (Environmental
Outsource, 1999). Specifically, community representatives were concerned for their
safety. Development of this township in a socially hostile environment is not likely to
be sustainable (see Table 3.1, cell B2).
Neighbouring residents of the area around Rietfontein Village were also protective
over their region, and wanted to ensure the least possible threat to their land. Their
attitude towards maintaining the rural landscape and rejection of potential
encroachment was observed during the public consultation process. This notion was
further identified in the Muldersdrift Spatial Development Strategy. The principles
outlined therein were used to discourage the formalisation of the village, since the
Page 41
project did not meet the conditions for township establishment (such as availability of
infrastructure and access to employment). Concern was also focussed on potential
environmental impact, and influence on the rural atmosphere of Muldersdrift.
Objections during public consultation were eventually resolved based on
environmental protection measures proposed by the local authority’s Environmental
Manager (such as installation of basic essential services) and commitment by them to
the conditions prescribed in an Environmental Management Plan prepared by
independent environmental consultants; this project could therefore be considered
socially sustainable (Du Toit, 2001; Personal Communication) (see Table 3.1,
cell A2).
The social environment around Leratong Informal Settlement was conducive to
township formalisation. No concerns about the project were raised during the public
consultation process. The area was already representative of low-income housing and
semi-industrial landuse, and the development would compliment existing social
organisation and behaviour (HTZ, 1998) (see Table 3.1, cell C2).
The location of Leratong Informal Settlement at the centre of two recognised urban
corridors was also noted. The area is considered a focus of economic development
and mass-transportation systems. The proximity of the township to existing and new
employment opportunities (such as SMMEs) for beneficiaries supports its economic
sustainability (see Table 3.1, cell C3).
Heidelberg Ext 23’s location in the ‘Zone of Integration’ defined in the HTLC’s
LDOs was aimed at promoting the availability of employment and residential
opportunities within close proximity to each other (The African Planning Partnership,
1998). While the LDOs of the HTLC state that the rectification of past inequitable
distribution of resources would impact on their budget, the efficient utilisation of and
application for financial resources is an important part of the HTLC’s financial
strategy (HTLC, 1998).
Table 3.1: Summary of sustainability potential for each case study.
Sustainability Criteria A. Rietfontein B. Heidelberg Ext 23 C. Leratong
1. Ecological
The installation of basic services, and the implementation of an environmental management plan were expected to minimise and control environmental impacts associated with the township.
Conclusion: Potentially sustainable.
Significant ecological risks to neighbouring nature reserves and to the integrity of a threatened butterfly population were identified.
Conclusion: Potentially unsustainable.
The project site and its surroundings were already substantially transformed. Formalisation of the settlement was expected to improve the environmental conditions.
2. Social
Interested parties indicated that high-density development would affect the rural atmosphere of Muldersdrift and put pressure on existing resources, thus oppose the aims of the MSDS. However, residents favoured township formalisation over uncontrolled rapid settlement expansion and threat to vacant land.
Although the project complied with the LDOs, strong objections were recorded during the public consultation process. In general, Heidelberg / Rensburg residents viewed the new township as a threat to their safety; they were not in favour of the development.
Conclusion: Potentially unsustainable.
No objections were recorded during the public consultation process conducted as part of the Environmental Evaluation, indicating acceptance and support for the project.
3. Economical
According to the MSDS, a significant proportion of the existing population was already unemployed; due to the settlement’s location, limited employment opportunities were available.
The proposed township was strategically located to ensure access to employment (through nearby developing industrial sites) and other urban amenities of Heidelberg.
Township formalisation was in line with plans to develop the area economically. The township was expected to support SMMEs that would sustain the local residents.
4. Technical
Bulk services were already under pressure, and the installation or upgrading of services was not considered financially viable. Also, limited council funds were available to maintain infrastructure. Alternative sustainable technologies and innovations aimed at resource efficiency and sewage disposal were not extensively considered.
According to the Record of Decision, essential services were to be installed prior to tenure allocation and settlement. Documentation reviewed indicated that funds were already approved for the installation of essential services, and that bulk water supply and electricity were accessible.
As a result of complications during the tribunal, funding applications for essential services were not considered. Although water and sewage lines were available, there was no evidence of service installation at the time of the assessment.
3.4.4 Ecological and Technical Sustainability
The fate of the endangered Heidelberg Copper butterfly (Poecilimitis aureus) was of
particular concern to Gauteng Nature Conservation during the consultation process for
Heidelberg Ext 23, in addition to the possible threats to the neighbouring
Suikerbosrand and Alice Glöckner Reserves (Environmental Outsource, 1999). The
township would impact significantly on the ecological integrity of the area (see Table
3.1, cell B1). Therefore, specific conditions for township establishment were included
in the Record of Decision for this project.
In comparison, no significant ecological concerns associated with the formalisation of
Leratong were raised. The recommendations for environmental management in the
Environmental Evaluation Report for Leratong (EIMS, 1998) were considered
sufficient for township establishment. The project was seen as an opportunity to
reduce the environmental effects of the settlement, and improve environmental
conditions (EIMS, 1998) (see Table 3.1, cell C1).
The Rietfontein project was considered more ecologically sustainable than the
Heidelberg project, but less than the Leratong project. The main ecological impacts
were groundwater contamination, disruption of the wetland, and increased levels of
sediment and nutrients entering the Crocodile River catchment. The disturbance to
resident birds, mammals and reptiles, harvesting of local indigenous woody
vegetation, and air pollution resulting from increased dust levels and emissions from
wood and coal fires were also issues of concern. These issues would only be
addressed by the installation of essential services, and by the development and
i

sustainable low-cost housing – a review of three low …

Documents