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
Results and Discussion
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
Results and Discussion
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
Results and Discussion
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
Results and Discussion
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
Results and Discussion
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
Results and Discussion
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
Results and Discussion
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
Results and Discussion
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
Results and Discussion
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
Results and Discussion
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.
Results and Discussion
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.
Results and Discussion
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
Results and Discussion
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
Results and Discussion
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.
Conclusion: Potentially sustainable.
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.
Conclusion: Potentially sustainable.
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 un- sustainable.
No objections were recorded during the public consultation process
conducted as part of the Environmental Evaluation, indicating
acceptance and support for the project.
Conclusion: Potentially sustainable.
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.
Conclusion: Potentially unsustainable.
The proposed township was strategically located to ensure access to
employment (through nearby developing industrial sites) and other
urban amenities of Heidelberg.
Conclusion: Potentially sustainable.
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.
Conclusion: Potentially sustainable.
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.
Conclusion: Potentially unsustainable.
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.
Conclusion: Potentially sustainable.
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.
Conclusion: Potentially unsustainable.
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