1 / 26

PRELIMINARY DRAFT not for circulation

PRELIMINARY DRAFT not for circulation. feasibility and review of housing plan for WARDS 1-4 and 6-7, 6 000. WARDS 1-4 and 6-7. Feasibility and Review of Housing Plan. prepared for. GREAT KEI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY PO Box 21, Komga, 4950 Tel: (043) 831-1028 Fax: (043) 831-1029.

hera
Télécharger la présentation

PRELIMINARY DRAFT not for circulation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PRELIMINARY DRAFT not for circulation feasibility and review of housing plan for WARDS 1-4 and 6-7, 6 000

  2. WARDS 1-4 and 6-7 Feasibility and Review of Housing Plan prepared for GREAT KEI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY PO Box 21, Komga, 4950 Tel: (043) 831-1028 Fax: (043) 831-1029 EASTERN CAPE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SETTLEMENTS 31-33 Phillip Frame Road Chiselhurst Tel: +27 (0) 43 711 9735 by Kantey & Templer PO Box 15087 Beacon Bay, 5205 Tel: 041 373-0738 CNdV africa (Pty) Ltd environmental planning, urban design, landscape architecture 17 New Church Street Cape Town 8000 Tel: 021 424-5022 Fax: 021 424-6837 IQ Vision 110 Sarel Cillier Street Strand 7140 Tel: 021 853-3902 March 2014

  3. CONTENTS 2.1 INTRODUCTION 2.1.2 Purpose of the Report 2.1.2 Background of this Report 2.1.3 Terms of Reference 2.1.4 Background to Settlement 2.2 Status of Housing Project and Waiting List 2.3 Land Identification and Ownership 2.4 Engineering 2.5 Environment 2.6 Geo-tech 2.7 Distribution of Social Facilities 2.8 Current Spatial Development Framework 2.9 Approval by Council 2.10 Summary and Recommendations LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 .1 Locality Plan Figure 2.1.2 Aerial Photograph Figure 2.1.3 Visual Survey Figure 2.2.1 Statistical Background Figure 2.3.1 Extent of General Plan Figure 2.4.1 Engineering Figure 2.5 .1 Environment Figure 2.6.1 Geo-tech Figure 2.7.1 Distribution of Social Facilities Figure 2.8.1 Current Spatial Development Framework LIST OF ANNEXURES Annexure 1:Ownership Annexure 2: Title Deed Annexure 3: General Plan

  4. CONTENTS GLOSSARY Informal Site: A Site occupied by a household or to which a household has customary rights, e.g. Permission to occupy (PTO, no longer formally in use) or community agreement via a meeting of elders including headman or chief. Formal Site: A site occupied by a household or to which a household is entitled to have a registered right recorded at the Deeds Registry with a title deed and surveyors diagram and/or registered General Plan. However, in many instances title deeds have not been issued or ownership registered. In-Situ upgrade project: Formalising of tenure and installation of services and possibly also construction of a subsidised dwelling on land on which people are already living. Generally refers to a project larger than one unit. Greenfields project: New project site which there has been no formal or informal settlement, industry, infrastructure to date. Project sites are often outside of existing urban development. Infill Project: New project site within existing urban development usually on under utilised or vacant land and which often can help to promote physical integration between spatially isolated parts of the settlement. Rectification projects: Repair or rebuilding of defective existing houses built through one or other government housing program. Erven: The plural of ‘erf’ meaning plots of land each registered as an ‘erf’ in a deeds registry and forming part of a registered General Plan. Plots: The plural of ‘plot’ meaning unregistered pieces of land informally laid out. Portion: A plot of land forming part of a proposed or approved by Council subdivision layout but which has not yet been registered by the Surveyor General as a general plan and for which erf numbers have not yet been registered. ACRONYMS ECDHS Eastern Cape Department of Human Settlement EIA Environmental Impact Assessment GP General Plan HSP Human Settlement Plan LM Local Municipality MHSP Municipal Human Settlement Plan SA South Africa SANBI South African National Biodiversity Institute SDF Spatial Development Framework

  5. INTRODUCTION 2.1 2.1.1 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT The purpose of this report is to describethe key elements to be taken into account when assessing the feasibility of WARDS 1-4 AND 6-7, 6000 as a Human Settlement Project and to recommend whether it should be approved or not. 2.1.2 BACKGROUND TO THIS REPORT This report is one of two Human Settlement Project feasibility reports for Great Kei Municipality. It is designed so that it can be part of a single document that includes the other project. 2.1.3 TERMS OF REFERENCE (Part C.3 Scope of work Tender No. SCMU11-12/13-A0240) The project terms of reference for the feasibility report are summarised as follows: Ascertain the feasibility of the project within each MHSP. The study shall reveal the developmental opportunities and constraints in relation to: • Determination of housing demand and potential beneficiary status • Land identification and ownership • Availability of bulk services and confirmation of capacity • Environmental conditions; • Geo-technical conditions • Alignment with Municipal Spatial Planning • Visual survey (area visits) • Future development plans of other sector departments • Provision of recommendation and proposals to ECDHS 2.1.4 BACKGROUND TO SETTLEMENT Registered Owner: Property Description: Title Deed Number: Servitudes: Current Zoning: Site Size: Komga is an established settlement situated along the R63 off the N2, see Figure 2.1.1and 2.1.2. It is located approximately 50km south-west of Butterworth and 60km east of Stutterheim. This settlement has been well located along a major road (R63) and a railway line. The settlement was established as a farming centre in 1877 on a military camp site established in 1854 and acquired municipal status in 1904.

  6. Locality Plan Figure 2.1.1

  7. Aerial Photograph Figure 2.1.2

  8. STATUS OF HOUSING PROJECTS AND WAITING LISTS 2.2 400 to 1 000 housing subsidies have been proposed for Komga. These units will be project linked subsidies onto vacant, unsurveyed land. Housing waiting lists are awaited from the Department of Human Settlements and still need to be verified. It appears officials had experienced challenges with the collection of beneficiary lists as these were not forthcoming from the ward councillors. Figure 2.2.1 Statistical Background

  9. LAND IDENTIFICATION AND OWNERSHIP 2.3 The land on which the site is located is a portion of remainder erf 1, Komga. The site is currently vacant and is adjacent to a school as well as next to the railway line. A General Plan has not been drawn up for the site however it is reflected as remainder lot F on the General Plan for Komgha Township, GP No. 899-1926 The waiting lists for Komga Phase 2 are awaited and still need to be verified.

  10. Extent of General Plan Figure 2.3.1

  11. ENGINEERING (Kantey and Templer) 2.4 BULK SERVICES Existing Services • Source of potable water is boreholes. Availability of water is sporadic. • Electricity is supplied by Eskom. • There is no water-borne sewer system in the area. • There is no bulk municipal stormwater management infrastructure in the area. • Condition of existing infrastructure is reported to be in good working order. INTERNAL SERVICES Existing Services • Potable water reticulation exists with communal stand pipes. • No water-borne sewers. All households use VIP toilets. • All roads are approximately 5m wide, gravelled and generally with flat gradients. • Unlined V-drains along the edges of the road, with stormwater pipes for road crossings with lined V-drains. • Low voltage power lines in road reserves with house connections. GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS • Existing houses appear to be built on strip footings. • No major cracking was observed on existing houses. • Soil conditions appear favourable for housing development subject to confirmation by a detailed geotechnical investigation. EXISTING INTERNAL SERVICES ARE ADEQUATE AND REQUIRE NO UPGRADING. TOP STRUCTURE • A 40 square metre house with a water tank to be provided for all beneficiaries. • House foundations expected to be strip foundations. • Human Settlements norms and standards for top structures to be applied, such as ceilings, internal & external plaster and paint, concrete roof tiles, etc. • No new VIP toilets required. TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT • The proposed provision of top structures on existing erven does not increase the traffic load on the existing road infrastructure. • Therefore no traffic impact assessment is required. ROADS AND ACCESSIBILITY • Access is from R61, a provincial road that links Queenstown and Tarkastad. THE PROJECT IS FEASIBLE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF HUMAN SETTLEMENTS

  12. Engineering (Kantey and Templer) Figure 2.4.1 Await K&T

  13. ENVIRONMENT 2.5 There appears to be no Critical Biodiversity or protected areas in the area with all vegetation in the area falling within the least threatened category. The site is a greenfield located on the far west of the Komga. The water course to the north of the site flows clear of the site to pose any impact on it, however there is evidence of a high water table on the land that directly abuts the site to the east. Housing development needs to ensure that it remains 32m from the River or watercourse so as to avoid triggering NEMA EIA Regulations, namely Listing No. 40 as identified in the Government Notice R. 344 (Listing Notice 1). Should the development require a buffer less than 32m, a basic assessment will be required for: • The expansion of: • jetties by more than 50 square metres; • slipways by more than 50 square metres; or • buildings by more than 50 square metres • infrastructure by more than 50 square metreswithin a watercourse orwithin 32 metres of a watercourse, measured fromthe edge of a watercourse, but excluding where such expansion will occur behind thedevelopment setback line. The high water table may cause concerns affecting the proposed Human Settlement Project.

  14. Environment Figure 2.5.1

  15. GEO-TECH (Kantey and Templer) 2.6 • In terms of the geotechnical information available the following is extended from a report by Outeniqua Geotechnical Services cc, 2013 . • Some potential geotechnical constraints have been identified for further investigation which may have an impact on the extent of the developable land and/or the development costs. • The recommended typical foundations for subsidy housing are conventional strip foundations or light rafts to cater for variations in soil profile and minor soil movements. • On sloping terrain, some earthworks and retaining walls may be required to create level platforms for houses and this can have significant cost implications. • Foundations should be placed on well compacted natural soil, engineered fill or rock. Founding conditions will have to be inspected by the engineer to confirm suitable soil conditions with adequate bearing capacity and to check for any seepage or groundwater problems. • Preliminary and Phase 1 geotechnical site investigations are required to obtain a more accurate evaluation of the development potential of each site, but the initial indications are that the geology is unlikely to pose a significant threat to the further development of these areas.

  16. Geo-tech (Kantey and Templer) Figure 2.6.1 The Site

  17. DISTRIBUTION OF SOCIAL FACILITIES 2.7 An abundance of education facilities exists in Komga town and surrounds. At least three schools are located in proximity of 1km – 2km from the site. The health facilities are also well provided and centrally located. The District Hospital and clinic are in proximity of the site. The police station is located in the northern edge of Komga Town Facilities are adequately provided for in Komga.

  18. Distribution of Social Facilities Figure 2.7.1

  19. CURRENT SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK 2.8 According to the Great Kei SDF 2005, Komga is the main administrative centre of Great Kei municipality, as well as the main town for a high proportion of the urbanised population of the area. The land on which the site falls on has been identified as Proposed Layout under the category Developable Areas. The following general issues should be targeted for Komga: • Investment in infrastructure to increase services capacity; • 2. Development of public-funded housing areas in line with the proposals set out in the Komga Zone Plan Report (ADM, Sept 2004); • 3. Development of regional social goods and facilities, including educational institutions, and sports and recreational facilities; • 4. Land use management that focuses on the integration of disparate settlement elements in the town; • Commonage Development allied to settlement development in line with the proposals set out in the Komga Zone Plan Report (ADM, Sept 2004)

  20. Current Spatial Development Framework Figure 2.8.1

  21. APPROVAL BY COUNCIL 2.9 The proposed human settlement project was approved by council on 14 December 2012. (Minutes of The Ordinary Council Meeting held on the 14th of September 2012 at the Tsolwana Council Chambers at 11h00), see Annexure 3.

  22. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 2.10 2.10.1 SUMMARY The site was inspected on 24/10/2013 and the conclusions below ground-truthed. The land on which the site is located on Ptn of Rem Erf 1, and is owned by Great Kei Municipality. (see Fig 14.1 and annexure - ownership) There are adequate engineering services. (to be confirmed by K&T) It is likely that these will have to be off-grid. No environmental concerns will be affecting the proposed Human Settlement Project. A detailed geo-technical site visit inspection and, if necessary, survey will be required prior to the project commencing. The project comprises of 400 to 1 000 housing subsidy units onto an in-situ site. There are no new social facilities required to support the proposed human settlements project, however public transport and non-motorised transport facilities, e.g. cycleways, is necessary to enable residents to access facilities in town. The Human Settlement Project is in line with the SDF. 2.10.2 RECOMMENDATIONS The Umzi choice pilot project strategy should be considered here.

More Related