preliminary draft not for circulation

Amathole District MunicipalityNGQUSHWA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY

March 2014

PRELIMINARY DRAFTnot for circulation

feasibility and review of housing plan for GLENMORE 1000GLENMORE 1000

Feasibility and Review of Housing Plan

GLENMORE 1000GLENMORE 1000

March 2014

by

prepared for

CNdV africa (Pty) Ltdenvironmental planning, urban design, landscape architecture

17 New Church Street Cape Town 8000Tel: 021 424-5022 Fax: 021 424-6837

Kantey & TemplerPO Box 15087Beacon Bay, 5205Tel: 041 373-0738

IQ Vision110 Sarel Cillier Street Strand 7140Tel: 021 853-3902

EASTERN CAPE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SETTLEMENTS 31-33 Phillip Frame Road ChiselhurstTel: +27 (0) 43 711 9735

NGQUSHWA LOCAL MUNICIPALITYPO Box 539, Peddie, 5640

Tel: (040) 673-3095

Fax: (040) 673-3771

GLENMORE 1000 FEASIBILITY STUDYCNdV africa (Pty) Ltd 20 April 2023

page 5

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 Future Plans of Other Sector Departments

2.10 Approval by Council

2.11 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 ANNEXURESAnnexure 1 OwnershipAnnexure 2 Title DeedAnnexure 3 Surveyor General diagram


page 6

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 nor 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 LM 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 SettlementEIA Environmental Impact AssessmentGP General PlanHSP Human Settlement PlanLM Local Municipality MHSP Municipal Human Settlement PlanSA South AfricaSANBI South African National Biodiversity InstituteSDF Spatial Development Framework


page 7

INTRODUCTION 2.1

2.1.1 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

The purpose of this report is to describe the key elements to be taken into account when assessing the feasibility of Glenmore 1000 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 five Human Settlement Project feasibility reports for Ngqushwa Municipality. It is designed so that it can be part of a single document that includes the other four projects.

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:

1. Determination of housing demand and potential beneficiary status

2. Land identification and ownership3. Availability of bulk services and confirmation of capacity4. Environmental conditions;5. Geo-technical conditions6. Alignment with Municipal Spatial Planning7. Visual survey (area visits)8. Future development plans of other sector departments 9. Provision of recommendation and proposals to ECDHS

2.1.4 BACKGROUND TO SETTLEMENT

SITE DETAILS

•Registered Owner: Republic of Ciskei

•Site Description:A portion of Farm 237, Victoria East

•Title Deed Number: T8082/177-CT

•Servitudes: N/A

•Site Size: 304.72 Ha

•Glenmore 1000 is situated high in the mountains some 22kms from the N2 in the rural area north-east of Grahamstown, see figure 2.1.1 and 2.1.2.

•Glenmore is approximately 40km from Grahamstown, which is the nearest main town in the area.

•The village comprises of varying quality buildings, on surveyed plots.

•The layout comprises a number of different site configuration ranging from industrial sized plots to the south, a conventional housing township to the east, and large garden plots to the north fringed by two blocks of small residential plots.

•Only Ely-Gagha (Glenmore B) has been developed. It comprises approximately 880 plots of between 300m² - 400m² many with substantial houses. The northern townships are used for family and market gardening.

•The southern extensions are separated from the northern extensions by a tributary of the Great Fish River.

•Glenmore was established as part the forced removals and resettlement of black South Africans in the Apartheid era.


page 8

Locality Plan Figure 2.1.1


page 9

Aerial Photograph Figure 2.1.2


page 10

VISUAL SURVEY Figure 2.1.3

House shop servicing the area Large open spaces found throughout the area Roads in bad condition in Glenmore

Houses built between natural vegetation Formal housing within the area No sidewalks or formalised roads

Self demarcated plots Formal housing within the area Drainage problems along roads


page 11

STATUS OF HOUSING PROJECTS AND WAITING LISTS 2.2

• A project of 500 subsidies has been proposed for Glenmore.

• Glenmore B (Ely Gagha) comprise approximately 880 residential plots.

• The proposed project’s delivery strategy and housing instrument is project linked housing subsidies into formal plots.

• The waiting lists are being awaited from the Department of Human Settlements. Therefore, the total beneficiaries are unknown until the waiting lists are verified.

• During site visit on 23 October 2013, it was observed that the site is serviced.

GLENMORE 1000

Population (Ngqushwa SDF 2010) Not specified

Population (2011 Census) 1 210

No. Households (2011 Census) 435

Proposed Units (EC DHS) 1000

Waiting List (Ngqushwa LM) Awaiting

Figure 2.2.1 Statistical Background


page 12

LAND IDENTIFICATION AND OWNERSHIP 2.3

• The land on which Glenmore 1000 is located is a portion of Farm 237, Victoria East (S.G No. 8974/1862), see figure 2.3.1. Also see SG No. C222/1987 and General Plan No. 10524C.

• Some beneficiaries reside on this erf with no demarcated plots.

• The SG diagram was approved in 1961.

• The registered owner of the property is the Republic of Ciskei in Title Deed 8082/1977-CT, see Annexure 2. (Awaiting Title Deed from King William’s Town)

• The SDF proposals for this site is not specified in the Ngqushwa 2010 SDF, see section 2.8.


page 13

Extent of General Plan Figure 2.3.1


page 14

ENGINEERING (Kantey and Templer) 2.4

BULK SERVICES Existing Services

....

INTERNAL SERVICES Existing Services

....

GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS....

EXISTING INTERNAL SERVICES ARE ADEQUATE AND REQUIRE NO UPGRADING

Await K&T

TOP STRUCTURE....

TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT...

ROADS AND ACCESSIBILITY...

THE PROJECT IS FEASIBLE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF HUMAN SETTLEMENTS.


page 15

Engineering (Kantey and Templer) Figure 2.4.1

Await K&T


page 16

ENVIRONMENT 2.5

The expansion of:

(i) jetties by more than 50 square metres;

(ii) slipways by more than 50 square metres; or

(iii) buildings by more than 50 square metres

(iv) infrastructure by more than 50 square metres within a watercourse or within 32 metres of a watercourse, measured from the edge of a watercourse, but excluding where such expansion will occur behind the development setback line.

• The project is located on existing developed subdivision layouts and General Plans and no development outside of these areas that may trigger an EIA is envisaged.

• The project is a partial in-situ upgrade with existing roads and buildings.

• The Eastern Cape Biodiversity Plan (ECBCP), 2007 has developed four terrestrial Biodiversty Land Management Classes (BLMCs) according to the terrestrial Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs). Each BLMC sets out the desired ecological state that the area should be kept in to ensure biodiversity persistence.

• The site falls within CBA 1 and 2 as per SANBI data (2007) and therefore is subject to BLMC 2 guidelines according to the ECBCP. This must be ground truthed by a Professional Botanist prior to undertaking the Human Settlement Project.

• BLMC 1 permits no development, but the preservation and protection of the area’s natural state. BLMC 2 permits the land to be used for Conservation, Game Farming and Communal Livestock. Settlements are not recommended for these areas.

• However, it can be seen on Figure 2.5.1 that CBA 2 is shown as extending over all of the urban areas of Glenmore. This is clearly incorrect and the mapping of CBAs in this vicinity has not been ground truthed and amended. Therefore, subject to a site inspection by a botanist, no EIA will be necessary as a result of it being a CBA site.

• South facing slopes are also occurring on the site, which are not typically desirable for development.

• 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).

• 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:


page 17

Environment Figure 2.5.1


page 18

GEO-TECH 2.6

• 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.

• 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.

• In terms of the geotechnical information available, the proposed housing projects appear. (Outeniqua Geotechnical Services cc, 2013 )


page 19

Geo-tech Figure 2.6.1

The Site


page 20

DISTRIBUTION OF SOCIAL FACILITIES 2.7

• There is 1 primary and 1 secondary school located along the R72, which is adequate for the proposed project, see figure 2.7.1.

• There is 1 clinic within the site area.

• There is not an appropriate level of other social facilities in the area.

• Residents must travel to nearby towns in order to access higher order health, police and education facilities.

• No new facilities are required to support the proposed human settlements project.


page 21

Distribution of Social Facilities Figure 2.7.1


page 22

CURRENT SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK 2.8

• Glenmore is situated within Ward 8 on the SDF map, see Fig 2.8.1.

• The site falls within the Development Zone. Permitted uses in this zone has note been specified in the SDF.

• The proposed Human Settlement Project does not contravene SDF proposals for the area.


page 23

Current Spatial Development Framework (Ngqushwa SDF, 2010) Figure 2.8.1

The Site


page 24

FUTURE PLANS OF OTHER SECTOR DEPARTMENTS 2.9

• The following table indicates future plans of other sector departments proposed in the various settlements as contained in the IDP 2013-2014.

No. Project Government Dep./ Other

Gcin

isa (W

ard

11)

Ham

burg

(W

ard

11)

Prudhoe (W

ard

12)

Mphekw

eni (

Ward

12)

New

Rest

(W

ard

2)

Germ

an V

illage (W

ard

10)

Qaga (W

ard

2)

Gle

nm

ore

(W

ard

8)

Budget '13/'14 Budget '14/'151 VIP toilets Installation ADM 1 000 0002 Bucket Eradication ADM3 Bulk Water ADM 500 0004 Sewerage Treatment Plant ADM 1 000 0005 Multi Purpose Sports Centre MIG

6 Equipping and Repairing of boreholes OPEX7 Electricty Connection Eskom8 Flood Damages Project DR&PW9 Construction of Sport Field MIG Unknown

10 Construction of Community Hall MIG 3 162 42811 Upgrading of Roads MIG12 Greening and Beautification project DoEA

Future Plans of other Sector Departments for Ngqushwa Municipality 2013/2014


page 25

APPROVAL BY COUNCIL 2.9

Await council resolution


page 26

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 2.10

2.10.1 SUMMARY

•The site was inspected on 10/01/2014 and the conclusions below ground-truthed.

•There are adequate engineering services. (K&T to confirm)

•In Terms of ECBCP BLMCs that apply to CBA 1 and 2 that covers the site, settlements are not recommended. It is recommended that the site be assessed by a Botanist to verify and ground-truth the CBA nature of the site prior to the Human Settlement Project implementation.

•A detailed geo-technical site visit inspection and, if necessary, survey will be required prior to the project commencing.

•The project comprises 1 000 subsidy units onto existing developed townships.

•Awaiting beneficiary list from the municipality for this project.

•There are no new social facilities required to support the proposed human settlements project.

•The Human Settlement Project is in line with the SDF.

•Awaiting Council Resolution from the municipality.

2.10.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

•The project is not feasible, pending a technical assessment by a Botanist to ground-truth the extent of the CBAs on the site.


page 27

ANNEXURE 1: OWNERSHIP PRINTOUT


page 28


page 29

ANNEXURE 2: TITLE DEED


page 30


page 31

ANNEXURE 3: SURVEYOR GENERAL DIAGRAM


page 32

preliminary draft not for circulation

Documents

new project site

registered general plan

greenfields project

infill project

project sites

project larger

status of housing project

plots of land