Senekal last week had nothing to do with solutions. It was all about politicians’ testosterone. It was all about politicians’ egos. What useful idea came out of all that heat and noise generated by all those politicians in Senekal last week? There is nothing. Nothing that makes SA a better place. Nothing that leads us to a better understanding of race relations in SA after 1994. Nothing that is a solution to farm murders – many of whose victims are poorly paid, desperate black people – or a solution to the incredibly horrendous murder and crime problem in this country.
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
FORENSIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT
FORENSIC INVESTIGATION INTO ALLEGED IRREGULAR CONSTRUCTION OF TOILETS IN THE SILVERTOWN HOUSING PROJECT.
DATE: 30 July 2010
CASE NO: FSD167/09-10
For Information – City Manager
For Action – Executive Director: Housing
101 On 15 March 2010 the Forensic Services Department (FSD) was mandated by the City Manager in terms of the System of Delegations of the City of Cape Town as approved by Council on 26 November 2009 which states,inter alia:
“To authorise forensic investigations in relation to any alleged fraud, corruption or other criminal activity, maladministration and/or negligence on the part of any City employee, any City agent, contractor, supplier, service provider and/or the like of any municipal entity as defined in the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act which is owned- controlled and/or effectively managed by the City…..: “( Italic own emphasis )
201 The City Manager received a complaint on the 15th of March 2010, via e-mail, from a political office bearer regarding the construction of toilets by the City without enclosures. The political office bearer alleged, inter alia, that:
301 The objectives of this investigation are to determine:
4. Scope and Limitations
401 The investigation covered the period March 2005 to date.
402 This report is based on the facts established from documentation reviewed / information obtained during the course of the investigation and persons interviewed. Should we receive any additional information after the date of issuing this report, our findings and recommendations may change.
403 Although our report may contain references to relevant laws and legislation, we do not provide legal opinion on the compliance with such laws and our findings in this report are not to be construed as providing legal advice.
404 This report was prepared solely for the purposes of reporting our findings to the persons listed on the distribution list detailed above and was prepared for the use in legal proceedings and may contain confidential information that relates to City employees, third parties and commercial activities of the City. Therefore, no part may be quoted, referred to or disclosed in whole or in part, by any party without the consent of the City Manager or the Chief: Forensic Services Department (FSD).
405 Where we have conducted searches on public databases and since we do not control same, we can provide no undertaking as to the accuracy or correctness of the information obtained during such searches.
406 We could not establish the whereabouts of a certain Council employee (hereunder referred to as “Council Employee 3”) and could therefore not conduct an interview with this employee.
We were not required to investigate:
411 We have not verified whether all the 1:5 and 1:1 toilets were correctly installed as we did not visit certain areas after being advised by a Council employee (hereunder referred to as “Council Employee 5 “) that our presence in these areas may incite violence.
5. Interviews Conducted
6. Investigation Findings
Determine whether the City complied with the policy regulating the provision of sanitation in the upgrading of informal settlements, with specific reference to the Silvertown Project (Silvertown; Town 2; Makhaza) and the installation of one toilet for every five houses (1:5)
601. The National Housing Code of 2007 stipulates, inter alia , in the Emergency Housing Programme on page 35 that with regards to sanitation:
“i. Temporary sanitary facilities must be provided. Due to varying geographical and similar conditions, facilities to be provided may vary from area to area. Where conditions permit the use of Ventilated Improved Pit Latrines (VIP toilets) must be provided as a first option. The Municipality must therefore ensure that the system employed is suitable for the particular conditions.
ii. An acceptable standard will be one VIP toilet per five families. Cost should be estimated per family on a shared basis in the suggested dense settlement pattern. In circumstances where soil and other site conditions do not allow for the use of VIP toilets, alternative system (to be used on a shared basis with one toilet per five families within the suggested settlement pattern) could be provided…… ” (Bold own emphasis)
The National Housing Code also requires that:
A tender ( “Tender 1 “) dated March 2005, was awarded for the civil engineering services of the Silvertown Housing Project which constitutes 1,316 erven. This tender included the construction of 1:5 toilets for the entire project. The City appointed three service providers for this project (hereafter referred to as “Contractor 1”, “Contractor 2″and “Contractor 3”).
602. During consultations a Council employee (“Council Employee 1”), Contractor 1 and Contractor 2 expressed the view that during the planning phase of the Silvertown Housing Project they had realised that there were too many people residing in the earmarked area. It was therefore necessary to relocate some of the residents to newly developed areas. The following areas and erven were therefore identified:
603. We received an e-mail from Council Employee 1 wherein he/she detailed the number of toilets constructed. For ease of reference, we have included the following table detailing the number of (1:5) toilets that should have been constructed in accordance with Tender 1, together with the actual number of toilets constructed (We note that Makhaza and Town 2 had more toilets constructed than were required whilst SST fell short of the required amount by 116 toilets):
|Area||To Be Constructed||Actual Constructed|
604. During our meeting with Council Employee 1 on the 23 rd of March 2010 we discussed the construction and installation of toilets in the Silvertown Housing Project. According to this employee, he/she was only appointed in June 2007 and was not responsible for the original project. The predecessor of Council Employee 1 has since left the services of the City. Another two Council employees at the time (“Council Employee 2″and “Council Employee 3”) have also since left the services of the City. Council Employee 1 informed us that the original development of the Silvertown Housing Project (SST, Town 2, and Makhaza) was for engineering services which, inter alia , include stormwater drainage, road works, sewerage layout, as well as the construction of 1 toilet for every five households ( “1:5 toilets “).
605. Council Employee 1 further informed us that the total number of erven for all three sites adds up to 1,316 erven. The breakdown of the different sites as detailed in Council Employee 1 ‘s e-mail of 07 April 2010 is as follows:
606. Council Employee 1 also noted in his/her e-mail that the 1:5 toilets amount to 263.20 toilets that needed to be installed as per the original tender. This however is a minimum standard and the amount of toilets in the bill of quantities of Tender 1 reflects 282 toilets that are based on the layouts of the different sites.
607. According to Council Employee 1, 156 toilets of the 1:5 structures were installed, SST (63), Town 2 (30), and Makhaza (63). The contractor bought a further 62 precast toilets for construction purposes in SST. However, a letter from Contractor 3 to Contractor 2 on the 23 rd of July 2007, stated that the precast toilets could not be installed as the community prevented the contractor from undertaking any further construction in the area.
608. Another Council employee (“Council Employee 4 “) confirmed in an interview on the 24 th of March 2010 that Council Employee 3 was responsible for the project in Khayelitsha.
According to Council Employee 4 and given the overpopulation and densification of the area it was necessary for the relocation of people from Silvertown to Makhaza and Town 2. Council Employee 4 also informed us that financial constraints underpinned the decision to construct toilets on a ratio of 1 toilet for every 5 households. During the construction of the 1:5 toilets the community prevented the contractor from further construction of same and demanded a toilet for each erf.
610. An interview was conducted on the 24 th of March 2010 with two representatives of Contractor 1. The representative of Contractor 1 explained that the design phase of the Silvertown Housing Project started in and during 2004 and as a result, Contractor 1 was appointed by the City. This representative informed us that Contractor 2 was appointed to conduct the civil engineering services. According to this representative the City officials who were coordinating the process at that time (Council Employees 2 and 3) have both left the service of the City in and during 2008 and as a result, two new Council employees (1 and “Council Employee 5 “) were appointed as their successors on the project.
611. The representative of Contractor 1 also info rmed us that the Silvertown Project consisted of three areas namely SST, Town 2 and Makhaza and part of their mandate was to oversee the construction of the 1:5 toilet structures. This representative confirmed that during the construction process the contra ctor was prevented by community members from conducting any further construction work as they demanded a toilet for each erf.
612. A representative of Contractor 2, informed us during an interview on the 29 th of March 2010 that the original tender for the Silvertown Housing Project was awarded to Contractor 3 for the provision of civil engineering services and toilet structures. This interviewed representative confirmed that toilet facilities would be provided to beneficiaries on the basis of 1 toilet for every 5 households, amounting to the construction of 282 toilets. This interviewed representative of Contractor 2 informed us that during the construction process the community prevented the further construction of the 1:5 toilets in SST and demanded that each erf be provided with a toilet.
The community requested that the “loo with a view”(a term which denotes a toilet comprising of a concrete base plate, operational toilet but without a roof or walls) type structure be provided. According to this interviewed representative a total of 156 of the 1:5 toilets were constructed in the areas of Silvertown, Makhaza and Town 2, whilst 62 precast toilets structures were handed over to the City after the contractor was prevented by the community members from constructing/installing them.
613 We obtained a copy of a letter dated the 28th of May 2008 from Contractor 2 which dealt with the toilet facilities for the Silvertown Housing Project. The contents of the letter confirms that toilet facilities would be provided to beneficiaries on the basis of five (5) families per toilet structure, which accumulated to the installation of 282 toilets. However, during the construction process the community demanded that each erf be provided with a toilet, and that the “loo with a view”structures be provided. The construction of the 1:5 toilets was therefore discontinued and only 156 of the 282 toilets were constructed.
614. We also obtained a copy of a letter dated the 23 rd of July 2007 from Contractor 3, addressed to Contractor 2, informing Contractor 2 that the local community of Silvertown prevented them from constructing any further toilets as the community members demanded an individual toilet for each erf.
615. We conducted an interview with another representative of Contractor 1 on the 14th of April 2010. The interviewed representative confirmed that Contractor 1 was appointed for the Silvertown Housing Project during 2003/2004 together with other role players such as Contractor 2. The representative for Contractor 1 explained that Silvertown was an informal settlement earmarked for upgrading and development.
This upgrading would happen in different phases and where the civil engineering, sewerage and the construction of 1 toilet for every 5 households would form the first phase. According to the interviewed representative of Contractor 1, they were appointed for the civil engineering needs for approximately 2,000 sites, however after the planning phase it was established that there are only 897 sites (erven) available in SST.
It was further established that there was a need for a total of 1,316 sites and therefore Town 2 and Makhaza was developed in order to relocate some of the residents from SST.
616. We conducted an interview on the 30 th April 2010 with Council Employee 2. This former employee explained that they had a role to play in the Silvertown Housing Project which originated in Silvertown, Khayelitsha for the development of erven for 1,316 beneficiaries.
617. This former Council employee further stated that it was necessary for the relocation of community members from SST to Town 2 and Makhaza due to the over population of SST. He/she explained that a steering committee acted as a communication link between the community and the other role-players.
According to Council Employee 2 negative influences and political interference resulted in the steering committee becoming dormant. On questioning him/her about the nature of the political interference, Council Employee 2 could not provide names or further details in this regard.
618. We established that Tender 1 made provision for the construction of 282 toilets as opposed to 263.20 toilets as was required in terms of the National Housing Code of 2007 (1:5 toilets per beneficiary). We also established that only 156 of the 282 toilets were constructed as the community members prevented the contractor from undertaking any further construction work as they demanded one toilet for each beneficiary (1,316 erven). Contractor 3 therefore did not complete the construction of the 1:5 toilets. (See table at 604 above)
Determine the background to the City constructing (1:1) one toilet for every household and establish to what extent this process was completed
619. During an interview, Council Employee 1 stated that as a result of the community’s demands regarding the installation of the 1:1 toilets, the City embarked on a consultative process with the community as well as other role players to discuss the way forward. This meeting was held on the 25th of November 2007 in SST on an open field and is discussed more fully herein below.
620. Council Employee 1 also submitted a letter from Contractor 1 dated the 25 th of January 2010 which confirms that a meeting took place as per the above and the discussion was focused on electricity, waste management, and the community’s demands in respect of one toilet per household.
According to the letter the role players that attended the meeting were a political office bearer, (“Political Office Bearer 1”) a representative of Contractor 1, Council Employee 3 and the local leadership. Although the letter indicates that Political Office Bearer 1 attended the meeting, it was later established during interviews that it was actually a different political office bearer (“Political Office Bearer 2 “) that attended.
According to Council Employee 1 all the relevant role players agreed during this meeting for the construction of 1 toilet per erf and that the community would enclose same.
621. We established that the tender for the construction of 1 toilet per erf for Khayelitsha: Silvertown, Town 2 and Makhaza ( “Tender 2 “) was advertised by the Supply Chain Management Department (SCM).
622 We further note from the tender documentation that Contractor 2 was appointed by the City to provide detail of the structures (toilets) required and to compile the specifications regarding the tender.
623. In accordance with a Supply Chain Management resolution the above Tender was awarded to a company (hereafter referred to as “Contractor 4 “) by the Supply Chain Management Bid Adjudication Committee on the 02nd of April 2009 in the amount of R3,368,269,08 for the construction of the toilets in the said areas.
624. The bill of quantities in respect of Tender 2 makes provision for the construction of 1,316 toilets which amounts to one toilet for each erf in the Silvertown Housing Project.
625. Council Employee 1 provided us with an e-mail wherein he/she confirmed that 1,316 “loo with a view toilets “were constructed by the City. The following table details the number of 1:1 toilets that were required to be constructed in terms of Tender 2 as well as the actual number constructed:
Area To Be Constructed Actual Constructed
|Area||To Be Constructed||Actual Constructed|
626 According to Council Employee 1 most of the toilets installed/erected were enclosed by the community, however in Makhaza 55 toilets and in SST 40 toilets were not enclosed. We referred Council Employee 1 to the minimum standards for basic sanitation of the Water Services Act. According to Council Employee 1, they did not contravene any legislation as the arrangement for a toilet per erf was temporarily and the construction of permanent houses would include toilets. Council Employee 1 further informed us that there are no minutes of the meetings between the role players and the community confirming that community will construct the enclosures in respect of the 1, 316 toilets.
627. Council Employee 4 stated during an interview that it was necessary to discuss the demands of the community with the relevant role players to search for an alternative. He/she informed us that the project team had a discussion and the proposed alternative was the “loo with a view”as successfully implemented previously in other areas in the City, such as Phillipi. The understanding was that the base of the toilets will be constructed and that the community will be responsible for the enclosure of same.
628. As a result of a further interview with Council Employee 4 on the 31st of March 2010 he/she submitted a written report dated the 01st of April 2010 relating to the discussion and implementation of the 1:5 as well as 1:1 toilets which, inter alia , stated that:
“a project which requires a partnership between the beneficiary community and the City whereby the City will install a to ilet on a concrete slab and a water point both linked up with the City ‘s mains. Each beneficiary will be required to enclose this toilet with his own material when he/she is handed over the site for occupation “.
629. Council Employee 5 explained in an interview on the 26 th of March 2010 that his/her involvement in this project commenced in and during October 2008. He/she informed us that when Council Employee 3 resigned, he/she took over responsibility for the tender for the construction of the 1:1 toilets (1,316 toilets). The tender was awarded to Contractor 4.
630. Council Employee 5 stated that when he/s he commenced with the project no objections were received from the community and/or political office bearers as all were excited about the construction of a toilet per erf. He/she also stated that in order to obtain the satisfaction of the community each beneficiary had to sign a letter (“happy letter”, a term used by Council Employee 5 in his/her consultations with us) after completion of each structure. The “happy letters “did not indicate that the community is dissatisfied with the project. According to him/her, feedback and response from the community was positive. He/she further stated that the project is not fully completed due to community interference. The beneficiaries in Makhaza specifically complained that the toilets are not fully constructed and/or enclosed.
631. We obtained the original “happy letters “from Council Employees 1 and 5. We established that “happy letters “were obtained as follows:
905 “happy letters “were received in respect of SST
125 “happy letters were received in respect of Town 2
230 “happy letters “were received in respect of Makhaza
632. We scrutinized all the “happy letters “and noted that only one letter reflects a negative comment regarding the toilets. We also noted that the documents make provision for a declaration and signature of the beneficiary; however it does not indicate the meaning of the declaration.
633. A representative of Contractor 1 stated during an interview that Contractor 1 regarded the request of one toilet per household as a duplication of the original contract of 1:5 toilets and therefore decided not to be part of the construction of the 1:1 toilets. Two other representatives of Contractor 1 also confirmed during the interview that Council Employee 3 conducted meetings with the community as well as political office bearers and that the decision to construct a toilet per erf ( “loo with a view “) was introduced by Council Employee 3 to same.
We could not confirm this statement as Council Employee 3 is no longer in the employ of the City and therefore we were not able to have an interview with him/her. Notwithstanding numerous attempts to trace Council Employee 3, we were unable to establish his/her whereabouts – it appears that he/she may reside in the East London area, but we were not able to determine his/her contact address.
634. A representative of Contractor 2 explained during an interview on the 29 th of March 2010 that the City appointed Contractor 2 to provide detail regarding the structures required for the construction of the 1,316 toilets. They also had to prepare all the tender documentation and specifications for same. The representative explained that the type of toilet to be provided was a toilet facility which was not enclosed (“loo with a view “). It was the responsibility of each beneficiary to enclose the toilet.
635. A representative of Contractor 1 stated in an interview on the 07 th of April 2010 that a steering committee was formed wherein the role players of various disciplines would participate. The steering committee was later abandoned and the community decided to deal directly with political office bearers on the issue of the construction of the toilets. The representative further informed us that they represented Contractor 1 in respect of technical meetings that related to the project with representatives of beneficiaries, Community Liaison Officers, and role players such as the contractor.
636. The representative of Contractor 1 also informed us that they accompanied Council Employee 3 to a meeting on the 25 th of November 2007 which was held on an open field in SST. Present at this meeting were Political Office Bearer 2 and representatives of the community. Council Employee 3 made the announcement that the construction of individual toilets for each erf will take place, however, he/she indicated that the community would be responsible for the enclosure of same.
637. A representative of Contractor 1 informed us during an interview that although Contractor 1 was part of the discussions regarding the “loo with a view”, they were not in favour of same. They were not involved in any further actions regarding this project as Contractor 2 acted as consultants. According to the representative of Contractor 1 the Council Employee 3 was the coordinator of this process and had many discussions with the community and political office bearers regarding the one toilet per erf.
638. Council Employee 2 informed us during an interview that the project of one toilet per beneficiary was never part of his/her mandate. Council Employee 2 also stated that he/she left the services of the City as from the 01st of August 2007 and Council Employee 3 took over this role.
639. We conducted an interview on the 25 th of March 2010 with the respective political office bearers. Three political office bearers (1, 2, and “Political Office Bearer 3 “) were present during the interview. We requested the political office bearers to explain their understanding of the construction of one toilet per erf and if they agreed to this.
640. During the interview, Political Office Bearer 2 confirmed that Council Employee 3 called for a meeting on the 25th of November 2007 between the community and relevant role players to discuss the community ‘s concerns re garding the 1:5 toilets. In this meeting it was also discussed that the contractor was prevented from continuing with the original project. Political Office Bearer 2 further stated that Council Employee 3 proposed during the meeting that a “loo with a view”will be constructed for each beneficiary. The community accepted this proposal and the community undertook to enclose the toilets. We were informed that no minutes were taken down for this meeting.
641. In the same interview Political Office Bearer 3 mentioned that the beneficiaries relocated to Town 2 had a lot of concerns. Political Office Bearer 3 did not agree with the decision to construct a “loo with a view “. He/she stated that the construction of such toilets for the community was inhumane and also thought of the possibility of theft and vandalism of same. He/she also stated that as he/she was not in favour of a “loo with a view “he/she had requested that fully built toilets constructed for the community. According to the Political Office Bearer 3 the 1:5 toilets in Town 2 are fully completed and confirmed that 121 toilets (1:1) were constructed.
642. During the same interview Political Office Bearer 1 mentioned that he/she was not sure as to how many people relocated from SST to Town 2 and Makhaza. According to him/her a meeting took place between the community and Council Employee 3, as well as other role players on an open field in SST and that Political Office Bearer 2 attended this meeting, however he/she is not in a position to tell us what was discussed at this meeting. Political Office Bearer 1 informed us that he/she was not satisfied with the construction of the 1:5 toilets. Political Office Bearer 1 further informed us that 55 of the 1:1 toilets in Makhaza are not fully enclosed.
643. Political Office Bearer 2 confirmed that the community was satisfied with the construction of the “loo with a view “and that the community undertook to enclose same.
644. On the 25 th of March 2010 interviews were conducted with members of the community during a physical inspection of the area. One person stated that he/she attended a meeting where the community was informed that one toilet per erf would be installed and that the community would be responsible for the enclosure of these toilets.
20 645. He/she further stated that they agreed to this offer as they had used the bucket system for the past twenty years and were afraid that should they decline the offer they would lose out on the opportunity to have their own toilets.
646. We also interviewed a community leader who confirmed that a meeting was held on the 25 th of November 2007 with the community and the relevant role players including Political Office Bearer 2. According to the community leader it was at this meeting where it was decided that the project of one toilet per erf would be installed.
According to the community leader it was also explained to the community that they would be responsible for the enclosures of the toilets. Furthermore, the community leader stated that the community agreed to the construction and installation of the toilets as they had been using the bucket system for the past twenty years.
647. On advice from Council Employee 5, we did not conduct any further interviews, as he/she was of the opinion that it could upset the community and our safety could be at risk.
648. We established that the construction of the 1:1 toilets was a consultative process between all the relevant role players, including the community. During a meeting on the 25 th of November 2007 the community agreed to the construction of the 1:1 “loo with a view” toilets and that they would be responsible for the enclosure of same. We established that Tender 2 was awarded to Contractor 4 to construct the 1,316 toilets and that all 1,316 “loo with a view “toilets were constructed. We also established during the interviews that 55 toilets were not enclosed by the community in Makhaza respectively and that the rest were enclosed by the community members, as agreed by them.
Determine the legislative obligations in respect of the minimum standard for basic sanitation and determine whether the City complied with same
649. We established that Regulation 2b of the Water Services Act, Act 108 of 1997, stipulates the following regarding the minimum standard for basic sanitation:
“a toilet which is safe, reliable, environm entally sound, easy to keep clean, provides privacy and protection against the weather, well ventilated, keeps smells to a minimum and prevents the entry and exit of flies and other di sease-carrying pests. “
650. We established that the above stated provisions of the Water Services Act were not complied with in that the construction 1,316 “loo with a view” toilets were not enclosed as prescribed in the Act.
Efforts by the City to solve the complaints of the residents of Makhaza
651. We were informed by Council Employee 1 that the City did the following to enclose the remaining open toilets in Makhaza:
On the 25th of January 2010 teams of the City enclosed the toilets and the community destroyed 26 enclosures.
On the 24th of May 2010 the City enclosed the toilets for a second time and a total of 32 enclosures were destroyed by the community.
On the 31st of May 2010 the City removed 65 toilets
The material used to enclosed the toilets was corrugated iron sheeting, timber poles and plastic doors and the total cost per structure was R2,800.00.
652. The 65 toilets that were removed by the City on the 31 st of May 2010 were the original 55 toilets in Makhaza which were not enclosed and a further ten where the residents broke down the enclosures and expected the City to enclose the toilets.
7. Summary of Findings
701 We established that the National Housing Code of 2007 stipulates that the basic standard for sanitation in informal settlements is 1 toilet for every five households. 702 We further determined that the National Housing Code stipulates in Annexure D that formal document and communication management procedures should be put in place. All minutes of meetings, decisions taken, documents and reports submitted and agreements reached should be well recorded.
703 No minutes of meetings with the community could be provided to us.
704 Tender 1 was awarded to Contractor 3 which included the construction of 282 of the 1:5 toilets.
705 The City awarded Tender 2 for the construction of 1,316 toilets to Contractor 4 which constitutes one toilet for each erf in the development; this is in addition to the 1:5 toilets which were stopped after the community intervened.
706 During the development and construction of the land in the Silvertown Housing Project, the contractor was prevented from constructing 116 toilets in SST as the community demanded one toilet per erf. This demand was supported by the majority of the role players in the project and it was communicated to the community on the 25 th of November 2007 that the construction of the “loo with a view “will take place for all 1,316 beneficiaries and that the toilets would be enclosed by the community.
707 We established from interviews with political office bearers, specifically Political Office Bearer 2, that they were part of the process from the beginning of the project, however they had mixed opinions/reactions regarding the decision for a “loo with a view”.
708 The following table details the construction of all the toilets in the developed areas:
709 “Happy letters”, signed by each beneficiary, were provided to us to indicate that the community was satisfied with the construction of the toilets. However, we noted that of the 1,260 “happy letters” that were submitted only one letter reflected a negative comment about the toilets. We also noted that the letters do not indicate whether the beneficiaries are satisfied or dissatisfied with the toilets.
710 The community accepted the offer of a “loo with a view”as they had made use of the “bucket system “for the past twenty years and they were concerned that should they not agree with the “loo with a view “they would be left with the “bucket system “of sanitation. Our view is that the community was given a “Hobson’s choice “in this regard.
711 Regulation 2b of the Water Services Act, Act 108 of 1997, states that one of the minimum standards of basic sanitation is that a toilet must be enclosed.
712 The provisions of the Regulations to the Water Services Act were not complied with.
801 In the light of the above this report be submitted to the City Manager for noting and information.
802 It is recommended that a copy of same be forwarded to the Executive Director: Housing for information purposes and to ensure that:
Issued by the City of Cape Town, October 26 2010BACK TO TOP