SECTION 8: LAYOUT AND INFRASTRUCTURE

In t roduct ion to In fo rma l Se t t lement Upgrad ing

Sec t ion 8 : Layout and In f ras t ruc ture , © NUSP 2015 1 | Page

SECTION8:LAYOUTANDINFRASTRUCTURE

Summary

Layoutapproaches

Thespatiallayoutiscentraltoanyinsituupgradeofaninformalsettlement. This includes the plot or block boundaries and thedesign for the installation of infrastructure, in accordance withthatlayout.Aninsitulayoutinvolvescreatingspacesbetweenexistingtop-structuresforthepurposes of access and installing pipes and cables for infrastructure services. Theapproachestohowthesespacesaretobecreated,dependsonanumberoffactors.Thesefactorsinclude:

• Theplannednatureofaccess—forexamplevehiclesorpedestrians.• Thenatureoftheinfrastructuretobeprovided,forexamplewhetheritisinterimor

permanent.• Whethertheservicelevelisloworfullservice.

Thelayoutalsohasdirectimplicationsforthetypeoftenureplannedforthesettlement.

Inthepast14years,low-incomehousingdevelopmentinSAhasbecomedominatedbytheproject-linked subsidy approach. In the case of informal settlements this is thecomprehensiveupgradingapproachthroughprovidingphysicalinfrastructure.Thisapproachis referred to as the conventional formal full upgrading approach and involves a once-offcapitalintensiveintervention,thecompleteredevelopmentofthesettlementinoneprojecttimeframe,demolitionof theexisting settlement, and redesigning the layout according tosetstandards.This,inalmostallcases,involvessignificantrelocationofresidents;forsomethe relocationwillbe temporaryand forothers itwillbepermanent.Suchanapproach isoftencriticisedforthemonotonousgrid-layout,withalowproportionofstandsperhectareandlittleattentionisgiventoaffordabilityandoperationalcosttomunicipalities.

Thenormsandstandardsfortheconventionalformalfullupgradingapproachareminimumrequirementswhichhavebeensetfornewdevelopmentsonvacantland.Thesenormsandstandards are not possible to apply, in most cases, to informal settlements withoutdemolishingthemandredevelopingthem.

Thekeyreasongivenforusingtheconventionalformalfullupgradingapproachistheneedforsafetystandardsandthepublicfinancerequirements.However,thereareincrementalinsitu upgrade approaches that also address the safety standards and public financerequirements.

TheNationalHousingCodeintroducestheUpgradingofInformalSettlements Programme (UISP) andwithin this context says thefollowingaboutthelayoutandservicingofinformalsettlements.Nationalnormsandstandards inrespectofthecreationofservicedplotsdonotapply to

For more details seeSection8,item1.1




the UISP, but can serve as a guideline. Plot sizes should emerge through a process ofdialoguebetweenlocalauthoritiesandresidents,takingintoaccounttheexistingbuildings,spaces, roads and pathways in the settlement. The provision of services should also beconsistent with the intervention categorisation. Community agreement on stand sizes,densities,levelsofservicesandprojectphasingisimportant.

Theplanningforeachsettlementbeginsatthebroaderstrategicor programmatic level. Each informal settlement should beplanned for at the strategic levelwithin the broader context oftheurbansettlementtheyarelocatedwithin.Eachsettlementshouldbeintegratedintothemunicipal planning and budgeting process in terms of the local municipal integrateddevelopment planning (IDP) and the spatial development framework in regional and localspatial frameworks or precinct plans. Once an informal settlement is assessed andcategorised, the category of intervention will inform what the most appropriate layoutapproachtobeappliedis.

At the settlement level a set of guiding principles should beagreed between the developer and the community before thelayout and infrastructure upgrading design commences.Dependingonthecategorisationofthesettlement,theguidingprinciplesshouldcoverthefollowingissues:

• Relocation,i.e.whoandhowmanypeoplegetrelocated;• Theextenttowhichtherewillbecompensationfortop-structurematerialsoreven

forlossoflivelihoods;• Levels of decision-making and community involvement and what degree of

autonomythecommunitywillhaveoverdevelopmentdecisions;• Political will and agenda, i.e. whether the local political representatives are truly

prepared tomake jointdecisionswith thecommunityorwhether there isahigherpoliticalagendatobemetaroundproposingimprovements.

Thefollowingfactorswillinfluencetheapproachtolayoutthatistakenatsettlementlevel:

• Certainareasneedimmediateattention(e.g.precariouslands);• Certainservicesmayneedtobeintroducedincrementally;• Somesystemsarebestintroducedsimultaneously(e.g.pipesandwatersupply);• Communityprioritiesregardingtheapproachandsequenceofinterventions;• Budgetaryconstraints;• Technical constraints such as geotechnical, bulk infrastructure or even human

capacityconstraints.

Beforeanylayoutcanproceedthereneedstobearangeofmoredetailedtechnicalstudiestodetermine the feasibilityandapproach fordeveloping thesite.These include land legalstudies; geotechnical studies; topographical studies; and a detailed map of existing top-structuresmappedbythecommunityorexternally.





Fromthefeasibilitystudiesthelayoutplanwillbedevelopedtoaddresssuchissuesas:

• Thenumberofhouseholdstobeaccommodatedinthelayout• Thetypeoftenureoptions• Which areas cannot be developed and which areas will require special house

foundations.• The 1-in-100 year flood line if applicable, within which no development can be

undertaken• Theavailabilityandproximityofbulkinfrastructureconnections.• Thesurroundingmaintransportroutes

All layout designs involve a series of trade-offswith advantagesand disadvantages. It is important to ensure broad communityconsensuson these trade-offs. Someof these trade-offs includeplotsizes/densities;plotorientationvshousedesignandpedestrianvsvehicularaccess.

The layout for an informal settlement upgrading project involves a relatively complextechnicaldesignprocessaimedatachievingthebestuseofspace,reducingrelocationsandmeetingcommunityrequirements.

Examples of approaches to layout include superblock layoutapproach,de facto layouts, re-blocking/blocking-out layoutsandrolloverlayouts.

Infrastructureapproaches

InSouthAfrica,therearethreebroadapproachesthathavebeenusedforserviceprovisioninurbanareas.Theappropriatechoiceofapproachshouldbebasedonananalysisofthecharacteristicsoftheinformalsettlement.Thethreeapproachesare:

• Ahighlevelofservices.• The progressive improvementmodel. Thismodel is similar to theaboveapproach

exceptittakesamoreincrementalapproach,andupgradesservicesinatechnicallyrationalandsystematicmanner.

• Ademand-drivenapproachwithvariablelevelsofservice.Servicesaredesignedtomeet specific needs and are not related to a structured hierarchy of incrementalimprovement.

A key point regarding service delivery is that according to theConstitution, local authoritiesare responsible for localplanningand service delivery. Thus, the range of services set out in thetable belowwill be provided in accordance with each individual local authority’s existingdelivery regime and mechanisms, procedures and capabilities. In cases where the localmunicipality is not in a position to meet their obligation there is room for negotiationbetweenaffectedcommunityorganisationsandthelocalauthorities.







Onceanup-frontpreliminaryassessmentandcategorisationoftheinformalsettlementhasbeenundertakenthesettlementcategorywilldeterminetheservicetypesanddeliveryoptionsapplicable.

Within each category a rangeof different servicingoptions and combinations appropriateforinsituincrementalinformalsettlementupgradingcanbeprovidedbasedontheaimsoftheproject,levelsofservicedecidedupon,affordabilitylevels,environmentalandresourceissuesamongstothersasillustratedinthetablebelow.

BroadServiceCategories CriteriaforSelectingOption(mustbeagreedtobetweencommunityandlocalauthority)

Examplesoftrade-offstobeconsidered

• Accessibility(roadsandpathways),mobilityandtransport

• Waterandsanitation• Drainageanderosion

control• Communityfacilities• Bulkearthworks

• Aimsoftheproject• Levelsofservices• Affordability

o Capitalo Maintenance

• Budgetso Capitalo Maintenance

• Environmentalconstraints(e.g.geotechnical)andresourceusage

• Localemploymentopportunities

o Constructiono Maintenance

• Localcapacitybuilding

• Costs:capitalvsmaintenance

• Levelsofdifferentservices:selectionbasedonbudgetaryconstraints

• Timingofdelivery:labourvscapitalintensiveconstruction

• Convenience:Easeofusevsenvironmentalimperativesvsaffordability

• Politicalimperatives:Desiredinfrastructurevstechnicalpracticalities

The table below gives an overview of a range of project level services and examples ofinfrastructureoptions and their application todifferent settlement types. These examplesare provided to inform negotiations around service level decisions.



ServiceCategory Type

Applicationtoinformalsettlementcategories(Y:Yes/N:No)

Conv

entio

nal

form

alfu

llup

grad

ing

Increm

ental

fullup

grad

ing

Interim

arrang

emen

ts

Deferred

relocatio

n

Accessibilitymobilityandtransport

Pedestrianandcyclecirculation Y Y Y YGravelorunsurfacedroadcirculation

N Y Y N

Surfacedroads Y Y N NDrainageanderosioncontrol

Useofroadwaysandpedestrianpathsasdrainagechannels

Y Y Y Y

Useofpipedsystemwithintheroadwaysandpedestrianpathsasdrainagechannels

Y Y N N

Water Watertankerorvendor N N Y YIndividualwaterbutt/drum Y Y Y NIndividualwelloneachplotorboreholewithorwithoutpump

N Y N N

Publicstandpipes N Y Y NYardtap Y Y N NHouseconnection Y Y N N

Sanitation Communalsystem N Y Y YNightsoilcollection N N N YChemicaltoilets N N N YVentilatedpitlatrines N Y Y NVentilatedvaulttoilet N Y Y NSettledsewagesystemorsoakpitsystem

Y Y N N

Compostingtoiletorurinedivertingdrytoilet

Y Y N N

WCwaterbornesewage Y Y N NStreetlightingandhouseholdelectivitysupply

Streetlights–belowground Y N N NStreetlights–aboveground Y Y N NMastlights Y Y Y NPhotovoltaicstreetlights Y Y N N

Thekeyfundingmechanismsforlayoutandinfrastructureare:

• UISP: Provides funding for land acquisition, pre-planning, detailed town planning,landsurveying,interimbasicservicesandpermanentengineeringservices.

• USDG: Provides funding principally for basic services (e.g. water supply, roads,sanitation,etc.)formetropolitanmunicipalities.

• IRDP: Provides funding for land acquisition, pre-planning, detailed town planning,landsurveying,andinfrastructureinstallation.

• MIG: Provides funding principally for basic services (e.g. water supply, roads,sanitation,etc.)fornon-metropolitanmunicipalitiesandforbulkinfrastructure.



• Emergency housing: Provides funding for basic infrastructure where emergencyhousingisbeingprovided.

• Municipality: It isassumedthatthemunicipalitywillneedtocoverthecostsoftheotherinitiativesiftheabovescenariosapply.

For references andresourcesclickhere



Content

1. Layoutapproaches

Thespatial layout iscentraltoany insituupgradeofan informalsettlement.This includesthe plot or block boundaries and the design for the installation of infrastructure, inaccordancewiththatlayout.Aninsitulayoutinvolvescreatingspacesbetweenexistingtop-structures for the purposes of access and installing pipes and cables for infrastructureservices.

Theapproaches tohow these spaces are tobe created, dependsonanumberof factors.Thesefactorsinclude:

• Theplannednatureofaccess—forexamplevehiclesorpedestrians;• Thenatureoftheinfrastructuretobeprovided,forexamplewhetheritisinterimor

permanent;• Whethertheservicelevelisloworfullservice.

Thelayoutalsohasdirectimplicationsforthetypeoftenureplannedforthesettlement.

Anotherkeyaspectofinsituupgradinglayoutsisthattheyshouldbeundertakenwiththeunderstandingthattheserviceswillbeupgradedandtop-structuresimprovedincrementally.This means that the layout should be designed in such a manner that the tenure andinfrastructure services can be improved over time without the layout having to beredesigned. As detailed below this is a fundamental departure from the one-size-fits-allapproachtolayoutplanningandinfrastructureprovisionforinformalsettlements.

1.1 One-size-fits-all

In thepast14years, low-incomehousingdevelopment inSAhasbecomedominatedbytheproject-linkedsubsidyapproach.Inthecaseofinformalsettlementsthisisthecomprehensiveupgradingapproachthroughprovidingphysicalinfrastructure.Thisapproachis referred to as the conventional formal full upgrading approach and involves a one-offcapitalintensiveintervention,thecompleteredevelopmentofthesettlementinoneprojecttimeframe,demolitionof theexisting settlement, and redesigning the layout according tosetstandards.This,inalmostallcases,involvessignificantrelocationofresidents;forsometherelocationwillbetemporaryandforothersitwillbepermanent.

TheconventionalformalfullupgradingapproachiscoveredinSection5andrelocationsinSection6.



Thenormsandstandardsfortheconventionalformalfullupgradingapproachareminimumrequirementswhichhavebeensetfornewdevelopmentsonvacantland.Thesenormsandstandards are not possible to apply, in most cases, to informal settlements withoutdemolishing themand redeveloping them. The package of standards for conventional fullupgrading,withatop-structure,includes:

• Freeholdtenureintheformofregisteredownership;• Aminimumofa250m²standand40m²top-structure;• Afullysubsidisedtop-structureofaminimumoftwobedrooms;• Aservicedstand,withwateronthestand,andwater-bornesewerage;• Ahierarchyofroadsandroadreserveswhichisasystemofgradesofroadsranked

oneabovetheotheri.e. largeroadstolinkthesettlementtotheoutsideandsmallroadswithinthesettlementtoaccessindividualhouses.

• Stormwatermanagementanddrainage.

Suchanapproachisoftencriticisedforthefollowingreasons:

• Themonotonousgrid-layout,withalowproportionofstandsperhectare;• Little attention is given to affordability and operational cost tomunicipalities. This

oftenresultsinmunicipalitiesnothavingfundstoactuallyundertaketheupgrade;• The slow rateof development,while residents arehoused in temporary andoften

difficultconditions.Althoughanincrementalinsituupgradetakessignificantlylongerthe residents are not displaced and are impacted upon less during the upgradeprocess;

• The tendency to favourdevelopmentofopen land, rather thanusingplaceswherepeoplearealreadyliving,i.e.demolitionandredevelopment;

• Often the sitesprovided for education and social facilities are left empty for yearsandbecomeplacesforwastedumpingorfurtherinformalsettlement;

• Littleattentionispaidtotop-structureorientationandgreening.

Thekeyreasongivenforusingtheconventionalformalfullupgradingapproachistheneedforsafetystandardsandthepublicfinancerequirements.However,thereareincrementalinsitu upgrade approaches that also address the safety standards and public financerequirements.

1.2 UISPapproachtolayoutandservices

The National Housing Code introduces the Upgrading ofInformal Settlements Programme (UISP) and within thiscontextsaysthefollowingaboutthelayoutandservicingofinformalsettlements:

• National norms and standards in respect of the



creationofservicedplotsdonotapplytotheUISP,butcanserveasaguideline;• Plotsizes:Thelayoutofinformalsettlementsgenerallyprecludesthedetermination

of uniform plot sizes. Plot sizes should emerge through a process of dialoguebetween local authorities and residents, taking into account the existing buildings,spaces,roadsandpathwaysinthesettlement;

• Service standards: The UISP provides funding for the installation of interim andpermanent municipal engineering services. Where interim services are to beprovided this must always be undertaken on the basis that such interim servicesconstitute the first phase of the provision of permanent services. The provision ofservicesshouldalsobeconsistentwiththeinterventioncategorisation;

• Participation: The nature and level of permanentengineering infrastructure must be the subject ofengagement between the local authority and residents.Communityagreementonstandsizes,densities, levelsofservicesandprojectphasingisimportant.Communityneedsmustbebalancedwithcommunity preferences, affordability indicators and sound engineering practice, aswellastheUISPsubsidyquantumandlevelofservicesprovided.

1.3 Layoutissuesattheprogrammelevel

Theplanningforeachsettlementbeginsatthebroaderstrategicorprogrammaticlevel.Asoutlined earlier in the course, there is a broad range of programmatic and integratedstrategic planning which goes beyond just housing and associated basic infrastructure, interms of integrated settlement planning, bulk infrastructure, public transport and theprovisionofkeysocialfacilities.

Each informal settlement shouldbeplanned for at the strategiclevelwithinthebroadercontextoftheurbansettlementtheyarelocatedwithin.

Eachsettlementshouldbeintegratedintothemunicipalplanningandbudgetingprocessinterms of the local municipal integrated development planning(IDP) and the spatial development framework in regional andlocalspatialframeworksorprecinctplans.

Once an informal settlement is assessed and categorised, thecategory of intervention will inform what the most appropriate layout approach to beappliedis.

1.4 Thelayoutplanatsettlementlevel

Guidingprinciples

Atthesettlementlevelasetofguidingprinciplesshouldbeagreedbetweenthedeveloperandthecommunitybeforethelayoutandinfrastructureupgradingdesigncommences.

CategorisationisoutlinedinSection5.



2. Geotechnicalreferstositeconditionsanddesignandconstructionrecommendationstotheroadandservicesdesignasaresultofthis.Itisbasedonbelow-groundinvestigationbyboring,sampling,andtestingthesoilstratatoestablishitscompressibility,strength,andothercharacteristics.

1. Bulkinfrastructureistheinfrastructurewhichprovidestheoverallcapacitytothelocalnetworkswithinsuburbs.Itincludesforexamplereservoirs,purificationplants,bulkoutfallorsupplypipes,etc.).

3. Topographicalstudiesareagraphicrepresentationofthesurfacefeaturesofaplaceorregiononamap,indicatingtheirrelativepositionsandheights.

Dependingonthecategorisationofthesettlement,theguidingprinciplesshouldcoverthefollowingissues:

• Relocation,i.e.whoandhowmanypeoplegetrelocated;• Theextenttowhichtherewillbecompensationfortop-structurematerialsoreven

forlossoflivelihoods;• Levels of decision-making and community involvement and what degree of

autonomythecommunitywillhaveoverdevelopmentdecisions;• Political will and agenda, i.e. whether the local political representatives are truly

prepared tomake jointdecisionswith thecommunityorwhether there isahigherpoliticalagendatobemetaroundproposingimprovements.

Factorsthatwillinfluencetheapproachtothelayout

Thefollowingfactorswillinfluencetheapproachtolayoutthatistakenatsettlementlevel:

• Certainareasneedimmediateattention(e.g.precariouslands);• Certainservicesmayneedtobeintroducedincrementally;• Some systems are best introduced simultaneously

(e.g.pipesandwatersupply);• Community priorities regarding the approach and

sequenceofinterventions;• Budgetaryconstraints;• Technical constraints such as geotechnical, bulk

infrastructureorevenhumancapacityconstraints.

It must be noted that the layout of the settlement isultimately the responsibility of the local municipality, asthey will be expected to maintain the public spaces (allareasotherthantheresidentialstands)andutilitieswithinthese spaces into the future. These might include theroadways,footpaths,playareasandstormwaterdrainagesystems.

Technicalissuesthataffectthelayoutplan

Beforeanylayoutcanproceedthereneedstobearangeofmoredetailedtechnicalstudiestodeterminethefeasibilityandapproachfordevelopingthesite.Theseinclude:

• landlegalstudies;• geotechnicalstudies;• topographicalstudies;and• adetailedmapofexistingtop-structuresmapped

bythecommunityorexternally.



4. Afloodlinestudymeasurestherisksoffloodingofriversandotherwaterareas.Itisexpressedasalineonamapandisdeterminedonthebasisofaveragefloodlevelsinpreviousyears(10,20,50and100years)

Fromthefeasibilitystudiesthelayoutplanwillbedevelopedtoaddresssuchissuesas:

• Thenumberofhouseholds tobeaccommodated in thelayout,determinedthroughthesettlementmappingandcommunitysurveys;

• The type of tenure options based on the land legalinvestigation, which in turn will determine the type ofboundaries to be laid out (either site by site, superblocks or settlement-wideboundarydefinition);

• The geotechnical studies will inform which areas cannot be developed and whichareas will require special house foundations. The type of soil will inform whatsanitation options are possible. Depending on the soil conditions they may alsoimpactontheminimumplotsizespossibleandifonsitesanitationoptionsaretobeconsidered;

• A flood line study will determine the 1-in-100 year flood line if applicable, withinwhichnodevelopmentcanbeundertaken;

• A slope analysis will show how steep the slopesare.Beyonda1:3slope,developmentwillrequireexpensive retainingwalls. The slope analysis willalsoinformthealignmentoftheroads/pathways;

• Thedirectionsof theslopeswill also informhowhousescanbeimprovedupon,forexamplewhichdirectiontheyshouldfacetomaximisesunlightforsolarpowerandwarmth;

• Another key issue thatmust be addressed is the availability and proximity of bulkinfrastructureconnections.Thisdetermineswhetherthesettlementrequiresinterimservicesuntilsuchtimeasthebulkinfrastructurecanreachthesettlement;

• The surrounding main transport routes may determine where the main routethrough the settlement should be to connect with the surrounding areas and topromoteeconomicactivities.

1.5 Trade-offsandlayoutplanning

All layout designs involve a series of trade-offs with advantages and disadvantages. It isimportanttoensurebroadcommunityconsensusonthesetrade-offs.Someofthesetrade-offsinclude:

• Plotsizes/densities;• Plotorientationvshousedesign.Theorientationoftheplotsalongordownaslope

determines whether and how a house can be expanded and how much sun itreceivesandisoftenatrade-offbetweentheseelements;

SettlementmappingandcommunitysurveysareoutlinedinModules2and4.TenureoptionsareoutlinedinSection7.



• Pedestrianvsvehicularaccess.Oftenbyprovidingonlypedestrianaccess,moreplotscan be created in the settlement. Vehicular access requires minimum widths andslopegradientsandusuallyresultsinmorerelocations.

The layout for an informal settlement upgrading project involves a relatively complextechnicaldesignprocessaimedatachievingthebestuseofspace,reducingrelocationsandmeetingcommunityrequirements.Forexample,intheactivityabove,youidentifiedsomeoftheadvantagesanddisadvantages,ortrade-offs,ofsmallorlargeplots.

Smallplots:

• Advantages:o Reduced land costswhich allowsmoremoney to be available for building and

on-plotutilities;o Reducedlayoutandinfrastructureservicingcosts;o Morehouseholdscanbeprovidedwithaplotinanygivenarea;o Reducedrisksofhigherincomegroupsbenefitingfromtheproject.

• Disadvantages:o Moredifficultandexpensivetodevelophousingontheplot;o Reducedpossibilitiesofon-sitesanitationoptions;o Reducedopportunitiesforexpandingthehouse.

Largeplots

• Advantages:o Privateopenspaceforgrowingcrops,keepingdomesticanimalsandexpanding

thehouse;o Spaceavailableforprovidingadditionalroomsforrentalorcommercialuse;o Greateropportunitiesforon-sitesanitationdisposal.

• Disadvantages:o Highertotallandcostsperplot;o Higherlayoutandplotservicingcosts;o Reducednumberofhouseholdscanbeaccommodatedinthesettlement;o Greaterriskofattractinghigherincomegroupsnotintendedfortheproject.

Abroadsetoflayoutapproachescanbeidentifiedassetoutbelow.

1.6 Examplesofapproachestolayout

Superblocklayoutapproach:

Thisapproachtothelayoutinvolvesthefollowingactions:

• First identify and map the existing movement tracks, pathways and desired linesthroughtheinformalsettlement;



• Fromthismap,designaproposedmovementnetworkorpublicspacestructureusingtheexistingmovementsystemasabasisfortheproposedsystem;

• This results in a system of large land parcels or blocks defined by themovementpaths,containingmultiplehouseholdtop-structures;

• Formallysurveyandproclaimtheseparcelsorsuperblockstocreateastreet layoutandnewaddressesandstreetnames.Thesesuperblocksthenreceivesomeformofcollective/incremental tenure arrangement, i.e. administrative or legal recognition,forallthehouseholdswithinthem;

• This recognition, in turn, enables funding for some form of collective services e.g.standpipesandcommunaltoiletstobeinstalledperblock;

• Atalaterstagetheseblockscanbefurthersub-dividedandindividualtitleprovidedtoqualifyingbeneficiaries, followedby some formof individual household servicesbeinginstalled,e.g.yardtaps.

Example1:Superblocklayout:MonwabisiPark,CapeTown

Monwabisi Park (MWP) is an informal settlement of some 5 500 households locatedalong the southern boundary of Khayelitsha, Cape Town’s largest township. It wasformedin1997,whenpeoplebegantobuildshacksonanadjacent,unoccupiednaturereserve. Some 20 000 people, themajority from the Eastern Cape, now live inMWP.Although they are only 20 km from the central business district of Cape Town, mostMWP residents have yet to find an economic foothold. Some80%of households earnlessthantheminimummonthlysubsistencelevelofR1900.

The Indlovu Project began in 2005when the Shaster Foundation joined forces with alocal street committee leader and the founderof a small crèche thatbecame the firstIndlovu Centre building. In 2007, Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) an Americantechnicaluniversity,beganworkingwiththeIndlovuprojectonaredevelopmentplanforthesettlement.

The over-arching vision of the project was to forge a partnership between a diversenetworkofstakeholderstohelpthecommunitygrowfromavibrant,but impoverishedsquatter camp intoahealthier, safer andmoreprosperouseco-village.Developing thelayout of the upgrade followed the process outlined above. This process will beillustratedintheSectiontrainingsessionthroughslidesshowingthemapsanddiagrams.



Note:Thiscasestudyisusedasanexampleonlytohighlightaspecificaspectorissue.

Themovementpathsweremappedthroughtheexistingdensesettlement.

Superblockswerecreatedbasedonthemovementnetwork.

Theexistingtracksandpathwayswereusedasabasisforthelayoutdesign.

Superblockswerecreatedbasedonthemovementnetwork.



Thesuperblocklayoutapproachismoreapplicableinurbanareaswherethedensitiesofthesettlementsaregenerallyhigh,providinglimitedspacebetweentheexistingtop-structures.This approach is also most applicable to incremental upgrading i.e. Category B1-typesettlements for both tenure arrangements and infrastructure provision. As such thefollowingadvantagesanddisadvantages(prosandcons)ofthisapproacharesetout:

Pros Cons

• Superblocksarean in situapproachwhich results in minimaldisplacement as it uses existingpathways and roadways in thesettlement to define blocks andprovideimprovedaccessroutes.

• Layout can be undertaken quitequickly as one is not dealing withindividual household boundaries,rathersuperblocks.

• Rapid legal recognition can befacilitated for the settlement toreceiveinterimservices.

• The approach provides a spatialpattern and spaces for short-term/interim collectiveinfrastructureprovision.

• It is compatible with public financerequirements.

• It is ideal for incremental tenurearrangementsinthatthesuperblockcanprovidecommunallandsecurityin the short-term. Thereafter theycanbefurthersubdividedtoprovideindividual freehold tenure ifrequired.

• Superblocks may require somerelocation of residents for publicfacilities such as parks, schools,publicbuildings.

• Inappropriate layout for immediateindividual services installation andtenure arrangements, becauseindividual plot boundaries are notdemarcated around each top-structure.

Defactolayouts

This approach involves an in situ design based on the principles ofminimal disruption toexistingstructures,andinvolvesthefollowingsteps:

• Undertake a survey of each household to determine the residents’ perceived landboundaries,usingaGPS;

• Convert the GPS points into lines on a map. Some of these lines may overlap(indicatingthatthereisanoverlapinsomeoftheresidents’perceptionsoftheirland



i.e. dual claims to land) (see figure below). These lines also show the existingmovementsystemofpathwaysandroadsthroughthesettlement;

• Throughnegotiationwiththeresidentsagreeonhowtoadapttheexistinglinesintoindividual stand boundaries around each existing top-structure. At the same time,demarcate (set out space for) a minimum 5 m wide vehicular access strip alongexistingaccess routes through thearea.Wherenecessaryonemayonlybeable todemarcate2mwidepedestrianaccessstrips.Ensurethateachstandhassomeformofaccess.

Example2:Defactolayouts:KwadabekaC,eThekwini

This was a project initiated by the municipality involving a greenfields area ofapproximately 73 ha and an informal settlement covering approximately 25 ha. Theinformal settlement lay immediately to thenorthof thegreenfieldsarea.The informalsettlementwithintheprojectareaconsistedof289structures.452greenfieldsplotsofaverage312m²size(180m²minimum)plus260insitu/defactoplotsofaverage328m²(minimum180m²)werelaidout.Theboundariesofthedefactositesweredeterminedthrough consultation with each household. Once the layout was approved themunicipality temporarily relocated all the households in the informal settlement,demolishedtheshacksandrebuiltRDPhousesintheirplace.Theprojectstartedin2003andwascompletedin2011.

Mapshowingtheboundariesaroundeachtop-structure.Notehowtheshapeandsizeofeachstandvaries;howthere

isleft-overspaceinbetweensomeboundariesandhowinsomeplacesthereisnospacebetweenboundariesforroads

orpaths.

Mapshowingreconciledandnegotiateddraftboundariesmakingupthelayoutof

theinformalsettlementupgrade.



This approach is most appropriate when the settlement is not too dense (i.e. mostlyindividual top-structures with a little yard around them). These types of densities arecommonlyfoundontheperipheryofthemetropolitanareas,andintheexpansionareaofsmall towns. This layout approach would be most appropriate for settlements beingupgraded including conventional formal full upgrading (Category A) and incremental fullupgrading (Category B1) as the layout determines the final road and plotsubdivisions/boundaries,facilitatingtownshipestablishmentandfullserviceprovision.

Someofthekeyconsiderationstobenotedwhenapplyingthislayoutapproachinclude:

• Desireddensityofresidentialstructuresperhectaretobeachieved,withagreementfromthebeneficiaries;

• Linked to the above, there should be pre-design agreements on the plot sizevariationspermittedgiventherangeoftop-structuresizes.

Pros Cons

• Minimal displacement of existingtop-structures.

• Duringtheplanningprocessthereisengagementwitheveryhousehold.

• Site by site engagement oftenresults in greater transparency andsupportfortheultimatelayout.

• Finalnegotiated layout canbeusedforfinalfreeholdtenureacquisition.

• Not applicable to high densitysettlements where top-structuresare attached and individualboundaries cannot be demarcatedaroundeachtop-structure.

• Couldresult inavarietyofsitesizesbasedonthesizeoftheexistingtop-structureonthesite,whichmightbean issue if the communitywants orexpectsequalsizedsites.

• Irregular site boundaries cancontribute tohigher servicing costs,asitmayresultinmoreservicepipejointsandman-holes.

Re-blocking/blocking-outlayouts

Re-blockingorblockingoutisawayofimprovingtheplanningofinformalsettlements.Putmore simply, it refers to a re-arrangement of shacks in an informal settlement withcommunity consent. This form of layout focuses on the larger concept of spatialreconfiguration versus the simple delineation of sites i.e. the focus is not on individualhouseholdsandspace,butratheronthecommunalspacesusedbythewholecommunity.Thespacescreatedthroughre-blockingareusedforcommunalamenities,ortocreatelanesfor installation of services such as water, sanitation and electricity. It can also increasetenure security in the short-term and demonstrates community capacity with regard toplanning.



Therearevariationsinthere-blockingapproach,fromacomprehensivere-blocking(wherethe entire settlement is re-blocked) to the partial re-blocking approach (i.e. where onlythoseareasrequiringde-densificationforroads,healthreasonsandservicesinstallationarere-blocked).ThisisillustratedintheexamplesbelowofMshiniWamandRuimsig.

Example3:Re-blocking:MshiniWam,CapeTown

MshiniWamisaninformalsettlementlocatedinwhatwasanopenspacebetweenRDPhouses in thegreater JoeSlovoPark, inMilnerton,CapeTown.There-blockingprojectwas launchedinMay2012andcompleted inMarch2013,andinvolvedthecreationofspaces for roads and public spaces by re-arranging 250 shacks in accordance with acommunity-designed layout plan. The project was the first collaboration between theInformal Settlement Network (ISN), the Community Organisation Resource Centre(CORC),andtheCityofCapeTown,throughaMemorandumofUnderstanding.Asavingsscheme was set up to collect community contributions for new top-structures, whichcameto20%ofthetotalcost.Furthermore45expandedpublicworksprojectjobswerecreated during the project. A local steering committee saw to the design, planning,savingsco-ordination,demolitionandconstructionphasesoftheproject.

Todate the communityhas completedenumerations (recordingof informationon theexisting residents of settlement), mapped the settlement and created a settlementlayout for the re-blocking process. This was undertaken through the use of littlecardboardpiecescuttoscaleonacadastralmapofthesite.Themethodusedherewas

ClickhereforvideoonMshiniWamRe-blocking



tocreateathreedimensionalmodelofthesettlementtoassistcommunitymemberstoplanthere-blocking.Thecommunityiscurrentlyworkingtodevelopaguttersystemtodirectraintodrainsthatthecitywillinstallinordertoreduceflooding.Thecommunityisalsoplanning touse fire resistantmaterialswhen rebuilding theirhouses. The citywillpartnerwiththecommunitytoprovidesewerandwaterlines,aswellaselectricalpolesandelectricalboxestoeachfamily.

Ultimatelytheprojectwillprovide250householdswithbetterhousingandservices,withthepossibilityofastrongercommunityasitworkstogethertocreateasavingsbase.

Example4:Re-blocking:Ruimsig,Johannesburg

Ruimsig isanother re-blockingupgrade locatedontheWestRandof the Johannesburgmetropolitanarea.Theobjectiveoftheprojectistoreducecongestionanddensitiesforsaferareas forchildrentoplay,andso thatshackscanbe improvedandbasicservicescanbeupgraded.

Theprojectinvolvestwophases.Thefirstwasundertakenin2011withthere-blockingof38shacksfromtheflood-pronewetlandsarea,andthesecondphaseisthere-blockingof96shackswhichcommencedin2012.Todate42oftheseshackshavebeenre-blocked.ThetotalprojectwasbudgetedatR341000ofwhichthecommunitycontributed16%ofthefunds.

Mapping of the settlement for the re-blocking process was undertaken jointly byUniversity of Johannesburg students and communitymembers, through an agreementbetweentheuniversityandthecommunity.

Re-blocking is most appropriate in higher density informalsettlements, where de-densification is needed in order to installservices. It is also appropriate where the community and thedeveloper have decided to use this approach after considering theprosandcons(advantagesanddisadvantages)ofitsimplementation.

Someofthekeyconsiderationstobenotedforthere-blockingapproachinclude:

• What the final desired densities to be achieved will be. This must be done withagreementfromthebeneficiaries;

• Whether there-blocking isan interimmeasure for interimservicesorwhether it ispermanent. In both cases the boundaries around each top-structure need to beconsideredintermsoftheeventualtenurestatus.

Theprosandconsofthere-blockingapproacharesetoutbelow.

Pros Cons

ClickhereforvideoonRuimsigRe-blocking



• The re-block process involvesintensive engagement with theexisting residents, ensuring co-operationandbuyintothelayout.

• Minimumdisplacementof residentsfromthesettlement.

• Canquicklyprovideaspatialpatternand spaces for short-term/interimcollectiveinfrastructureprovision.

• Compatible with public financerequirements.

• New fire-resistant metal structures,coupled with the creation of spacebetween rows of shacks, greatlyreducetheriskoffire.Thesespacesarespecificallydesignedtoallowthepassageoflargeemergencyvehicles.

• Soil compacting techniques appliedafterre-blockingandintroductionofgrading reduces the amount ofstandingwaterafterrainstorms.

• Large scope for local jobopportunities to undertake theprocess.

• Re-blocking facilitates anincremental approach by providingshort-termspaces intowhichaccessand interim services can beprovided, as well as communaltenuresecurity.

• Moving of top-structures couldresult in damage and therefore aneedforareplacementbudget.

• A re-blocking layout may make itdifficult to acquire freehold tenure,because no individual plots aredemarcated, rather largesuperblocks facilitating anincremental tenure securityapproach.

Rolloverlayouts

Thisapproachentailsthedemolitionoftheentireinformalsettlement,eitherincrementallyorinonetimeframe.Theexistingresidentsarerelocatedtotransitionalresidentialareasandthe original site is redeveloped as a subsidised RDP project. The intention is that, oncompletion, the original residents of the informal settlement move back into the newlydevelopedarea.

Experience has shown that many people in informal settlements do not qualify asbeneficiariesforsubsidisedhousingandareexcludedfromthenewupgradeddevelopment.Furthermore,theresultantgreenfieldlayoutsareoftendesignedaccordingtoHousingCodehousing standards (as set out in section 1.1 of the Housing Code). This produces lower



densitysettlements,andonlyaportionofthetemporarilydisplacedhouseholdscanbere-accommodatedbackintothenewdevelopment.Tooffsetthisproblemresidentsareoftenre-accommodatedintomulti-storeyflats insitu.Thereneedstobefundingandagreementfromthecommunityforsuchanoption.AnexampleofthisapproachistheN2Gatewaycasestudy(seebelow).

Ifnot carefullyplanned thisapproachcould result ina significantdisplacementofpeople,destruction of people’s livelihoods and limited opportunities for communities to benefitfromincrementalupgradingaspects.

ThisapproachisappropriateforCategoryAorCategoryB1informalsettlements.

Example5:Rollover:GatewayProject,CapeTown

The N2 Gateway Housing Pilot Project is a large house building project underconstructioninCapeTown.ItisajointendeavourbetweentheNationalDepartmentofHuman Settlements, the provincial government of the Western Cape and the City ofCape Town. A private company, Thubelisha, has been outsourced to manage andimplementtheproject.Thubelishaestimatesthatsome25000unitswillbeconstructed,about70%ofwhichwillbeallocatedtoshack-dwellers,and30%tobackyarddwellersonthemunicipal housingwaiting lists.Manyof theseunitshavebeen completed.Due tolandavailability issues theproject is split into twoareas,a siteon theN2some15kmfromCapeTown,andasiteinDelft,some40kmoutsideofCapeTown.Tofacilitatethisdevelopmentsome20000 informaldwellers thathadpreviouslybeen livingontheN2sitehadtobedisplacedtotemporaryresidentialareas(TRAs)inDelft.

Initsearlyyears,theN2GatewaywascriticisedbytheGeneva-basedCentreonHousingRightsandEvictions,bytheSouthAfricanAuditorGeneral,bypopularorganisationssuchas theWestern Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign, by Constitutional Court experts such asPierre De Vos, and by affected residents themselves. Essentially these criticismswerearound the slow delivery of houses, (meaning people have had to spend significantperiods in temporary residential areas) poor construction, protests, rent boycotts andforcedevictions.The residents raisedcritical issuesconcerning the locationofDelftontheperipheryofthecityanditsimpactontheirrightstowork,educationandhealthcareamongstothers.

More recently theprojecthas received less criticism,partlydue to the comprehensivemanagementprogrammeimplementedaroundtheissueoftemporaryrelocationsbytheHousingDevelopment Agency (HDA),which is illustrated in a video available from theHDA.ThesehaveincludedimprovedqualityofTRAunits,legalcertificatesfortemporaryresidence,andweeklymonitoringofeachhouseholdwithintheTRAtoensuretheTRAiswell-managed.

Note:Thiscasestudyisusedasanexampleonlytohighlightaspecificaspectorissue.

Thekeyconsiderationspertainingtoarolloverapproachare:



• Ensuring a mechanism is put in place (comprehensive management plan) todeterminewhoisdisplacedandwhocanremain;

• Whetherwell-locatedalternativelandisavailable;• Whether the locality and value of the site warrants the demolition, temporary

relocationandreconstructionofthesettlementathigherdensitytypologies.

Theprosandconsoftherolloverapproacharesetoutbelow.

Pros Cons

• Norms and standards can beadheredtointermsofminimumlotsizes and road dimensions andmaximumefficiencyofspacecanbeachieved.

• Often results in the maximumefficient use of space and moreuniform/equi-sizedstands.

• It is often more cost-effective toinstall services due to straightservicelines.

• Fits with public financerequirements.

• Provides space for education andsocialfacilities.

• Growing shortage of well-locatedland (often the cause of blockedprojects).

• Vacant land often needs bulkinfrastructure which is extremelyexpensive.

• In accordance with minimum lotsizes these layouts are often verylow density, thus contributing tourbansprawl.This isexacerbated inareas of steep topography toaccommodate the cut and fillplatforms.

• In adhering to standards theselayouts often result in significantlevels of displacement of existingresidents(anotherfrequentcauseofblockedprojects).

• These layouts often negatecommunity participation becausethey are undertaken in areasremovedfromthecommunity.

• Little attention is paid to top-structureorientation.



2. Infrastructureapproaches

2.1 InfrastructuredeliveryapproachesinSouthAfrica

InSouthAfrica, thereare threebroadapproaches thathavebeen used for service provision in urban areas. Theappropriate choice of approach should be based on ananalysis of the characteristics of the informal settlement.These characteristics include economic and environmental sustainability and politicalimperatives. The first approach tends to be themost commonly usedbymunicipalities inSouthAfricaand ismostoftenapplied incasesof relocationorrollover interventions.Thethreeapproachesare:

• A high level of services. There are financial arguments against this option for lowincome communities.However, if communityparticipation indecision-making is tobemeaningful, demand for high level services can stem fromwithin communitiesand this demandneeds to be addressed effectively. This is particularly truewherethere isastronggrassrootspoliticalorganisation.Decentralisingdecisionsonpolicyneedstobeaddressedifthereistobelong-termsustainability.Thefuturestatusoftheareawithinawidermetropolitancontextmustbeaddressed,ratherthanlimitingthebasisofthedecisiononservicelevelstotheabilitytopay.Theabilitytopaymaybedefinedwithinahistoricalandartificiallydemarcatedgeographicalcontext.

• The progressive improvementmodel. Thismodel is similar to theaboveapproachexceptittakesamoreincrementalapproach,andupgradesservicesinatechnicallyrational and systematic manner. In theory there can be several entry points. Inpracticeitislikelytobeginwithbasicservices.

• Ademand-drivenapproachwithvariablelevelsofservice.Heretheemphasisisondeveloping the community in its widest sense, rather than focusing on capacitybuilding. There is a balance between the political and economic components ofdecision-making,betweenpolicyandimplementation.Thetechnicalaspectprovidesa supportive, rather than a determining role within the wider decision-makingprocess.Thecentral issue is thecommunity’s right tochoose,and that this right isnotgovernedsolelybythecriterionofaffordability.Insteadithastotakecognisanceof wider social and political factors. In this model, services are designed to meetspecific needs and are not related to a structured hierarchy of incrementalimprovement.



Example5:eThekwiniInterimServiceProgramme

EarlieryouusedthecasestudyoftheeThekwiniInterimServiceProgrammeasanexampleofinterimservicesandinstitutionalarrangements.

eThekwini is in the process of establishing a pro-active and broad-based programmeaimed at providing a range of basic interim services to 166 prioritised informalsettlementswithin themunicipality,with a view to addressing a range of basic healthandsafetyissues.Theseprioritisedsettlementsarethosewhichareonthemunicipality’shousingplan,butwhichcannotbeprovidedwithfullservicesandatop-structureintheshort-term. Those settlements which are destined for eventual relocation are notincluded.Theinterimservicesprogrammewillprovideamixofbasicinterimservicesasfollows:

•Communalablutionblocks;•Abasicroadnetworkandfootpaths;•Electricityconnections;•Waterstandpipes;•Keysocialfacilitiessuchasfireandpolicestations,clinics,schools.

Sustainable livelihoods will be addressed through use of local labour and community-basedmaintenance. In order to build stronger community responsibility and self-help,local residents are being supported to develop practical action plans which wouldempowerthemtoplayamoreeffectiveroleinarangeofspheressuchasspecialneeds(e.g.home-basedcare,crèchesandHIVAids),micro-enterpriseandfoodsecurity.

In providing the above a spatially coherent approach has been adopted wherebyinformal settlements have been grouped together into logical clusters or precincts inorder to enable more effective and sustainable urban planning. This case study is anexampleofamunicipalapproachtoaddressinterimserviceprovisionataprogrammaticleveltogetthewidestpossibleimpact.

2.2 Projectlevelinfrastructureresponsestoinformalsettlements

ThissectionwillexamineprojectlevelservicedeliveryresponsestoinformalsettlementsinrelationtothevarioustypesofinterventionsoutlinedinSection6.

AkeypointregardingservicedeliveryisthataccordingtotheConstitution,localauthoritiesareresponsibleforlocalplanningandservicedelivery.Thus,therangeofservicesbelowwillbeprovidedinaccordancewitheachindividuallocalauthority’sexistingdeliveryregimeandmechanisms,proceduresand capabilities. In caseswhere the localmunicipality isnot in apositiontomeettheirobligationthereisroomfornegotiationbetweenaffectedcommunityorganisationsandthelocalauthorities.



Onceanup-frontpreliminaryassessmentandcategorisationoftheinformalsettlementhasbeen undertaken the settlement category will determine the service types and deliveryoptionsapplicable.

Within each category a rangeof different servicingoptions and combinations appropriateforinsituincrementalinformalsettlementupgradingcanbeprovidedbasedontheaimsoftheproject,levelsofservicedecidedupon,affordabilitylevels,environmentalandresourceissuesamongstothersasillustratedinthetablebelow.

BroadServiceCategories CriteriaforSelectingOption(mustbeagreedtobetweencommunityandlocalauthority)

Examplesoftrade-offstobeconsidered

• Accessibility(roadsandpathways),mobilityandtransport

• Waterandsanitation

• Drainageanderosioncontrol

• Communityfacilities

• Bulkearthworks

• Aimsoftheproject• Levelsofservices• Affordability

o Capitalo Maintenance

• Budgetso Capitalo Maintenance

• Environmentalconstraints(e.g.geotechnical)andresourceusage

• Localemploymentopportunitieso Constructiono Maintenance

• Localcapacitybuilding

• Costs:capitalvsmaintenance

• Levelsofdifferentservices:selectionbasedonbudgetaryconstraints

• Timingofdelivery:labourvscapitalintensiveconstruction

• Convenience:Easeofusevsenvironmentalimperativesvsaffordability

• Politicalimperatives:Desiredinfrastructurevstechnicalpracticalities

The table below gives an overview of a range of project level services and examples ofinfrastructureoptions.Theseexamplesareprovidedto informnegotiationsaroundserviceleveldecisions.Detailson theexampleoptionsareprovided in thehandout ‘ServiceLevelExamples’. Some of the options available for each service are described, including thecharacteristics, layout implications, employment and social capital developmentopportunities,andtheadvantagesanddisadvantages.As indicatedpreviously,eachoptionorcombinationofoptions involvestrade-offs,balancingtheadvantagesanddisadvantagesofeachserviceoption.Note:thelistprovidesonlyasetofexamples;itisnotadefinitivelistofserviceoptions.



ServiceCategory Type Characteristics


Opportunitiesforlocallabour

Conv

entio

nal

form

alfu

llup

grad

ing

Increm

ental

fullup

grad

ing

Interim

arrang

emen

ts

Deferred

relocatio

n

Accessibilitymobilityandtransport

Pedestrianandcyclecirculation

Thesearepaved,ortarrednarrowstripswhichcanbeconstructedonsteepgradientsrequiringlimitedcutandfill.Inverysteepareasstairscanevenbeprovide.

Y Y Y Y Y

Gravelorunsurfacedroadcirculation

Theseareunpavedroadswhichrequireatleast6metrewidthsandminimumradiuscurvatureonturnsandminimum1:5gradientsrequiringcutandfillembankmentsinsteepterrain.Inverysteepareasroadaccessisnotpossible.

N Y Y N Y

Surfacedroads Thesearepavedortarredroadswhichrequireatleast6metrewidthsandminimumradiuscurvaturesonturnsandminimum1:5gradientsrequiringcutandfillembankmentsinsteepterrain.Inverysteepareasroadaccessisnotpossible.

Y Y N N Y

Drainageanderosioncontrol

Useofroadwaysandpedestrianpathsasdrainagechannels

Surfaceofroadusedasadrainagechanneltodirectwaterrun-offintosoak-awaysorretentiondams.

Y Y Y Y Y

Useofpipedsystemwithintheroadwaysandpedestrianpathsasdrainagechannels

Stormwaterpipesrunningbelowtheroadkerbsandwherethewaterrun-offfromtheroadflowsintoakerbinlet.

Y Y N N Y






Conv

entio

nal

form

alfu

llup

grad

ing

Increm

ental

fullup

grad

ing

Interim

arrang

emen

ts

Deferred

relocatio

n

Water Watertankerorvendor

Supplyfromtankerorfromkiosks. N N Y Y Y

Individualwaterbutt/drum

Watercollectedfromroofsandstoredonplot. Y Y Y N N

Individualwelloneachplotorboreholewithorwithoutpump

Individualwelloneachplotorboreholewithorwithoutpump.

N Y N N N

Publicstandpipes

Pipednetworkthroughoutthesettlementwithstandpipesatregularintervals(within200mofeachdwellingaccordingtonationalregulations)andcanbeassociatedwithanon-sitestoragefacility.

N Y Y N Y

Yardtap Pipedwatersupplytoatapstandingoutsidethehouse,meteredsupply.

Y Y N N Y

Houseconnection

Pipedwatersupplytoinsidethehouse,meteredwatersupply.

Y Y N N Y

Sanitation Communalsystem

Ablockoftoiletfacilitiesprovidedforcommunaluse.Arangeoflevelscanbeprovidedfromflushlatrinetopipednetwork.

N Y Y Y Y

Nightsoilcollection

Removablebucketprovidedbythelocalauthorityplacedbelowatoiletseat,outsideahouse.

N N N Y Y

Chemicaltoilets Anoff-site,non-reticulatedsanitationservice,normallyusedwheretemporarysanitationservicesarerequiredforrelativelyshortperiods.

N N N Y Y






Conv

entio

nal

form

alfu

llup

grad

ing

Increm

ental

fullup

grad

ing

Interim

arrang

emen

ts

Deferred

relocatio

n

Ventilatedpitlatrines

On-sitesewagedisposalsystem. N Y Y N Y

Ventilatedvaulttoilet

Anon-sitesewagedisposalsystemwithasealedvaulttoavoidlocalwatercontamination.

N Y Y N Y

Settledsewagesystemorsoakpitsystem

Toiletconnectedtoanon-siteseptictankandeitherasoak-awayorsewer.Toiletflushedbycisternusinglittlewater.

Y Y N N Y

Compostingtoiletorurinedivertingdrytoilet

Thecompostingandurinedivertingdrytoiletoperatesbyseparatingtheliquidandsolidwastes.Producesusablehumusfertiliserafterseveralmonthstooneyear.

Y Y N N N

WCwaterbornesewage

Anoff-sitesewagereticulationsystem. Y Y N N Y

Streetlightingandhouseholdelectivitysupply

Streetlights–belowground

Lampsandpolesareprovidedalongroads. Y N N N Y

Streetlights–aboveground

Lampsandpolesareprovidedalongroads. Y Y N N Y

Mastlights Lampsandpolesareprovidedalongroads. Y Y Y N Y Photovoltaic

streetlightsSolarenergyisstoredinabatteryduringthedayandthenusedaselectricalpowerforlightingatnight.

Y Y N N Y



Thefollowingcasestudyprovidesanexampleofhowtheabovehasbeenappliedtowaterreticulation.

Example2:Makause,Ekurhuleniinstallationofawaterreticulationsystem

TheMakauseinformalsettlementaccommodatessome15000peopleandislocatedinGermiston in the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality. Prior to this project theEkurhuleni Metro had only provided two taps in the settlement far away from thecommunity, who also had five makeshift water connections. The project, initiated in2011,wasto installwaterreticulation infrastructureupgradingconsistingofseventapsandtobuildfournewtapswithconcreteslabs.

WithsupportfromtwoNGOs,ISNandFEDUP,theMakauseinformalsettlementformeda community construction management team (CCMT) to oversee the projectimplementationandasavingsschemecalledGardensofHope.CORCprovidedtechnicalsupport.ThebudgetfortheprojectwasR24900.ThiswascoveredbyacontributionofR1095fromtheGardenofHopesavingsscheme,R13000fromtheMvulaTrustandthebalanceofR10800fromtheCommunityUpgradingFinancingFacility(CUFF).

Inordertoimplementtheprojectthecommunityformedthreeteams,Team1todigthetrenches,Team2layingpipesandmakingconnectionsandTeam3todothesoak-awaysanddrainage systems.Theproject took sixdays to complete.Theoutcome resulted inthe provision of taps, drainage andwashing facilities to at least three sections of thesettlementreachingmorethanhalfofthecommunityof5000people.

Thiscasestudydemonstrateswhatasolelycommunity-drivenprojectcanachieveinserviceprovision.

Howislayoutandinfrastructurefunded?Thekeyfundingmechanismsforlayoutandinfrastructureare:

• UISP: Provides funding for land acquisition, pre-planning, detailed town planning,landsurveying,interimbasicservicesandpermanentengineeringservices.

• USDG: Provides funding principally for basic services (e.g. water supply, roads,sanitation,etc.)formetropolitanmunicipalities.

• IRDP: Provides funding for land acquisition, pre-planning, detailed town planning,landsurveying,andinfrastructureinstallation.

• MIG: Provides funding principally for basic services (e.g. water supply, roads,sanitation,etc.)fornon-metropolitanmunicipalitiesandforbulkinfrastructure.

• Emergency housing: Provides funding for basic infrastructure where emergencyhousingisbeingprovided.

• Municipality: It isassumedthatthemunicipalitywillneedtocoverthecostsoftheotherinitiativesiftheabovescenariosapply.



Toolkit

YouwillfindthefollowingresourcesontheToolkitCD:

• ExamplesofServiceDeliveryOptions• Video:MshiniWamUpgrading(CORC)• Video:RuimsigReblocking(CORC)

ReferencesandResources

Referencematerial

• Abbot, J. (1996), ‘Approaches to urban infrastructure provision: Experiences fromSouthAfrica’,HabitatInternational

• BehrensRandWatsonV(1996)MakingUrbanPlaces,UniversityofCapeTown• CSIR:GuidelinesforHumanSettlementPlanningandDesignVol1&2(2000)• Davidson,F&PayneG,(1983)UrbanProjectsManual,LiverpoolUniversityPress

Usefullinks

• SouthAfricanSDIAlliance:http://sasdialliance.org.za/• Video:MshiniWamRe-blocking:http://sasdialliance.org.za/video/

SECTION 8: LAYOUT AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Documents

Transcript of SECTION 8: LAYOUT AND INFRASTRUCTURE