Lephalale Local Municipality Draft Spatial Development Framework – May 2017
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Contents
1. Introduction ...... 9 1.1. Background ...... 9 1.2. Study area ...... 9 1.3. The purpose of a Spatial Development Framework ...... 12 1.4. The interrelationship between land use management and spatial planning ...... 12 1.5. SPLUMA requirements for SDFs ...... 13 2. Policy context and vision directives ...... 14 2.1. National Directives ...... 14 2.2.1. National Development Plan 2030 ...... 14 2.2.2. State of the Nation Address 2015 ...... 15 2.2.3. National Infrastructure Plan ...... 16 2.2.4. Industrial Policy Action Plan (IPAP) ...... 16 2.2.5. Regional Industrial Development Strategy ...... 17 2.2.6. Agricultural Policy Action Plan (APAP) ...... 17 2.2.7. National Transport Master Plan ...... 17 2.2.8. Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity ...... 17 2.2.9. Integrated Urban Development Framework ...... 17 2.2.10. National Comprehensive Rural Development Programme ...... 18 2.2.11. The Agri-Parks Initiative ...... 18 2.2. Provincial Policy Objectives ...... 19 2.2.1. Limpopo State of the Province Address ...... 19 2.2.3. Limpopo Development Plan ...... 19 2.2.4. Limpopo Green Economy Plan ...... 20 2.2.5. Limpopo Provincial Spatial Development Framework (2016) ...... 21 2.3. Local Policy Objectives (District/Municipal) ...... 23 2.3.1. Waterberg District Rural Development Plan – 2015 ...... 23 2.3.2. Waterberg District Bioregional Plan – 2016 ...... 24 2.3.3. Waterberg District IDP 2016/2017 ...... 26 2.3.4. Waterberg District SDF ...... 27 2.3.5. Lephalale Local Municipality SDF 2012 ...... 27 2.3.6. Lephalale Local Municipality IDP 2016/2017 ...... 33 2.3.7. Lephalale CBD Development Plan ...... 33 3. Spatial analysis ...... 35 3.1. Biophysical environment...... 35 3.1.1. Geology ...... 35 3.1.2. Slope...... 36
P a g e | 2
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
3.1.3. Terrain Type ...... 37 3.1.4. Soil Classes ...... 38 3.1.5. Swelling Clay ...... 39 3.1.6. Soil Drainage ...... 40 3.1.7. Water erosion ...... 41 3.1.8. Wind erosion ...... 42 3.1.9. Climate ...... 43 3.1.10. Hydrology ...... 45 3.1.11. Agriculture ...... 47 3.1.12. Protected Areas ...... 50 3.2. Services and social infrastructure ...... 51 3.2.1. Infrastructure – water ...... 51 3.2.2. Infrastructure – sanitation ...... 53 3.2.3. Infrastructure – electricity ...... 55 3.2.4. Infrastructure – refuse removal ...... 55 3.3. Demographic Considerations ...... 56 3.3.1. Key statistics ...... 56 3.3.2. Population concentration ...... 56 3.3.3. Unemployment ...... 57 3.3.4. Level of education ...... 57 3.3.5. Household Income ...... 59 3.4. Economic Considerations ...... 60 3.4.1. Key economic sectors...... 60 3.4.2. Employment & GVA ...... 61 3.4.3. Locational preferences of economic sectors...... 62 3.4.4. The importance of mining in Lephalale ...... 63 3.5. Human Settlements...... 64 3.5.1. Provision of stand in the Rural Focus Area ...... 64 3.6. Land use ...... 66 3.7. Land ownership ...... 75 3.8. Spatial form...... 80 4. Assessing change and growth ...... 83 4.1. Introduction ...... 83 4.1.1. Purpose of this section ...... 83 4.1.2. Contextualising growth ...... 83 4.2. Natural growth - population and household changes ...... 85 4.2.1. Growth scenario for Ellisras/Marapong ...... 85
P a g e | 3
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
4.2.2. Growth scenario for the Rural Focus Area ...... 86 4.3. Non-residential growth ...... 86 4.3.1. Provision of social facilities...... 87 4.3.2. Provision of business and industrial stands ...... 87 4.3.3. Provision of housing ...... 87 5. Draft Vision Statement ...... 89 6. Lephalale Spatial Development Framework 2017 ...... 90 6.1. Introduction ...... 90 6.2. Lephalale Municipal Spatial Development Framework ...... 90 6.2.1. Hierarchy of Nodes ...... 90 6.2.2. Networks ...... 92 6.2.3. Resources ...... 93 6.2.4. Environmental considerations ...... 93 6.2.5. Intervention zones ...... 95 6.3. Local Spatial Development Framework – Ellisras/Onverwacht/Marapong ...... 96 6.3.1. Lephalale CBD ...... 96 6.3.2. Overwacht...... 99 6.3.3. Marapong ...... 99 6.3.4. Growth Management Strategy ...... 100 6.3.5. Considerations for implementation ...... 102 6.4. Local Spatial Development Framework – Rural Focus Area ...... 103 6.4.1. Agri-Park related proposals: ...... 104 6.4.2. Mining related proposals ...... 104 6.4.3. Thabo Mbeki ...... 105 6.4.4. Shongoane and Ga-Seleka ...... 107 6.4.5. Ga-Seleka ...... 107 Annexure A: List of Protected Areas ...... 110
P a g e | 4
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Table 1: Summary of NDP objectives applicable to spatial planning ...... 14 Table 2: Limpopo SDF - nodal classification ...... 21 Table 3: Rural development projects in Lephalale ...... 23 Table 4: Land use guidelines for CBA's and ESA's ...... 24 Table 5: Housing backlog in Lephalale Municipality ...... 26 Table 6: Strategic link roads for Lephalale SDF (2012) ...... 28 Table 7: Lephalale SDF 2012 - Strategic development areas ...... 32 Table 8: Slope % ...... 36 Table 9: Soil Classes Classification ...... 38 Table 10: Climate change impacts on human settlements ...... 43 Table 11: Settlements affected by Phalala Flood line ...... 45 Table 12: Unemployment ...... 57 Table 13: People employed by sector ...... 62 Table 14: Local preferences of economic activities ...... 62 Table 15: Dwelling Type (2011) ...... 64 Table 16: Demarcated stands 2016 ...... 65 Table 17: Land use summary - Ellisras/Marapong ...... 66 Table 18: Land use summary - Rural Focus Area ...... 66 Table 19: Population and household growth - Ellisras/Marapong ...... 85 Table 20: Population and household growth - Rural Focus Area ...... 86 Table 21: Future provision of social facilities – Rural Focus Area ...... 87 Table 22: Business and industrial erven required 2021 – 2035 (Rural Focus Area) ...... 87 Table 23: Land required for housing (at different ruling stand sizes) ...... 88 Table 24: Strategic link roads ...... 92 Table 25: Sprawled vs. Compact Cities ...... 100
Figure 1: The MSDF process ...... 9 Figure 2: Locality - Lephalale provincial context ...... 10 Figure 3: Lephalale Local Municipality - locality ...... 11 Figure 4: Waterberg Bioregional Plan ...... 25 Figure 5: Development edges and growth management SDF 2012 ...... 29 Figure 6: Lephalale CBD Development Plan ...... 34 Figure 7: Geology ...... 35 Figure 8: Slope ...... 36 Figure 9: Terrain Type ...... 37 Figure 10: Soil Classes ...... 38 Figure 11: Swelling Clay ...... 39
P a g e | 5
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Figure 12: Soil drainage ...... 40 Figure 13: Susceptibility to water erosion ...... 41 Figure 14: Susceptibility to wind erosion ...... 42 Figure 15: Hydrology ...... 45 Figure 16: Section 1 - Villages affected by Phalala flood line ...... 46 Figure 17: Section 2 - Villages affected by Phalala flood line ...... 46 Figure 18: Land capability ...... 47 Figure 19: Cultivated land ...... 48 Figure 20: Agricultural household activity ...... 49 Figure 21: Type of agricultural activity ...... 49 Figure 22: Protected areas ...... 50 Figure 23: Access to piped water (2011) ...... 51 Figure 24: Rural Focus Area Section 1 – Water ...... 52 Figure 25: Rural Focus Area Section 2 – Water ...... 52 Figure 26: Access to sanitation ...... 53 Figure 27: Ventilated pit latrines at school - Shongoane ...... 53 Figure 28: Rural Focus Area Section 1 – Sanitation ...... 54 Figure 29: Rural Focus Area Section 2 – Sanitation ...... 54 Figure 30: Access to electricity...... 55 Figure 31: Refuse removal ...... 55 Figure 32: Key municipal statistics ...... 56 Figure 33: Population concentration ...... 56 Figure 34: Unemployment ...... 58 Figure 35: Level of Education ...... 58 Figure 36: Average Annual Household Income ...... 59 Figure 37: GVA per economic sector ...... 60 Figure 38: Tertiary sector contribution to GVA ...... 60 Figure 39: GVA vs Employment ...... 61 Figure 40: Demarcation of stands - Rural Focus Area...... 65 Figure 41: Land use - Ellisras/Onverwacht ...... 67 Figure 42: Land use – Ellisras (Old Node) ...... 68 Figure 43: Land use - Marapong ...... 69 Figure 44: Land use - Rural Focus Area (1) ...... 70 Figure 45: Land use - Rural Focus Area (2) ...... 71 Figure 46: Land use - Rural Focus Area (3) ...... 72 Figure 47: Land use - Rural Focus Area (4) ...... 73 Figure 48: Land use - Rural Focus Area (5) ...... 74
P a g e | 6
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Figure 49: Ownership - Ellisras ...... 75 Figure 50: Ownership Ellisras (Old node) ...... 76 Figure 51: Ownership Marapong ...... 77 Figure 52: Ownership Rural Focus Area (1) ...... 78 Figure 53: Ownership Rural Focus Area (2) ...... 78 Figure 54: Ownership Rural Focus Area (3) ...... 79 Figure 55: Ownership Rural Focus Area (4) ...... 79 Figure 56: Ownership Rural Focus Area (5) ...... 80 Figure 57: Ellisras/Marapong built form ...... 80 Figure 58: Development over time ...... 80 Figure 59: Household growth rate vs built form growth rate ...... 81 Figure 60: Cumulative number of vacant stands ...... 82 Figure 61: Worldwide population growth ...... 83 Figure 62: Worldwide population growth rates ...... 84 Figure 63: Population and household growth rates for Lephalale Local Municipality 1995-2015 ...... 85 Figure 64: Lephalale Municipal Spatial Development Framework (MSDF) ...... 91 Figure 65: Ellisras/Onverwacht/Marapong - built form ...... 96 Figure 66: Spatial proposals - Ellisras/Onverwacht/Marapong ...... 98 Figure 67: Short/Medium Term Development Priorities ...... 101 Figure 68: LSDF for Rural Focus Area ...... 103 Figure 69: Spatial Proposals Thabo Mbeki ...... 106 Figure 70: Spatial Proposals Shongoane ...... 108 Figure 71: Spatial Proposals Ga-Seleka ...... 109
Photo 1: Medupi power station ...... 9 Photo 2: Example of cracking walls due to swelling clay ...... 39 Photo 3: Grootgeluk open cast coal mine ...... 42 Photo 4: Market in Shongoane ...... 48
P a g e | 7
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Acronyms
AH Agri-hub
AP Agri-park
APAP Agricultural Policy Action Plan
CBA Critical biodiversity areas and
CRDP National Comprehensive Rural Development Programme
DACZ Development activity corridors zone
DC Development corridor
DRDLR Department of Rural Development and Land Reform
FPSU Farmer Production Support Unit
ESA Ecological support areas.
GVA Gross Value Added
IPAP Industrial Policy Action Plan
IUDF Integrated Urban Development Framework
LSDF Local Spatial Development Framework
MSDF Municipal Spatial Development Framework
NDP National Development Plan
NIP National Infrastructure Plan
RIDS Regional Industrial Development Strategy
RUMC Rural Urban Marketing Centre
SDA Strategic development areas
SL Strategic link
SPLUMA The Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act No 16 of 2013
P a g e | 8
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
1. Introduction 1.1. Background
Lephalale or Ellisras is a coal mining town in the Limpopo province of South Africa immediately east of the Waterberg Coalfield. The town was established as Ellisras in 1960 and named after the original farm owners, Patrick Ellis and Piet Erasmus. In 2002, Ellisras was renamed Lephalale by the provincial government of Limpopo, after the main river that crosses the municipality. The Lephalale Municipality was recently identified as national point of interest in the new National Development Plan, 2030 due to the rapid and anticipated growth as a result of mining and other associated industries.
The assignment is as follows:
Review the 2012 Municipal Spatial Development Framework, and Compile a LSDF (Local Spatial Development Framework) for the Rural Focus Area (Focus Area 2).
The full scope of the assignment is shown in the figure below. This document accompanies step 2 and step 3 of the process. Figure 1: The MSDF process
6. 7. 3. Spatial Finalisation 2. Issues 5. Achieving Implementa 1. Inception analysis and 4. Draft SDF and and visions support tion and synthesis approval of monitoring the SDF
1.2. Study area Photo 1: Medupi power station The Lephalale Local Municipality is situated in the Limpopo Province of the Republic. Although not the capital city of the province, Lephalale is nonetheless considered as one of the key towns in the area due to availability of coal in the area and its subsequent importance to energy generation as manifested initially by the Matimba and Medupi power stations.
Figure 2 positions Lephalale in its provincial context, 220 km (2 hours’ drive) from Polokwane and within a 185 km from Modimolle, Mokopane and Thabazimbe. Lephalale Local Municipality borders on Botswana with the Martin’s Drift and Stockpoort border posts located in the Municipality. Figure 2 indicates that the area can roughly be spilt into three – the Ellisras/Onverwacht/Marapong area, the Steenbokpan area and the rural area to the north east with nodes such as Ga-Seleka, Shongoane and Thabo Mbeki.
P a g e | 9
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Figure 2: Locality - Lephalale provincial context
P a g e | 10
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Figure 3: Lephalale Local Municipality - locality
P a g e | 11
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
1.3. The purpose of a Spatial Development Framework
An SDF is a long term (10-20 year plan) development framework with a vision, goals and objectives expressed spatially through strategies designed to address physical, social and economic defects. It is a framework that strives to be consistent with mayoral development priorities. SDF functions at a municipal scale and exists in a multi-disciplinary environment, it is therefore not confined to IDP related projects and programme but integrates and coordinates development proposals and related strategies of all projects and programmes of sector plans within various spheres of government and adjacent municipalities.
What is the significance of a SDF? SDF is an indicative framework concerned with growth and development of the municipality and local communities. It is aims at reversing the legacy of planning that was distorted by apartheid ideologies. It’s eliminates traces of segregation, fragmentation, inequalities found in municipal space. SDF is strategic in nature providing a framework in which area based spatial plans (precinct plans) can be developed to ensure strategies and project initiatives are not generic but specific to deal with development pressures found within a particular municipal areas. The SDF is a framework that guides decisions on land development providing confidence for investment purposes. It does not confer use rights to any property.
SDF restores dignity, creates a sense of place and ownership as it provides communities with a voice and vision on how they will want to see their areas developed. It is a framework driven by needs of the community approved by Municipal Council. SDF empowers communities to contribute ideas and solutions in all matters affecting them and it places accountability to the municipality to deliver services and allow development in a manner that is progressive, coherent and fair.
How does a SDF affect the Municipality?
The SDF ultimately is a place making tool, as it analyses and synergises various plans and policies that indicates current and propose future spatial, economic, social, and environmental management as well as infrastructure development projects and programmes of the municipality. It is a framework that influences the nature and quality of local communities by balancing developmental needs and reducing developmental anarchies.
SDF is based on development principles and it uses structuring elements such as nodes and corridors and development concepts such as densification, containment, protection and growth areas to indicate how land uses in the municipality must be managed to achieve the future desired spatial form.
SDF is a framework that treats land as a resource and ensures every land use activity taking place, satisfies current need of the local community with the full mind of benefiting the future generation.
Legal Status of Spatial Development Framework
Section 26 (e) of the Municipal Systems Act, 2000, requires a spatial development framework to be prepared as part of the IDP. However SPLUMA has elevated the status of SDFs. SPLUMA states in Section 20(1) The Municipal Council must by notice in the Provincial Gazette adopt a municipal SDF for a municipality.
Section 22 (1) of SPLUMA states that a Municipal Planning Tribunal or any authority required or mandated to make a land development decision in term of SPLUMA or any other law relating to land development, may not make decision which is inconsistent with municipal spatial development framework.
1.4. The interrelationship between land use management and spatial planning
SPLUMA links the content of a municipal spatial development framework and a municipal land use scheme by requiring that a SDF:
P a g e | 12
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
determines the purpose, desired impact and structure of the land use management scheme to apply in that municipal area1; and Include an implementation plan that includes (among other) necessary amendments to a land use scheme.
Linking these two planning instruments has, in the past, proven to be quite difficult. While the SDF guides municipal wide planning and provides a future spatial form of the municipality, a land use scheme deals with existing property rights. The timeframes of the two instruments has also varied dramatically in the past. SDFs are reviewed every 5 years – land use schemes tends to stick around for far longer (the existing Town Planning Scheme in Lephalale is dated 2005). The scheme, is “amended” through development applications (such as rezoning’s, consent use application etc.) but that really only affects individual properties and property rights. In the past, the scheme as a tool was not really changed or amended.
One example of how to link the SDF and the Land use scheme comes from the KZN LUMS Guidelines2. The guidelines proposes linking elements which include:
A spatial representation of the municipal area indicating the location of: o Areas where prescriptive regulations are required, and areas where more flexible policy-based decision- making is required o Special areas that need detailed action plans o Environmentally sensitive and/or conservation areas requiring special provisions with regards to environmental management o High potential agricultural land that needs to be protected to ensure ongoing food provision A link to institutional decision-making indicating where special decision-making processes are appropriate or when delegated powers are required, e.g. in redevelopment areas with special purpose implementation agencies, such as the Cato Manor Development Association and the Johannesburg Development Agency A dictionary of land use zones to be used in the municipality Appropriate quantification of broader SDF proposals A phasing plan to guide the introduction of the Scheme across a municipality. This component assumes there is insufficient capacity within the municipality to introduce the same levels of detail in all areas at the same time Generic urban design guidelines, where appropriate The detailing of principles suggested in the SDF to guide the preparation of the Scheme and decision-making on applications for land use change.
1.5. SPLUMA requirements for SDFs In analysing the existing spatial form of the city and deciding on the future spatial structure, planners use structuring and restructuring elements and tools, the outcomes of which are documented in the municipal spatial development framework (SDF). The Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act of 2013 (SPLUMA) establishes the following (among other) as components of a municipal SDF:
Clearly define WHO and WHAT are being planned for. Prior to SPLUMA, many SDFs did not clearly specify the quantum of who and what are being planned for (e.g. the number of households, or square metres of a specific type of land use etc.). In addition, few SDFs included specific time frames of when development is expected to occur. SPLUMA includes specific requirements to address this: o Include a five-year population growth estimate and indicate how this growth will translate into a need for housing across different socioeconomic groups (and where in space this will occur); and o Include five-year estimates of economic activity and employment trends and locations in the municipal area. Spatially identify WHERE and WHEN development will occur. o Identify current and future significant structuring and restructuring elements of the spatial form of the municipality, including development corridors, activity spines and economic nodes (See Figure 4.1 for more detail) where public and private investment will be prioritised and facilitated; and
1 Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act, Part E, Section O 2 KZN Guidelines for preparation of schemes for municipalities 2011. Page 12.
P a g e | 13
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
o Include a written and spatial representation of five-, 10- and 20-year spatial development patterns (in other words where the quantum of residential and non-residential land uses identified above will spatially occur over time at specific locations within the municipality). Link future development needs with infrastructure requirements. o Identify, quantify and provide location requirements of engineering infrastructure and services provision for existing and future development needs for the next five years. Determine who will be responsible for implementing proposals. o Provide the spatial expression of the coordination, alignment and integration of sectoral policies of all municipal departments; and o Include an implementation plan comprising sectoral requirements, including budgets, resources for implementation, institutional requirements, targets, dates and monitoring indicators. Spatially determine where money should be spent. o Determine a capital expenditure framework for the municipality’s development programmes, depicted spatially.
2. Policy context and vision directives 2.1. National Directives 2.2.1. National Development Plan 2030 The NDP aims to eliminate poverty and reduce inequality by 2030. According to the plan, South Africa can realise these goals by drawing on the energies of its people, growing an inclusive economy, building capabilities, enhancing the capacity of the state, and promoting leadership and partnerships throughout society3.
The following is a summary of objectives from the National Development plan – as it relates to spatial planning. Note that specific objectives of social protection, fighting corruption and nation building have not been included as these are not deemed to have implications on the SDF.
Table 1: Summary of NDP objectives applicable to spatial planning
ECONOMY AND EMPLOYMENT
To eliminate poverty and reduce inequality, South Africa has to raise levels of employment and, through productivity and growth, the earnings of working people. South Africa needs faster growth and more inclusive growth. This should be achieved by Raising exports, improving skills development, lowering the cost of living for the poor, investing in competitive infrastructure, reducing the regulatory burden on small businesses, facilitating private investment and improving the performance of the labour market to reduce tension and ease access to young, unskilled work seekers
ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE
Improve access to the electrical grid. This should be done by ensuring adequate supply of coal for power stations (specific emphasis on the Waterberg Area) as well as Gas Supply, renewable energy sources and liquid fuels. Ensure that all people have access to clean, potable water whilst ensuring that there is enough water for agriculture and industry. This should be done through an investment programme for water resource development and wastewater management. The plan also mentions programmes for the improvement of water use and efficiency. Consolidate and expand transport and logistics sector – specific emphasis on capacity for coal transport as well as better public transport. Enhance ICT infrastructure – improve access to broadband whilst reducing the cost thereof.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND RESILIENCE.
Enhance land and oceans under protection Target reduction in greenhouse gas emissions
3 http://www.gov.za/issues/national-development-plan-2030
P a g e | 14
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Reduce was disposed to landfill sites. Focus on renewable energy. Invest in new agricultural technologies research and development of strategies to protect rural livelihoods.
INCLUSIVE RURAL ECONOMY
Create additional direct and indirect jobs un the agriculture agro-processing and related sectors. This should be done through improved infrastructure and service delivery, land tenure review and assistance to small and micro farmers. Possibly review and linking industry commitments to social and tourism investment.
TRANSFORMING HUMAN SETTLEMENTS
Establish a strong and efficient spatial planning system. Upgrade informal settlements Ensure more people living closer to their places of work through densification and better located housing and settlements. Better quality public transport More jobs in or close to dense, urban townships.
IMPROVING EDUCATION TRAINING AND INNOVATION
The South African education system needs urgent action. Building national capabilities requires quality early childhood development, basic education, further and higher education. Early childhood development should be broadly defined, taking into account all the development needs of a child, and provided to all children. The priorities in basic education are human capability, school management, district support, infrastructure and results-oriented mutual accountability between schools and communities. Further Education and Training colleges, public adult learning centres, sector education and training authorities, professional colleges and Community Education and Training Centres are important elements of the post-school system that provide diverse learning opportunities.
BUILDING A CAPABLE AND DEVELOPMENTAL STATE
A state that is capable of playing a developmental and transformative role, whilst at the same time insulated from political interference. Staff should be capacitates and be able to perform their responsibilities.
HEALTH CARE FOR ALL
Although not directly stated, the spatial implication of this theme would be to ensure access to health facilities to all communities.
SAFER COMMUNITIES
Although not directly stated, the spatial implication of this theme would be to ensure access to police stations to all communities.
2.2.2. State of the Nation Address 2015 President Jacob Zuma announced a nine-point plan to ignite growth and create jobs in his 2015 State of the Nation Address4. In the address five priorities were highlighted, creating decent jobs, education, health, fighting crime and rural development. Of these priorities, rural development stands out as a key directive, especially when focusing on the rural area of Lephalale Municipality. In terms of this key priority, Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform and MECs have signed delivery agreements for Outcome 7: Vibrant, Equitable and Sustainable Rural Communities and Food Security for All. In terms of this agreement the following outputs are considered important:
Output 1: Sustainable agrarian reform, Output 2: Improved access to affordable and diverse food Output 3: Rural services and sustainable livelihoods Output 4: Rural job creation linked to skills training and promoting economic livelihoods
4 http://www.gov.za/issues/key-issues
P a g e | 15
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Output 5: Enabling institutional environment for sustainable and inclusive growth
The specific implications of this aspect for Lephalale Municipality is reflected in the section dealing with the Rural Development Plan. 2.2.3. National Infrastructure Plan The National infrastructure Plan (NIP) seeks to promote:
re-industrialisation through manufacturing of inputs, components and machinery; skills development aimed at critical categories; greening the economy; and empowerment.
The NIP comprises 18 identified Strategic Integrated Projects (SIPs) which integrate more than 150 municipal infrastructure plans into a coherent package. Of specific importance to Limpopo (and Lephalale) are the following5:
SIP 1: Unlocking the northern mineral belt with Waterberg as the catalyst (with an emphasis on investment on heavy haul rail links to Richard’s Bay). o Unlock mineral resources. o Rail, water pipelines, energy generation and transmission infrastructure. o Thousands of direct jobs across the areas unlocked. o Urban development in Waterberg - first major post-apartheid new urban centre will be a “green” development project. o Rail capacity to Mpumalanga and Richards Bay. o Shift from road to rail in Mpumalanga. o Logistics corridor to connect Mpumalanga and Gauteng. SIP 6: Integrated Municipal Infrastructure Project: Programme to develop capacity to assist Vhembe, Sekhukhune, Capricorn and Mopani district municipalities to address all the infrastructure maintenance backlogs and upgrades required. SIP 7: Integrated Urban Space and Public Transport Programme: Coordinate planning and implementation of public transport, human settlement, economic and social infrastructure and location decisions into sustainable urban settlements connected by densified transport corridors. SIP 8: Green energy in support of the South African economy. SIP 9: Electricity generation to support socio-economic development (including Medupi power station). SIP 11: Increased investment in Agri-logistics and rural infrastructure. SIP 17: Regional Integration for African cooperation and development. SIP 18: Water and sanitation infrastructure.
2.2.4. Industrial Policy Action Plan (IPAP) Those key sectors most relevant to Limpopo Province would be:
Exploitation of opportunities arising from mining equipment capital investment Upstream oil and gas (Coal in the case of Limpopo Province) “Green” and energy-saving industries Agro-processing, linked to food security and food pricing imperatives Forestry, paper, pulp and furniture Creative and cultural industries linked to tourism in the Province Business process services Electro-technical and ICT
5 Limpopo Spatial Development Framework, 2016. Page 26.
P a g e | 16
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
2.2.5. Regional Industrial Development Strategy Limpopo’s critical advantage is its tourism, agricultural and mining, alongside the service industry in Polokwane. In a nutshell, it has a well-developed primary sector which is its national advantage over other and in particular the adjoining provinces.
Two of the four main mining nodes in South Africa are located in Limpopo (Lephalale and Phalaborwa). Furthermore, strategic linkages with the Mbombela cluster in Mpumalanga Province, the mining and energy cluster around Emalahleni-Middelburg, Gauteng Province and the export opportunities associated with the Maputo-Walvis Bay Development Corridor towards Botswana are important directives.
2.2.6. Agricultural Policy Action Plan (APAP) APAP stems from a concern that South Africa increasingly relies on imports of crops (wheat) and livestock products (poultry), while the agricultural sector increasingly relies on imports of inputs (e.g. fertiliser, feed, mechanisation). It argues that we need to establish a more sustainable and productive agricultural sector; to strengthen our competitiveness by supporting localization where potential exists, and to promote agricultural development in a manner that translates into rural development and poverty alleviation.
2.2.7. National Transport Master Plan The main purpose of the National Transportation Master Plan 2005-2050 is to motivate a prioritised programme for interventions to upgrade the transportation system in South Africa.
With respect to Lephalale the following should be noted:
Freight rail infrastructure expansion from Mbombela (Nelspruit) via Polokwane to Lephalale and to the untapped coal reserves; Freight rail infrastructure expansion from Lephalale via Rustenburg to Pretoria and Johannesburg to transport the coal reserves to other areas of the country – also the power stations in Mpumalanga; R510/R511/R512 linking Botswana to Lephalale, Thabazimbe, Rustenburg and Gauteng Province; N4 from Lephalale to Mokopane and Middelburg in Mpumalanga.
2.2.8. Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity The electricity expansion projects for the Province that emanated from the Eskom Transmission Development Plan (2015- 2024) are namely to extend the 400 kV and 275 kV networks to establish the 765 kV network (operated at 400 kV) integrating the Medupi Power Station, and to install additional transformers at existing and new substations.
2.2.9. Integrated Urban Development Framework The IUDF provides a holistic agenda for the management of urban areas and is designed to unlock the development synergy that comes from coordinated investments in people and places.
Four overall strategic goals are introduced:
Access: To ensure people have access to social and economic services, opportunities and choices. Growth: To harness urban dynamism for inclusive, sustainable economic growth and development. Governance: To enhance the capacity of the state and its citizens to work together to achieve social integration. Spatial transformation: To forge new spatial forms in settlement, transport, social and economic areas.
These goals, in turn, informed the priority objectives of the eight levers proposed by the IUDF, listed below:
Policy lever 1: Integrated Spatial Planning Policy lever 2: Integrated Transport and Mobility Policy lever 3: Integrated and Sustainable Human Settlements Policy lever 4: Integrated Urban Infrastructure
P a g e | 17
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Policy lever 5: Efficient Land Governance and Management Policy lever 6: Inclusive Economic Development Policy lever 7: Empowered Active Communities Policy lever 8: Effective Urban Governance
2.2.10. National Comprehensive Rural Development Programme Applicable objectives include the following:
Agrarian Transformation:
Facilitate the establishment of rural and agro-industries, co-operatives, cultural initiatives and vibrant local markets; Increase production and sustainable use of natural resources by promoting farming and related value chain development (exploring all possible species of food and economic activity).
Rural Development:
Access to community and social infrastructure, especially well-resourced clinics; Focus on the development of new and the rehabilitation of existing infrastructure; Improve and develop infrastructure conducive to economic development, for example distribution and transportation infrastructure, agricultural infrastructure, water and electricity infrastructure, market and storage infrastructure, retail infrastructure and telecommunications infrastructure. Improve and develop infrastructure conducive to social development, for instance sanitation infrastructure, health infrastructure, sports and recreation infrastructure and education infrastructure (especially ABET centres).
Land Reform:
Promote restitution, tenure reform and redistribution in a sustainable manner. Increase access to land by previously disadvantaged people. Establish agri-villages for local economic development on farms. Up-to-date information pertaining to land claims. Provide reliable and efficient property (deeds) registration system. Contribute to economic growth and housing development by providing government and private agents with essential land information in order to engage in planning as well as economic transactions. Provide spatial planning information and services to local municipalities and other public and private institutions that may require these services for development purposes.
2.2.11. The Agri-Parks Initiative The Department of Rural Development and Land Reform has been allocated R6bn over the next three years for Agri-park projects across South Africa and will draw in financial contributions from other departments and the private sector. The plan dovetails with the Department of Trade and Industry’s focus on agro-processing to create jobs and boost exports, with some of the planned Agri-parks linked with the department’s special economic zones. Although the Agri-park concept has been launched recently, it has major implications on the development of the Rural Development Plan, especially linked to the vision and development objectives of the plan. Some of the key definitions of the Agri-park concept is highlighted below.
Agri-park (AP)
The Agri-park is a system innovation of agro-production, processing, logistics, marketing and training and extension services located in District Municipalities. As a network it enables a market-driven combination and integration of various agricultural activities and rural transformation services.
Rural Urban Marketing Centre (RUMC)
RUMCs are located on the periphery of large urban areas, these facilities provide market intelligence assist farmers, processors in managing a nexus of contracts. With large warehousing and cold storage facilities to enable market management. Both FPSU’s and Agri-hubs provide inputs to the RUMC. Agri-parks share RUMCs. A RUMC should have a reach of between 150km - 250km.
P a g e | 18
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Agri-Hubs (AH)
Agri-hubs are located in central places in a District Municipality, preferably places both sufficient, physical and social infrastructure to accommodate; storage/warehousing facilities; Agri-processing facilities; packaging facilities; logistics hubs; agricultural technology demonstration parks; accommodation for extension support training; housing and recreational facilities for labourers. Agri-hubs receive primary inputs form FPSU’s for processing, value adding and packaging which is through-put into the Rural Urban Market Centres or exported directly to markets. Location parameters:
centrality and accessibility available infrastructure close to logistics brokerage networks (transport networks) has a reach of between 60km and 120km
Farmer Production Support Units (FPSU)
Are centres (more than one per district) of agricultural input supplies, extension support, mechanization support, local logistics support, primary produce collection, and through-put to Agri-hubs. The FPSUs have limited sorting, packaging, storage, processing for local markets with through-put of excess product to Agri-hubs.
Parameters: 10 – 30 Km reach depending on density from where agricultural activity takes place.
Logistics Brokerage
Are transport networks that operate between the FPSU’s - Agri-hubs - RUMCs and various derivatives thereof.
Producers of agricultural goods
This is where cropping takes place and can include both large scale farmers (LSH) and small holder farmer (SHF) or even communal farmers.
2.2. Provincial Policy Objectives 2.2.1. Limpopo State of the Province Address The Limpopo State of the Province Address of 2016 highlighted the following key aspects that may impact on spatial planning:
Commitment of resources towards skills development and job creation. More emphasis will be on technology, integration of digital systems and zero wastage in line with the knowledge economy. Beneficiation of mineral deposits, throughout the entire value chain to leverage the competitive advantage of this economic sector to the province. An emphasis was placed on Special Economic Zones to attract investment (specific referrals to Musina and Tubatse) The tourism sector remains one of the strategic economic competitive advantages of the province. An emphasis should be on biasness to cooperatives in villages and vast farmlands of Limpopo to stimulate the rural economy. Agriculture is important both for the creation of the much needed jobs and for our food security Emphasis on bettering education by addressing such critical issues as the inappropriate school infrastructure, the repairs to storm damaged schools, the provisioning of additional classrooms to areas experiencing growth, and the provisioning of water and sanitation in all schools Adoption of a multi-year Human Settlement Delivery Turnaround Strategy that is anchored on four pillars. These pillars include beneficiary management, geo-technical reports and foundation designs, partnership with material supplier, and contract management.
2.2.3. Limpopo Development Plan The visons of this plan (2015-2020) is to fulfil the potential for prosperity of Limpopo Province in a socially cohesive, sustainable, prosperous and peaceful manner. Critical provincial objectives include:
P a g e | 19
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Create decent employment through inclusive economic growth and sustainable livelihoods. Improve the quality of life of citizens. Prioritise social protection and social investment. Promote vibrant and equitable sustainable rural communities. Raise the effectiveness and efficiency of a developmental public service. Ensure sustainable development.
The following initiatives or concepts affect Lephalale and therefore the formulation of the SDF:
Regional co-operation with Botswana. Enhance economic growth through Provincial Growth Points (Lephalale). Targeted investment is required in order to optimally utilise the economic potential inherent to these areas. Establishment of Special Economic Zones (SEZ), an economic tool to promote growth and investment. Coal and Energy Cluster in Lephalale. The first stage of the Limpopo Coal and Petrochemical Cluster was established when the Grootegeluk Coalmine and Matimba Power Station was developed at Lephalale in the early 1980’s. Phase two of the process coincides with the current construction of the Medupi power station. Phase 3 will commence within the next five years and may include a new coalmine, a coal to liquids manufacturing plant, a third power station and possibly a new town in the vicinity of Steenbokpan. Mining activity may also expand across the national border into Botswana. A fourth phase scheduled to commence soon after 2020 may include another coalmine, power station and commercial application of coalbed methane gas. Beneficiation of by-products to the mining activity will be an important focus area, as will be the upgrading of road and rail infrastructure to provide coal from this area to power stations in Mpumalanga and to export coal via Richards Bay. Horticulture Cluster – with specific mention of Modimolle (linkages with the Rural Development Plan). Opportunities for the expansion of horticultural production lie in productivity increases on land reform projects, on the development of State-owned land and in the improvement of infrastructure and logistics in these areas. Red and White Meat Cluster. The entire Limpopo is suitable for grazing although the carrying capacity of the veld varies in different parts of the province. There is opportunity for considerable increases in output, employment and value chain development in all parts of the province. Agro Processing including the revitalisation of irrigation schemes, construction of packaging plants, operationalisation of existing Fresh Produce Markets, strengthening of agri-business capacity. Tourism Clusters with an emphasis of the biosphere and related opportunities. Rural development with emphasis of the following: o Improved land administration and spatial planning for integrated development in rural areas; o Sustainable land reform for agrarian transformation; o Improved food security; smallholder farmer development and support (technical, financial, infrastructure) for agrarian transformation; o Increased access to quality basic infrastructure and services, particularly in education, healthcare and public transport in rural areas; o Support for sustainable rural enterprises and industries characterised by strong rural urban linkages; and o Increased investment in agro-processing, trade development and access to markets and financial services resulting in rural job creation. 2.2.4. Limpopo Green Economy Plan The report concludes that Limpopo Province has the following advantages, which could position it as leader in this field:
Perfect geographic position to develop a variety of green industries and economies of scale; Invaluable mineral resource base for local beneficiation; Unexploited biodiversity resources for green tourism and payment for ecosystem services; and Vibrant young population to enthusiastically engage in new, innovative and developmental economic activities.
Implications for any SDF in the province are as follows:
All natural economic resources should be retained and indeed strengthened; Resource conservation and management is key (i.e. natural resources must be protected); Economic production is vital, and spatially this should be included in the SDF; Sustainable transport and infrastructure is critical for economic growth;
P a g e | 20
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Agriculture, food production and forestry are key i.e. productive agricultural land must be protected and retained since the Province must retain its status as ‘food basket in the subcontinent’; All local municipalities are part of this because the resource base is existing and vulnerable; Silicon reserves and the silicon smelters (in Polokwane) must be protected; and Development of solar farms should be considered.
2.2.5. Limpopo Provincial Spatial Development Framework (2016) Development Principle 1: Define and protect a Provincial Regional Open Space System which ensures that ecosystems are sustained and natural resources are utilised efficiently. This includes: o River courses and dams o All mountains and ridges o Declared conservation areas, nature reserves and conservancies o Critical biodiversity areas o Waterberg Biosphere Development Principle 2: Facilitate efficient spatial targeting through the identification of a range of provincial, district, municipal and rural nodal points to serve as focal points for investment and service delivery.
The following table is a summary of the different types of nodes identified in the Lephalale Local Municipality: Table 2: Limpopo SDF - nodal classification
Node category Areas affected Description
Provincial Ellisras/Onverwacht/ Provincial Growth Points represent the highest order nodes in the Growth Point. Marapong Node. Province. In most cases, these cities and towns have an established and diverse economy, together with a range of higher order social and
government services. Most importantly, these nodes have immense resource potential, predominantly mineral-related, which render them existing and/or future core nodes in the provincial, and even national economy. The bulk of future economic development will be undertaken by the private sector, but should be supported by public investment in sufficient and high quality engineering infrastructure, and additional social services to serve the fast-growing local populations.
Municipal Thabo Mbeki Municipal Growth Points represent large rural settlement clusters Growth Point (between 75 000 and 100 000 people), but with very small economic and institutional bases, and very limited local resources on which to build. However, they are accessible via the provincial road network, and thus well located to serve the respective population clusters. It is proposed that these areas be prioritised for the provision of engineering infrastructure, higher order community facilities, as well as economic infrastructure where relevant.
Rural Node Setateng, Ga-Seleka Rural Nodes/ Service Nodes are villages situated in the midst of a high Service Delivery number of small scattered villages that are isolated/ removed from the Points provincial road network. The isolated location of these villages is deterring efficient service delivery, hence the identification of a nodal point among these villages where services will be clustered to the benefit of the broader area. Limited economic and institutional bases at present. Social services are to be consolidated at these nodes to efficiently serve the extensive surrounding rural communities. Although small local economies might emerge over time as a result of the proposed agglomeration of public services, it is acknowledged that the economic potential of these nodes is less than the three types of Growth Points described above. The focus should thus be on community infrastructure and not necessarily economic infrastructure.
P a g e | 21
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
• Development Principle 3: Establish a multi modal transport network to optimise the movement of people and goods between nodes within the province and to all major destinations in Southern Africa. The proposed priority road network – comprising the provincial road network and selected secondary route sections – seeks to capitalise on Limpopo’s strategic location within southern Africa by linking to all eight border posts in the Province in order to support import and export activity and cross-border tourism. It links to all major tourism destinations such as the Kruger National Park and Waterberg and Vhembe Biospheres, and to all major nodes identified in Limpopo. o The SDF proposes that the GaSeleka-Thabo Mbeki-Setateng link (D3110) between R572 and R510 in Lephalale be earmarked for upgrading. o Railway section upgrades to the Lephalale-Thabazimbe line o Upgrade of road and rail linkages to Medupi power station at Lephalale; o Possible construction of a heavy haul rail link into Botswana – given that the untapped coal reserves in the vicinity of Lephalale extend well into Botswana. • Development Principle 4: Direct engineering infrastructure investment towards the priority nodal points where the majority of economic activity and human settlement will establish. o Prioritise infrastructure maintenance and expansion projects in line with the proposed provincial nodal network o These nodes represents a combination of well-located (in other words economically viable) points, where population numbers are expected to continuously increase as urbanisation trends prevail. If the bulk of future economic and residential development is consolidated around the proposed nodal network – as proposed in sub-sections that follow – then infrastructure investment in these nodes will serve a much larger population than what is currently possible. This will enhance the cost-benefit ratio to investments made in these areas. • Development Principle 5: Prioritise consolidation of community infrastructure at the identified nodal points and in line with the concept of multi-purpose Thusong Centres/ Rural Development Centres in Rural Nodes. • Development Principle 6: Create conditions conducive to development in multifunctional business areas and implement Urban Revitalisation Strategies in such areas where required. • Development Principle 7: Optimise the utilisation of agricultural potential of Limpopo Province to provide sustainable livelihoods to marginalised communities in rural areas in partnership with commercial farms. • Development Principle 8: Utilise the provincial environmental resources as attractions to promote sustainable tourism development (and conservation) in all parts of the Province. • Development Principle 9: Promote mining activity and associated job creation potential in an environmentally sustainable manner. Lephalale: Coal (may include new coalmines, a coal to liquids manufacturing plant, new power station powers, and commercial application of coalbed methane gas. Mining activity may also expand across the national border into Botswana). • Development Principle 10: Address industrial sectoral diversification by way of area specific investment in high value production and value added technologies and industries. The sectors are namely ‘Green’ industries; Agro- processing; and Metal fabrication. More specifically, Limpopo Province is particularly well-placed to focus on the following priority sectors: o Food, beverage and tobacco; o Textile, clothing and leather goods; o Petroleum products, chemicals, rubber and plastic; o Other non-metal mineral products; and o Metals, metal products, machinery and equipment. o Value chains in the provincial economy are generally very short, and there is especially potential for increased beneficiation in the mining and agricultural sectors • Development Principle 11: Sustainable Human Settlement in urban and rural Limpopo Province. Future ‘urban’ development (housing, economic infrastructure, community infrastructure, etc.) be consolidated around the identified nodes and that it be done to achieve the IUDF vision which reads as follow: “Liveable, safe, resource-efficient cities and towns that are socially integrated, economically inclusive and globally competitive, where residents actively participate in urban life”.
P a g e | 22
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
2.3. Local Policy Objectives (District/Municipal) 2.3.1. Waterberg District Rural Development Plan – 2015 The agricultural situational analysis from the RDP concludes that:
• The WDM is largely rural with activity confined mainly to agriculture, mining and tourism. The sector with the lowest barriers to entry and enhanced food security is the agricultural sector. • Water access is central to developing and enhancing agricultural value chains in the district especially among emerging subsistence farmers, as it will enable consistent production away from rain fed agriculture. • Agricultural activity is mainly subsistence, hence challenges in creating living wages for households that could see growth in indigent households. • Low levels of education among the local population make initiatives in agriculture one of the key means to enable food security and the creation of employment opportunities in the form of semi and unskilled employment. • There is a need to harness commercial production to stimulate the development of value chains that are inclusive to emerging subsistent farmers in the district, thereby enabling access to market and education on good agricultural practices. • Land tenure management systems are critical to the growth of subsistence farmers into smallholder farmers as it enables access to finance, markets and education.
Key recommendations from the plan that affects Lephalale is as follows:
• Modimolle as an Agri-Hub (production, equipment hire, processing, packaging, logistics and training unit) be utilised for strengthening the agricultural commodity value-chain in the entire Waterberg district municipality. • A farmer production support unit (FPSU) be established in Ga-Seleka.
Project identified by the municipality that is in support of this initiative include:
• Ikageng Tshehlong cooperative consists of six poultry houses; only four is functional with carrying capacity of 1000 birds each, the remaining two houses are still new with carrying capacity of 2500 birds each. • Mmamosiwa Coop supplying chicken to Reabetswe Village • Galeboe Broiler Project - of Senoela village, one broiler house with a carrying capacity of 1000. • Nailana project located by the main road from Seleka to Mokuruanyane village. • Segale Tshiamo. • RBM is a vegetable production project which measures 6ha in extent; it is a communal land with permission to occupy. The cooperative is situated at Shongoane 2 village. • Etla Rejeng Primary Cooperative • Phomelelo Boikanong Cooperative • Kgatelopele Agricultural Projectlocated at Moong village. • Botsalanong Agricultural Project situated at Botsalanong village. • Senoamadi Agricultural Project. • Bangwetse Primary Cooperative.
Other rural development related projects in the area include the following: Table 3: Rural development projects in Lephalale
No Project Name Location Status 1 Phahladira shopping centre Phahladira Village under construction 2 Solar Plant Tomburke Under construction 3 Ferrum Crescent iron ore mine Maritz Mining right approved but not operational yet 4 Thusanang Bakery primary Thabo Mbeki operational cooperative limited
P a g e | 23
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
2.3.2. Waterberg District Bioregional Plan – 2016 The plan maps specific biodiversity areas (CBA’s or critical biodiversity areas and ESA’s or ecological support areas). These areas can be seen in the map below. For each CBA or ESA a set of land use guidelines were developed: Table 4: Land use guidelines for CBA's and ESA's
No Land use Zone Associated Land use Activities CBA1 CBA2 ESA1 ESA2
Environmental Conservation management, low-intensity eco-tourism activities and 1 Y Y Y Y Conservation sustainable consumptive activities. CBA Map Overlay Zone / These are areas that are designated as biodiversity priority areas, namely 2 Bioregional Planning Y Y Y Y CBAs and ESAs; Overlay Zone
Tourism and Low Impact Tourism / Recreational and Accommodation. R R Y Y 3 Accommodation High Impact Tourism / Recreational and Accommodation (e.g. golf estates). N N N R
Low density rural housing or eco-estates. R R R R 4 Rural Residential Traditional Areas (existing) and Rural Communal Settlement (New). N N R R
Extensive Game Farming Y Y Y Y
Extensive Livestock Production Y Y Y Y
Game Breeding / Intensive Game Farming N N N N 5 Agriculture Arable Land - Dryland and Irrigated Crop Cultivation N N R Y
Plantation Forestry: Timber Production. N N N Y Agricultural Infrastructure - Intensive Animal Farming (e.g. feedlot, dairy, N N N N piggery, chicken battery). 6 Municipal Commonage Local agri-economic development. N R R Y
7 Open-Space Public or Private Open-Space, including recreational areas, parks etc. Y Y Y Y Low, low-medium, medium-high, and high density urban residential 8 Residential N N N N development. (= NW = Urban & Business Development) An amalgamation of land use zones, including Institutional, Urban 9 Urban Influence Influence, General Mixed Use, Low Impact Mixed Use, Suburban Mixed Use N N N N and General Business. (= NW = Urban & Business Development Low or High Impact and Low Impact, General Industry and High Impact Industry (Urban & Business 10 N N N N General Industry Development). Transportation service land uses e.g. airports, railway stations, petro-ports 12 Transport Services and truck stops, bus and taxi ranks and other transport depots. = NW = R R R R Linear Engineering Structures) Existing and planned linear infrastructure such as hardened roads and railways, including activities and buildings associated with road 13 Roads and Railways R R R R construction and maintenance, e.g. toll booths, construction camps and road depot sites. (Linear Engineering Structures) Linear engineering structures, such as pipelines, canals and power lines. R R R R (Linear Engineering Structures) Small-scale Infrastructural installations, including wastewater treatment N R R R works and energy sub-stations Large-scale Infrastructure installations, including bulk water transfer 14 Utilities schemes, impoundments (Water Projects & Transfers), and energy- N N N N generation facilities (powers stations). Renewable Energy (PV farms and solar arrays) N N N N
Renewable Energy (wind farms) N R R R
Prospecting and Underground Mining N R R R Quarrying and opencast mining (includes surface mining, dumping & 15 Quarrying and Mining N N N N dredging). Hydraulic Fracturing N N R R
Y YES, permitted and actively encouraged activity
N NO, not permitted, actively discouraged activity
R RESTRICTED to compulsory, site-specific conditions & controls when unavoidable, not usually permitted
P a g e | 24
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Figure 4: Waterberg Bioregional Plan
P a g e | 25
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
2.3.3. Waterberg District IDP 2016/2017 The following items form the District IDP have a spatial implication:
Spatial challenges and opportunities:
• Illegal occupation of land (Informal Settlements) • Poor quality of RDP houses. • Formalisation of informal settlements • Poor understanding of Spatial Planning issues (Spatial Development Frameworks, Land Use Management System, and Integrated Development Plans). • Delayed restitution of land. • Inadequate land for development. • Poor planning in rural areas due to poor implementation of land use management scheme. • Illegal subdivision of agricultural land. • Poor community participation on land use planning. • Inadequate staff compliment to deal with spatial and land use management. • Dismantling of racial settlement in municipalities. • Delays in transfer of land. • Delay in settling outstanding land claims can create a risk to investors. • Mushrooming of informal Settlements in towns and townships • Flooding affects numerous villages and areas in Lephalale - Thabo-Mbeki, Mamojela Park informal settlement, Mogol farming communities along D171 route and Beska bridge, Mokuruanyane, Kauletsi, Martinique, Abbotspoort, Shongoane 1-3 and Ga-Seleka. The district IDP highlights mining, agriculture and tourism as important economic sectors in the Waterberg District.
Mining potential (coal mining) and the corresponding opportunities in power generation within the Ellisras area. Agricultural potential: o For crop farmers there have been dramatic changes in many commodity prices leading to changes in cropping patterns. o Crops such as cotton, tobacco, maize and sorghum have been badly affected by low international prices and over production and plantings have been reduced significantly, often with negative financial and employment implications. o Alternative crops like sunflower, wheat, soya beans, groundnuts and paprika are all internationally traded commodities and thus sensitive to the rand/dollar exchange rate. These crops therefore are limited substitutes. o Lucerne appears to have some potential, especially with the movement towards game ranching, although demand is sensitive to seasonal conditions. o Potato production also has some potential although entry is constrained by high input costs. In general there is little cropping that takes place without some form of irrigation. With demand on water resources increasing consistently crop farmers are going to have to examine their returns on the use of water in future. o The cattle and game industry is undergoing significant transformation. Lead by water constraints, areas previously under dry land and irrigation are being consolidated and converted for extensive livestock production. Similarly other former cultivated land and livestock grazing is being converted to game ranching and eco-tourism. Even within the game ranching industry owners are diversifying into lodges and eco-tourism. This general trend has been encouraged by the establishment and development of the Waterberg Biosphere. This trend is expected to continue.
The IDP further quantifies the housing backlog in the municipality as: Table 5: Housing backlog in Lephalale Municipality Housing type Units Backyard rental 6 300 Rural 3 801 Gap market 660
P a g e | 26
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Social 2 546 CRU 7 000 Project Linked 450 Total Backlog 20 757
2.3.4. Waterberg District SDF The Waterberg SDF (Figure 13.3) is aligned with the Provincial Spatial Rationale and attempts to ensure alignment and integration between the six local municipalities in its area of jurisdiction. The following proposals emanated from the District SDF that particularly affect the Lephalale Local Municipality:
The stimulation of priority nodes and corridors by means of focused investment in areas where settlement must be encouraged, and redevelopment initiatives that engender consolidation of settlement areas, while discouraging excessive investment in areas where settlement must be discouraged. Lephalale (Ellisras) is one of the District’s capital/First Order Settlements (Provincial Growth Points). The northern leg of route R510 to Lephalale, as well as route D1458 to Marakele Nature Reserve, are identified as Tourism Corridors. The routes have strong ties to the Waterberg Biosphere in the central parts of the District. Undesirable/sensitive development should not occur in areas earmarked as environmentally sensitive, including within the Biosphere. 2.3.5. Lephalale Local Municipality SDF 2012 2.3.5.1. Nodal points & the hierarchy of settlements Provincial Growth Point (PGP) - The Lephalale PGP consists of the townships/neighbourhoods of Ellisras, Onverwacht and Marapong Municipal Growth Point (MGP) - The Thabo Mbeki MGP is proposed as a Municipal Growth Point (MGP) for the municipal area, and consists of the townships/settlements of Lepurupurung, Witpoort and Thabo Mbeki. Due to its central location, current facilities including availability of engineering services, this cluster is proposed to serve the rural settlements in the eastern parts of the study area at a higher level than merely local service points as previously provided. It is therefore most suitable to escalate this node to a higher level and make provision for establishment of a higher level of services, including a proper Secondary Activity Node which may contain a shopping centre and/or a Thusong Centre Population Concentration Points (PCP). The Ga-Seleka PCP or cluster consists of the settlements of Ga-Seleka, Kauletsi and Mohlased. The Setateng PCP consists of the settlements of Setateng, Ga-Monyeki and Mmathaldi and lies on the municipal border. Local Service Points (LSP). Tom Burke LSP; Marnitz LSP; Makuranyane LSP; and Steenbokpan LSP. The settlements of Makuruanyane Martinique, Makuruanyane Neckar, Makuruanyane Abbottspoort and Ditaung will form a new cluster and LSP. This is aimed at filling the small “gap” between the Thabo Mbeki MGP and Setateng PCP as well as to ensure that the villages such as Keletse le Mma, Kiti, Motsweding and Ga-Maeleletsa are properly served. In this new node the municipality may consider a Thusong Centre.
2.3.5.2. Development corridors and strategic links Development Corridors (DC) are links or transport routes between nodes with an increased intensity of development (mixed land use) in a linear form along the entire length of the route/corridor or at strategic intersections with lower order routes along such a corridor.
DC 1 – the Setateng/Lephalale/Steenbokpan Development Corridor. This DC is the most important corridor in the study area and it links the largest part of Limpopo (from Polokwane) with Lephalale. It would especially link “external areas” with the core of the envisaged energy hub. The corridor furthermore inks the eastern rural residential settlements with the Lephalale PGP and potential job opportunities in the Steenbokpan area. DC2 - The Gauteng/Vaalwater/Lephalale Development Corridor. DC2 therefore serves as a rapid transport corridor linking Gauteng with Lephalale without any major form of development along the corridor. This is mainly due to the environmental sensitivity of the area as identified in other parts of the study. However, the corridor should also be
P a g e | 27
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
characterised as a tourism route linking visitors from Gauteng with private game lodges and the biosphere in these parts. DC3 - The Mokopane/Tom Burke/Botswana Development Corridor. This DC is distinguished from the other two corridors by its character as national route between Botswana and Limpopo. At this point in time it also links Lephalale with Botswana and serves as major “export route” for products such as red meat. Therefore, the Strategic Links (SL3 & SL4) between Lephalale and Tom Burke play an important role as well.
Strategic Links are link roads or transport routes between nodes and Development Corridors which provide in a level of connectivity between such points. It may also link internal nodes with outside areas (e.g. other municipalities or outside nodes). However, they are not corridors for development although they may also contain Development Corridor Activity Zones (DCAZ’s) at strategic intersections. Table 6: Strategic link roads for Lephalale SDF (2012)
Strategic link Description Importance
SL1 R516 and R510 – From Vaalwater to Lephalale. Alternative link between Vaalwater and Lephalale and link from Thabazimbe.
SL2 R510 – From Thabazimbe to Lephalale Link from Thabazimbe to Lephalale.
SL3 R510 – From Lephalale to Stockpoort Link from Lephalale to Stockpoort and Tom Burke LSP’s
SL4 R572 – From R510 to Tom Burke/DC3 Link Lephalale and rural areas with DC3 and Tom Burke LSP.
SL5 Road between SL 4 and SL 10, finally lining to DC Link rural settlements and Thabo Mbeki MGP with 1 through rural settlements. Lephalale PGP via DC1
SL6 District road between R510 and Steenbokpan Link Steenbokpan with Thabazimbe and Vaalwater
SL7 District road between Steenbokpan and Link Steenbokpan with Stockpoort and Botswana Stockpoort
SL8 Urban arterial route between DC1 & DC2, Connect PGP with passing DC’s and provide for running through Lephalale PGP internal connectivity between neighbourhoods/strategic areas within PGP. Also strategic link to proposed airport.
SL9 Urban arterial route between DC1 & DC2, Connect PGP with passing DC’s and provide for running through Lephalale PGP internal connectivity between neighbourhoods/ strategic areas within PGP, especially Marapong with Onverwacht and Altoostyd.
SL10 District road between Marnitz LSP running Link LSP with rural settlements and DC1. through rural settlements and finally linking with R518 which becomes DC 1.
SL11 District road between R510 (from Vaalwater & Link road for purposes of haul road transport. Thabazimbe) and Stockpoort passing close to existing PGP.
SL12 Road between Lephalale PGP (passing Linking Lephalale PGP and DC1 with SL 11. Linking Marapong) up to District Road. PGP with Stockpoort.
Development activity corridors zone (DACZ) is an activity area or small node where mixed land uses and limited economic activities are clustered together along an identified development corridor or strategic link or intersection of higher order routes or streets to make use of the potential created by the intersection and further to intercept passing traffic at that point.
P a g e | 28
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
These DCAZ’s are not nodes in the same order as growth points or local service points and may be limited to one or two small activities/land uses in the case where it falls outside an urban edge. Within the demarcated Development Edge of a settlement or within Growth Points, these DCAZ’s may grow much larger and even be classified as Secondary Activity Nodes.
The municipality should over time and by means of further study, explore the potential and provide guidelines for the development of these DCAZ’s. The intensity of land uses at these DCAZ’s, should however not be in the same order (size) as those functional in Secondary Activity Nodes, and should never compromise the sustainability or viability of Activity Nodes or higher order settlements itself, unless such DCAZ is of course located within an development edge or SDA. Once Activity Zones are established successfully at strategic intersections of the Development Corridors, the municipality may in future (in reviews of the SDF) consider that these activity areas be extended along a greater part of the Development Corridor. It is not recommended that DCAZ’s be extended along Strategic Links. On these order of routes it should be restricted to the intersection only. The municipality should take care in the meanwhile not to permit unwanted linear development along routes to the prejudice of the concept/principle to strengthen the existing nodal points and growth points contained in this development strategy.
2.3.5.3. Development edges As part of the 2012 SDF, development edges that serves to manage, direct and limit urban expansion was developed for a number of areas. These are depicted in the following maps: Figure 5: Development edges and growth management SDF 2012
P a g e | 29
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
P a g e | 30
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
P a g e | 31
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
2.3.5.4. Strategic development areas (SDA’s) The 2012 SDF identified 11 strategic development areas and provided the estimated number of dwelling units for each. Table 7: Lephalale SDF 2012 - Strategic development areas
SDA Settlement names SDA Size (Ha) Dwellings (low Dwellings scenario) (high scenario)
SDA1 Tselammake 52 600 800
SDA6 Letlora 85 960 1 280
SDA2 Thabo Mbeki, Lepurupurung & 406 4 500 6 000 Witpoort.
SDA3 Makuruanyane Martinique, M/Neckar, 257 2 850 3 800 M/Abbottspoort & Ditaung
SDA5 Setateng, Ga-Monyeki & Matladi 437 4 950 6 600
SDA9 Steenbokpan 900 9 450 12 600
SDA7 Ellisras Town South 769 11 400 14 250
SDA8 Ellisras Town North 650 9 800 12250
SDA9 Altoostyd 540 8 000 12 500
SDA11 Onverwacht 584 10 800 13 500
Total 4591 58 260 77 480
2.3.5.5. Proposed development areas (SDA’s) PDA1 - Groblersbrug border post. The focus would be to serve the farming and agricultural activities in the immediate area as well as to serve as main border post for tourists between South Africa and Botswana. PDA2 – Areas close to Ellisras/Onverwacht/Marapong Node associated with mining potential. It includes the farms Eendracht, Groothoek, Peerboom and Welgelegen. It represents the area between Marapong and Ellisras/Onverwacht townships. Although previously identified for mining, the land is located strategically to be used for future residential development in order to ensure integration of the remotely removed Marapong. Its importance from a strategic and spatial planning point of view is very high because it is the only area which will in actuality ensure that Marapong and Ellisras towns are integrated properly in order to ensure that integrated human settlements are created in the future. The development of a mining area between Marapong and Ellisras will create a final “barrier” between these areas where no integration is possible. Note that that here are competing land uses in terms of the Groothoek Coal Mining Company which intend to mine in the area. PDA3 & 4 – Stockpoort border post & proposed border post/node along SL7. These PDA’s have the potential to establish closer links with Botswana and hence also serve the western parts of the study area with focus on the mining and energy generation industry.
2.3.5.6. Activity nodes and development areas Primary Activity Node (P) – Ellisras CBD. Secondary Activity Nodes – various shopping centres. Aero zone - The proposed Aero Zone (AZ) includes an airport and related industrial areas. The idea of the proposed AZ is that activities in support of the airport such as warehouses for freight air, be provided for, in support of a higher level of services/facilities required for purposes of the envisaged city.
P a g e | 32
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Industrial Development Zone (IDZ) & Mining Zone (MZ). These uses/areas are in support of the extensive mining activities and power station located elsewhere in the municipal area and in the SDF. Some of the power stations close to Lephalale are also accommodated within this IDZ. Environmental protection & Tourism Zone (ETZ). In general, the areas for Biodiversity Protection/Environmental Sensitive Areas depicted in this figure should be regarded as “no-go areas” for development, especially human settlements. However, environmental protection should not be limited to this zone/area only. Throughout the municipal area there may be other areas with environmental or heritage protection status and when detail development or township establishment is considered, it should be accompanied by the necessary procedure contemplated in the applicable legislation (The National Environmental Management Act). Agricultural and Farming Zone (AFZ). Mining & energy generation areas (EMEZ). The western and north-western parts of the study area are characterised by a major potential for mining activity.
2.3.6. Lephalale Local Municipality IDP 2016/2017 The IDP provide the following key outcomes and objectives related to spatial planning:
Rational planning to bridge first and second economies and provide adequate land for development. o Safe and formalised housing structures. o Outdoor advertising. o Sustainable integrated rural development o Orderly land use Sustainable integrated urban development o Land availability for development. Employment opportunities
2.3.7. Lephalale CBD Development Plan Development Principles: To protect and optimally utilise the regional open space system; To construct the northern bypass road; To consolidate the Lephalale CBD and Onverwacht activity node into a new Primary Activity Node and establish a number of supporting secondary activity nodes; To link Marapong with Lephalale Town; To consolidate the bulk of business activity within the primary and secondary activity nodes; To promote commercial and light industrial activities in the northern parts of the primary activity node; To consolidate heavy industrial activities within the Industrial Development Zone (IDZ); To maintain existing community facilities in the primary activity node, and to promote the consolidation of new community facilities in the Altoostyd node; To prioritise residential infill residential development within the existing urban footprint between the Altoostyd node, the northern bypass and Lephalale CBD, and to support residential densification around activity nodes; To enhance the aesthetic quality of nodes by implementing urban design guidelines; and To upgrade and expand engineering service infrastructure to accommodate and guide the imminent growth of Lephalale Town.
P a g e | 33
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Figure 6: Lephalale CBD Development Plan
P a g e | 34
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Figure 7: Geology
3. Spatial analysis 3.1. Biophysical environment 3.1.1. Geology The topography of an area is influenced by the geological nature of the specific area. Geology also has an influence on soil types and agricultural potential. There is generally more than one rock type for each rock formation. For the purposes of the spatial development framework, a broad overview of the geology of the area is provided, however, as variations occur, development must be subject to a geotechnical analysis.
The major geological formations in the rea include Arenite (southern portion of the municipality), Gneiss and Sedimentary formations affecting the Rural Area and Shale affecting the eastern part of the municipality.
None of the major geological formations require specific land use management or spatial planning considerations as it do not impose limitations on development. Rather it causes or leads to different terrain types, soils types and slope types – which in turn do have specific implications for spatial planning and land use management. Each of these will be investigated separately.
P a g e | 35
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Figure 8: Slope 3.1.2. Slope Slope steepness determines whether or not a particular site can be developed. As slopes become steeper, the provision of infrastructure become more difficult and expensive. Slope is generally measured in the form of a percentage and steep slopes are usually classified as slopes in a range of 12-33%. The average slope of a site is used in regulating steep slopes. The table below specifies the development potential at various degree levels of slope. Table 8: Slope %
Degree of slope (%) Development Potential
0% - 3% Generally suitable for all development and uses
3% - 8% Suitable for medium density residential development, agriculture, industrial and institutional uses
8% to 15% Suitable for moderate to low-density residential development, but great care should be exercised in the location of any commercial, industrial or institutional uses.
15% to 25% Only suitable for low-density residential, limited agricultural and recreational uses.
Over 25% Only used for open space and certain recreational uses.
In general the municipality is quite flat, except for the south eastern part of the municipality. Some small hills also occur in the rural focus area. Steep slopes is a development constrains and should be indicated as such in the spatial development framework.
P a g e | 36
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Figure 9: Terrain Type 3.1.3. Terrain Type Terrain type is mainly derived from slope and relief. The majority of the municipality can be described as exhibiting a terrain type of “level plains with some relief”. This type of terrain type has the least implication on provision of services and human settlements. The south eastern part of the municipality are characterised as high hills, open low mountains and low mountains. This type of terrain type in general lends itself to conservation related as well as tourism related land uses due to its scenic nature. In Lephalale these areas are included as part of the Waterberg Biosphere.
Development implications:
Where possible keep development away from hills or mountainous terrain types, these ads significantly to the cost of providing infrastructure and development can contribute towards erosion or environmental problems. Protect scenic areas as part of a municipal open space system.
P a g e | 37
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Figure 10: Soil Classes 3.1.4. Soil Classes Dominant soil classes were created for the use in algorithms for the assessment of agricultural potential in conjunction with rainfall and soil depth data. The following table and map depicts the soil classes within Lephalale Local Municipality. The majority of the Municipality consists of freely drained, structure less soils. Table 9: Soil Classes Classification
Soil Class Favorable properties Limitations May have restricted soil depth Freely drained, Favorable physical Excessive drainage structure less soils properties High erodibility Low natural fertility High swell-shrink potential; very Swelling clay soils High natural fertility plastic and sticky Restricted soil depth; associated with Lithosols (shallow May receive water runoff rockiness soils on hard or from associated rock weathering rock) Restricted land use options Non soil land classes May be water-intake areas One or more of: Undifferentiated Favorable physical structure less soils properties - low base status,
- restricted soil depth
- excessive or imperfect drainage
- high erodibility Restricted depth Association of May have favorable Imperfect drainage Classes 17 and 19: physical properties High erodibility Structure less and Somewhat high natural Slow water infiltration textural contrast fertility Seasonal wetness soils Relative wetness favorable in dry areas
Source: Agricultural Research Council.
P a g e | 38
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Figure 11: Swelling Clay 3.1.5. Swelling Clay The type of swelling clay to be found in Lephalale is described as having very low to moderate (in limited cases) swell-shrink potential. These cracking clays take in water readily when dry but exhibit high runoff when wet and expanded. Areas around Bangalong, Mapela and Thao Mbeki exhibit low to moderate shrink-swell potential. These expansive soils can damage foundations or walls of buildings by “uplifting” as the moisture content increases. This will typically occur only in relative whet seasons. The fact that is does not happen during dry seasons (as we are currently experiencing) does therefore not mean that this can be ignored.
Implications for the Rural Focus area LSDF:
Highlight the Low-moderate and moderate categories of swelling clay on detail SDF and land use scheme maps. In these areas, enforce a geotechnical study before approving any human settlement applications.
Photo 2: Example of cracking walls due to swelling clay
P a g e | 39
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Figure 12: Soil drainage 3.1.6. Soil Drainage In water-limited South-Africa, soils with poor or impeded drainage constitute a potentially valuable resource. In the eastern high rainfall areas in South Africa, soils with poor drainage commonly support wetlands, highly valued for their role in hydrology, biodiversity and water quality. Soils with impeded drainage in high rainfall areas can become a challenge with respect to best practice land use technologies. In drier parts of the country, some of the soil groups with impeded drainage constitute a valuable contribution to agricultural resource. The rain-fed production of small grains in the summer rainfall area is largely dependent on soils with impeded drainage. While these soils may be too wet in most years during the production of summer crops, water transfer from the summer season to the subsequent winter enables diversified land use options (ARC-ISCW, 2005). Soil drainage throughout the municipal area is deemed to be well or excessive.
P a g e | 40
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Figure 13: Susceptibility to water erosion 3.1.7. Water erosion There are a few land characteristics which determine the susceptibility of land to water erosion. These are slope gradient and length, soil erodibility and rainfall erosivity. These land characteristics determine erosion hazard. All of these parameters are somewhat problematic to some extent (ARC-ISCW, 2005). In general, most of Lephalale is subject to “low erodibility” with the exception of some pockets of land (indicated in brown and grey on the map) where water erosion may become an issue. These areas do, however, occur in the non-populated area of the municipality and therefore are not subject to land uses such as over-grazing or sand mining that could further exacerbate the problem.
P a g e | 41
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Figure 14: Susceptibility to wind erosion 3.1.8. Wind erosion The main danger of wind erosion is the loss of fine materials from topsoil in the form of dust. By losing fine materials (fine silt and clay) the soil loses much of its ability to provide plants with nutrients and water. The main factors in determining the susceptibility to wind erosion are particle size of the topsoil, wind speed, topography, soil cover, soil water content and aggregation of soil particles (ARC-ISCW, 2005). The following areas of concern should be noted that apply to Lephalale:
Much of the area earmarked for future mining are indicated on the map in red as highly susceptible to wind erosion. The open cast nature of the Grootgeluk Coal mine, for example, can greatly contribute to pollution. This is further complicated by the occurrence of shifting sands in these areas. Photo 3: Grootgeluk open cast coal mine
Some areas in the Rural Focus Area indicate a susceptibility for wind erosion. Land management practises should prevent over-grazing or other practises which can contribute to further wind erosion.
P a g e | 42
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
3.1.9. Climate The temperature of Lephalale varies between a maximum of 33 degrees Celsius in summer months to around 2 degrees Celsius in winter. The populated areas of the municipality also experience some of the hottest weather – this could impact negatively on agricultural land uses – especially in the Rural Focus area where subsistence agriculture is the major economic sector.
Rainfall in Lephalale averages between 400mm and 600mm per year with most rainfall occurring mainly during mid-summer.
Climate change – what can we expect?
The Department of Environmental Affairs recently published a fact sheet summarising the possible impact of climate change on human settlements: Table 10: Climate change impacts on human settlements
Climate change phenomenon Consequences for human settlements
General warming, more frequent Intensified heat island effect and intense hot days and nights, Increased energy demand for cooling fewer and less intense cold days and Declining air quality in cities nights. Reduced energy demand for heating
Extreme weather, heat waves and Increased water demand drought. Water quality problems Increased risk of heat related mortality, especially for the elderly, chronically sick, very young and poor. Reduction in the quality of life for people without adequate housing.
Extreme weather, intense Adverse effects on quality of surface and precipitation and severe storms. groundwater, contamination of water supply, Increased risk of death, injury disease. Displacement of people and distress migration to urban areas.
P a g e | 43
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Pressures on urban and rural infrastructure The adaptive capacity of rural areas can be greatly increased with effective land resulting in power outages, disruption of public reform that promotes small holding, provides adequate support (financial, water supplies and transport. material and training) for recipient farmers and does not disrupt traditional farming practises. The factsheet also highlight specific impact on rural settlements (and therefore highly applicable to the Rural Focus Area).
Reduced productivity of subsistence farmlands as a result of rising temperatures, Implications for spatial planning and land use management: unreliable rainfall, water scarcity and bush encroachment. The extreme nature of weather related events (e.g. rainfall) can lead to severe Reduced productivity of rangelands as a result of drought, bush encroachment, floods. This is especially applicable in the Rural Focus Area where a number of malnutrition and disease. communities are located within close proximity to the Lephalale River. The villages Increased vulnerability to water shortages because in increased evaporation, that originated within Traditional Authority Areas have never been subjected to changes in rainfall, damage to infrastructure from floods and storm surges, the demands and requirements of the official planning processes (e.g. flood line because of diminished biodiversity in already degraded ecosystems. studies etc.); rather these villages have grown organically in response to historic Physical isolation of rural communities as a result of poor rural roads and increased patterns. Simply put – some of these villages may have grown to within a flood line flooding and erosion. simply because “it has never flooder here before”. Climate change can lead to Reduced food security, particularly of subsistence farmers and resultant increase different weather patterns. Care should be taken to include sufficient public open in malnutrition. space next to rivers to minimise flood risk. Increased migration from rural settlements to urban and peri-urban settlements. Climate change is already leading to changing land use patterns. The IDP highlights Proposed adaptation responses for urban areas (Ellisras/Onverwacht/Marapong): that cultivation is giving way to animal husbandry due to availability of water. Changing land use patterns due to climate change should be considered in land Better planning and management of water services. use planning. Water demand will have to be progressively managed and reduced by means of Engineering design and ecological infrastructure such as wetlands to water restrictions, higher tariffs, leak reduction, pressure management o reduces accommodate storm water run-off should be considered and planned for. losses from leaks, awareness campaigns and incentives to promote efficiency. Resilient infrastructure should be promoted (e.g. storm water drains) and all infrastructure should be made more resilient to accelerated weathering and deterioration.
Adaptation responses for rural areas (Rural Focus Area) include:
Improved ecological management such as restoration of wetlands and river corridors that limits water runoff. Farm support in the form of subsidies and provision of equipment. Crucially, support should be accompanied by agricultural extensions services that are used to promote climate smart agriculture.
P a g e | 44
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Figure 15: Hydrology 3.1.10. Hydrology The Lephalale municipal area falls in the Limpopo River catchment area. The Mokolo (previously known as the Mogol) and the Lephalale (also referred to as the Phalala) rivers run through the municipal area to the north, with the Matlabas River running along the south eastern boundary and the Mogalakwena River along the eastern boundary. All four rivers feed into the Limpopo River which forms the north western border of South Africa with Botswana. A study commission in 2010 developed a 1:100 year flood line for the Phalala River between the R518 and R572. Almost all villages located alongside the river are at risk should the river flood. A total of approximately 1500 structures are at risk of flooding. The table below highlights which settlements are affected: Table 11: Settlements affected by Phalala Flood line
Settlement Structures The two settlements most affected by the flood Abbotspoort 69 line is Thabo Mbeki (832 structures) and Beauty Beauty 174 (174 structures). Bossche Diesch 45 Ditloung 19 The set of maps following provides a higher Ga-Monyeki 27 resolution set of maps that maps the flood line in Kauletsi 3 relation to villages. Farms and rural areas 178 Implications for spatial planning and land use Letlora 24 management: Martinique 16 Matladi 1 The flood line should be included as an overlay Necker 28 zone when developing the land use scheme for Nkotomeng 10 the area. Setateng 53 The flood line should be incorporated into the Shongoane 3 LSDF for the area to inform future township Thabo Mbeki 832 establishment and land allocation. Tshelamake 12 Villa Nora 8 Total 1 502
P a g e | 45
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Figure 16: Section 1 - Villages affected by Phalala flood line Figure 17: Section 2 - Villages affected by Phalala flood line
P a g e | 46
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Figure 18: Land capability 3.1.11. Agriculture The map alongside (compiled using the land capability index of the Agricultural Research Council of South Africa) indicates that the populated areas of Lephalale are more suited to grazing than the cultivation of crops. The portion of the municipality that is e suited for agriculture forms part of the Waterberg Biosphere area which imposes certain limitations in terms of land use activities that can be exercised in this area.
Waterberg District contributes almost 30% of the Limpopo Province agricultural activity, agriculture contributes over 4% of the District GGP and it employs around 21% of the labour force of the District. Although named the Waterberg the district is actually classified as a semi-arid area with poor water resources. For crop farmers there have been dramatic changes in many commodity prices leading to changes in cropping patterns. Crops such as cotton, tobacco, maize and sorghum have been badly affected by low international prices and over production and plantings have been reduced significantly, often with negative financial and employment implications. Alternative crops like sunflower, wheat, soya beans, groundnuts and paprika are all internationally traded commodities and thus sensitive to the rand/dollar exchange rate.
The cattle and game industry is undergoing significant transformation. Lead by water constraints, areas previously under dry land and irrigation are being consolidated and converted for extensive livestock production. Similarly other former cultivated land and livestock grazing is being converted to game ranching and eco-tourism. Even within the game ranching industry owners are diversifying into lodges and eco-tourism. This general trend has been encouraged by the establishment and development of the Waterberg Biosphere. This trend is expected to continue.
Subsistence agriculture plays an important role in the Rural Focus Area, with cultivated land alongside almost every village. The map on the adjoin page highlights this important land use.
P a g e | 47
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Figure 19: Cultivated land The rural development plan for Waterberg District Municipality has earmarked Ga-Seleka as possible location for the Farmer Production Support Unit located in the Municipality. Tis FPSU will be linked to the Agri-Hub located in Modimolle.
Existing small markets exist in some of the larger villages where produce such as cabbage, tomatoes and broiler chickens are sold. Photo 4: Market in Shongoane
P a g e | 48
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Some key agricultural statistics are provided below: Figure 20: Agricultural household activity
Households engaged in agricultural activity
Other 724
Production of other crops 1909
Vegetable production 903
Poultry production 2668
Livestock production 3627
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Figure 21: Type of agricultural activity
Households engaged in agricultural activity
Other 289
Mixed farming 1278
Animals only 3893
Crops only 1297
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
P a g e | 49
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Figure 22: Protected areas 3.1.12. Protected Areas A total of 53 protected areas can be found inside the boundaries of Lephalale Local Municipality. Of main importance is the location of the Waterberg Biosphere in the South Eastern portion of the municipality, inclusive of the proposed extension area indicated on the map. The Waterberg Biosphere Reserve represents a considerable area of savanna biome of Southern Africa and contains a high level of biological diversity including many Red Data and orange listed species of conservation concern, and many endemic species. Habitats are sufficiently represented to ensure that the current high biodiversity is maintained. The low human density ensures large areas of unspoiled wilderness and open spaces are a main characteristic of the Waterberg Biosphere Reserve.
The protected areas in the municipality lends itself to eco-tourism - form of tourism involving visiting fragile, pristine, and relatively undisturbed natural areas, intended as a low-impact and often small scale alternative to standard commercial (mass) tourism. Its purpose may be to educate the traveller, to provide funds for ecological conservation, to directly benefit the economic development and political empowerment of local communities, or to foster respect for different cultures and for human rights. A list of all the protected areas can be found in annexure A (the number on the map corresponds with the field in the table labelled “Map Reference”.
In addition to protected legally protected areas, a number of critical biodiversity areas have been identified as part of the Waterberg Biodiversity Plan and Waterberg Environmental Management Framework. These have been highlighted earlier in the document (see section 3.3.2).
P a g e | 50
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
3.2. Services and social infrastructure Most existing bulk distribution pipelines are operating close to full capacity and hence need upgrading; 3.2.1. Infrastructure – water Supply of water from Matimba water treatment plant (which is currently 55-60%) In terms of water, a suitable standard of water supply is to have access to piped water either to Marapong will have to be increased to accommodate the development planned inside a dwelling/yard or at least within 200 metres of the dwelling. According to the 2011 for this area; Census data, 89.1% of the households of Lephalale LM have access to piped water which Despite the industrial area receiving water from the Zeeland water treatment includes the sum total of households with piped water inside dwelling/institution, piped plant, an increased demand for water by proposed industrial developments will water inside yard and piped water on community stand: distance less than 200m from put this plant under tremendous pressure and hence alternative or additional dwelling/institution. Of this 89.1%, 31.5% of the households have piped water inside their water sources will be required. dwelling. Access to piped water is one of the key indicators utilised in the Multiple Proposals Deprivation Index. The graph below shows the access to piped water in 2011. Proposed plans to increase the Zeeland water storage capacity by constructing Figure 23: Access to piped water (2011) additional 3 reservoirs on proposed sites; Construction of new pipeline by creating a split from the Onverwacht/ Lephalale Access to Piped Water: 2011 CBD supply line; Increase the capacity of some existing bulk distribution water pipelines to cater for No access to piped (tap) water 2.7% the increasing water demand. Piped (tap) water on community stand: distance >… 8.3% Piped (tap) water on community stand: distance <… 22.0% Piped (tap) water inside yard 35.6% Levels of service for the different nodal areas: Piped (tap) water inside dwelling/institution 31.5%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Ellisras/Onverwacht – in general, piped water inside dwellings Marapong – in general yard connections. Household % Rural Focus Area – yard connections or standpipes within 200m. In some of the
formal areas (e.g. Thabo Mbeki) water is available inside dwellings. Challenges:
The Mokolo Dam currently has a quota of 17 million Kl/a of water. It is however utilised at capacity and would not be able cope with an increased demand in the area. Despite the Zeeland water treatment plant having been upgraded, its capacity will have to be further increased to cope with the increasing demand by domestic, industrial and mining sectors Currently the Zeeland water treatment plant cannot cope with high raw water turbidity and the quality of water is affected;
P a g e | 51
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Figure 24: Rural Focus Area Section 1 – Water Figure 25: Rural Focus Area Section 2 – Water
P a g e | 52
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
New sewer outflow pipeline to alleviate pressure from the Zongesien and Nelson’s Kop Sewer Treatment Plants and discharge into Paarl Sewer Treatment Plant. 3.2.2. Infrastructure – sanitation Levels of service for the different nodal areas: In terms of sanitation, Lephalale LM has moderate levels of inadequate sanitation. According to the 2011 census 47% of households utilise a pit latrine and 5% have no toilet facilities. This Ellisras/Onverwacht – flush system connected to municipal sewerage system means that effectively 52% of households do not have adequate sanitation facilities. Marapong – flush system connected to municipal sewerage system Rural Focus Area – in general, most households have access to a pit latrine The majority of urban areas have flush toilets connected to an existing sewerage system. In (ventilated or not). In some of the formal areas (e.g. Thabo Mbeki) water is rural areas, most communities utilise pit toilets that either do or do not have any formal available inside dwellings. ventilation. Figure 27: Ventilated pit latrines at school - Shongoane Figure 26: Access to sanitation
% Households 2011
Other 1.0% Bucket toilet 0.6% Pit toilet without ventilation 22.7% Pit toilet with ventilation (VIP) 24.1% Chemical toilet 1.3% Flush toilet (with septic tank) 5.4% Flush toilet (connected to sewerage system) 39.6% None 5.3%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
% Households 2011
Challenges:
The sewer treatment plants and the sewer lines are operating close to full capacity and will need to be upgraded. Upgrading of the existing Paarl Sewer Treatment Plant from 10ml/d to 20ml/d is critical;
Proposals
Upgrading of the Zongesien Sewer Treatment Plant by 4ml/d will alleviate pressure on existing plant;
P a g e | 53
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Figure 28: Rural Focus Area Section 1 – Sanitation Figure 29: Rural Focus Area Section 2 – Sanitation
P a g e | 54
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
3.2.3. Infrastructure – electricity A new 40mva/132kva substation is in the planning stage which will be located west of Altoostyd town to meet the increasing demand and supply electricity to the The Multiple Deprivation Index utilises the supply of electricity for lighting purpose as a key Altoostyd area; indicator. It is not used as an indicator for cooking or heating as households may have a The Lephalale substation will be upgraded to 80mva to cater for the increased preference for another mode of energy supply. In terms of the 2011 Census, 85% of demand of 40mva for Onverwacht and 40mva for Lephalale; households use electricity for lighting. Around 4 122 households are using candles as their A new substation (Bone City) will be established for Marapong to alleviate pressure source of energy for lighting. on the existing facilities, capacity of 10mva. Figure 30: Access to electricity 3.2.4. Infrastructure – refuse removal % Energy for lighting According to 2011 Census, 41% of households have refuse removed by the local authority and only 11% of households have no refuse removal at all. None 0.2% Solar 0.2% Figure 31: Refuse removal Candles (not a valid option) 13.8% Paraffin 0.5% Gas 0.1% Access to Refuse removal Electricity 85.1% Other 0.5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% No rubbish disposal 10.5% Household % Own refuse dump 43.5%
Communal refuse dump 3.5%
Removed by local authority/private company less… 1.1% Electricity Removed by local authority/private company at… 41.0%
The current supply is insufficient for the developed area of Ellisras and Marapong (CBD 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Development Plan), and there is no spare capacity for new developments. Currently, electricity to Marapong is operating at full capacity and this has created a need for upgrade % Refuse Removal or augmentation from existing substations. The following three electrical substations are responsible for supplying electricity to the Lephalale CBD, Onverwacht and Marapong: The Rural Focus area especially have no refuse removal currently, although a site visit indicated that a lot of re-cycling/separation at source occur. Waterberg substation (capacity 40mva/33kva: 2x20mva); Lephalale substation (capacity 35mva/11kva: 10mva, 10mva, 10mva, 5mva); Marapong substation (2.5mva/11kva)
In order to address the increasing demand for electricity supply the following electricity upgrading projects will have to be implemented:
P a g e | 55
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Figure 33: Population concentration 3.3. Demographic Considerations 3.3.1. Key statistics Figure 32: Key municipal statistics Key statistics (2011 Census) Total population 115,767 Number of households 29,880 Young (0-14) 26,2% Working Age (15-64) 69,7% Elderly (65+) 4,1% Dependency ratio 43,5 Sex ratio 118,6 Growth rate 3,06% (2001-2011) Population density 8 persons/km2 Unemployment rate 22,2% Youth unemployment rate 26,9% No schooling aged 20+ 9,9% Higher education aged 20+ 11,6% Matric aged 20+ 23,5% Number of Agricultural households 6,757 Average household size 3,3 Female headed households 39,1% Formal dwellings 82,3% Housing owned/paying off 40,7%
3.3.2. Population concentration Of the total population, almost 50% of households are located in the Rural Focus Area. With the exception of Marapong and Ellisras, the only areas where there are more than 5000 people concentrated is Shongoane/Setateng in the South, Ga-Seleka in the north and the Mapela area.
P a g e | 56
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
3.3.3. Unemployment Ga-Seleka 84 78 15 432 495 15% Bangalong 105 51 3 303 384 12% The effects of the mining and energy generation activities on the Ellisras node can clearly be Ga-Monyeki 492 366 102 1 407 1 719 20% seen in the table below. Ellisras (Lephalale) has an unemployment figure of 5%. Marapong Shongoane 1 596 1 263 114 2 247 3 507 26% Marapong 8 721 3 207 453 9 060 4 785 17% has a higher rate of unemployment – at 17%, most of which probably reside in informal Lephalale 8 928 687 63 4 779 3 183 5% settlements around the area. The Rural Focus Area has a much higher unemployment rate. Lephalale NU 10 188 597 186 3 078 3 693 6% Total 35 316 10 104 1 551 33 702 35 067 14% Table 12: Unemployment Ga-Seleka and Thabo Mbeki has a lower unemployment rate that that of the other node in Age Other not the area Shongoane/Setateng. Discouraged less Unemploym Main Place Employed Unemployed economically work-seeker than 15 ent % active years Sefetlhogo 282 189 30 1 050 1 146 14% Morwe 153 51 24 576 558 9% 3.3.4. Level of education Lebu 15 18 12 180 237 13% The above unemployment should further be understood in terms of level of education. The Botshabelo 123 45 12 360 570 11% Moong 84 27 0 333 378 6% map on the adjoining page illustrates that the majority of people in the Rural Focus Area Bossche Diesch 246 378 3 558 1 017 32% have either primary or secondary education. Few people in this focus area are educated pot GaSeleka 753 501 177 1 959 2 478 20% matric. Magadimela 6 0 0 51 48 0% Kauletsi 249 192 117 735 933 24% Honey 84 24 12 99 174 16% Khopanong 126 18 18 222 375 9% Botsalanong 144 129 48 312 585 28% Tshelamake 39 48 0 75 162 30% Kgobagadimo 225 90 3 375 588 13% Tlapaliburethi 48 78 9 129 252 33% Senoela 30 15 21 246 252 12% Letlora 249 30 51 438 630 11% Witpoort 75 183 24 210 363 42% Ga-Machoko 57 120 0 153 330 36% Mongalo 42 123 0 135 282 41% Thabo Mbeki 612 213 9 618 804 15% Melinda 72 117 3 246 384 27% Reabetswe 72 48 0 291 384 12% Kitty 42 168 3 108 294 53% Hlagalakwena 51 0 0 222 237 0% Mmaletswai 294 333 3 351 795 34% Motsweding 66 6 3 216 264 3% Dimpompong 33 30 0 180 225 12% Ditloung 111 3 0 147 156 1% Mapela 819 678 33 1 821 2 400 21%
P a g e | 57
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Figure 34: Unemployment Figure 35: Level of Education
P a g e | 58
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
3.3.5. Household Income Lephalale/Ellisras by far outstrips the rest of the study area in terms of average annual household income. Households in the Rural Focus area on average earn around R47 000 per The figure below provides the annual household income distribution for all settlements in year (less than R4 000/month). Lephalale (in 2011). Figure 36: Average Annual Household Income
Average Annual Household Income
Lephalale Marapong Shongoane Ga-Monyeki Bangalong Ga-Seleka Mapela Ditloung Dimpompong Motsweding Mmaletswai Hlagalakwena Kitty Reabetswe Melinda Thabo Mbeki Mongalo Ga-Machoko Witpoort Letlora Senoela Tlapaliburethi Kgobagadimo Tshelamake Botsalanong Khopanong Honey Kauletsi Magadimela GaSeleka Bossche Diesch Moong Botshabelo Lebu Morwe Lephalale NU Sefetlhogo R 0 R50 000 R100 000 R150 000 R200 000 R250 000 R300 000
P a g e | 59
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
3.4. Economic Considerations 3.4.1. Key economic sectors Gross value added (GVA) is a productivity metric that measures the contribution to an economy or region. Gross value added provides a rand value for the amount of goods and services that have been produced, less the cost of all inputs and raw materials that are directly attributable to that production. Figure 37: GVA per economic sector
GVA per Economic sector
6000
5000
4000
3000
Rand/million 2000
1000
0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Year
P: Primary sector S: Secondary sector T: Tertiary sector
The graph above highlights the value of the primary sector in Lephalale. Although there has been a slight decline in GVA from 2012 to 2013, at R 4 billion, the primary sector still contributes more than the other sectors combined. Within the primary sector, mining is by far the strongest sector contributing R 3.8 billion in 2013 compared to the R307 millions of agriculture.
The tertiary sector has seen a slight increase from 2009, which is unpacked in the graph below: Figure 38: Tertiary sector contribution to GVA
Tertiary sector contribution to GVA
450
400
350
300
250
200 Rand/Million
150
100
50
0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
TF16: Wholesale and retail trade TF17: Catering and accommodation services
TG18: Transport and storage TG19: Communication
TH20: Finance and insurance TH21: Business services
TI22: Community, social and personal services TJ23: General government
P a g e | 60
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Since 2008 the wholesale and retail economic subsector has grown from R 254 Million per year to almost R 400 Million per year. In addition, the general government sub-sector has also grown.
3.4.2. Employment & GVA Figure 39: GVA vs Employment
% Contribution to GVA and employment by economic sectors
TJ23: General government
TI22: Community, social and personal services
TH21: Business services
TH20: Finance and insurance
TG19: Communication
TG18: Transport and storage
TF17: Catering and accommodation services
TF16: Wholesale and retail trade
SE15: Construction
SD14: Water
SD13: Electricity
SC12: Furniture and other manufacturing
SC11: Transport equipment
SC10: Radio, TV, instruments, watches and clocks
SC09: Electrical machinery and apparatus
SC08: Metals, metal products, machinery and equipment
SC07: Other non-metal mineral products
SC06: Petroleum products, chemicals, rubber and plastic
SC05: Wood, paper, publishing and printing
SC04: Textiles, clothing and leather goods
SC03: Food, beverages and tobacco
PB02: Mining and quarrying
PA01: Agriculture, forestry and fishing
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
EMPLOY % 2013 GVA % 2013
The figure above proves the % contribution for both employment and GVA per economic subsector. While Mining is by far the most important sector with regards GVA; agriculture, wholesale and retail and catering and accommodation sectors employs more people than the mining sector. This highlights the fact that the type of mining in the municipality is of a mechanised type – using machines to extract ore as opposed to human labour.
P a g e | 61
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
The table below provides the number of people employed per sector in 2013: Table 13: People employed by sector
Industry People employed in 2013 SD14: Water [SIC: 42] 3 SC10: Radio, TV, instruments, watches and clocks [SIC: 371-376] 6 SC09: Electrical machinery and apparatus [SIC: 361-366] 9 SC05: Wood, paper, publishing and printing [SIC: 321-326] 17 SC11: Transport equipment [SIC: 381-387] 17 SC04: Textiles, clothing and leather goods [SIC: 311-317] 17 SC07: Other non-metal mineral products [SIC: 341-342] 20 SC06: Petroleum products, chemicals, rubber and plastic [SIC: 331-338] 24 TH20: Finance and insurance [SIC: 81-82] 81 TG19: Communication [SIC: 75] 84 SC12: Furniture and other manufacturing [SIC: 391-392] 108 SD13: Electricity [SIC: 41] 125 SC08: Metals, metal products, machinery and equipment [SIC: 351-359] 144 TF17: Catering and accommodation services [SIC: 64] 504 SC03: Food, beverages and tobacco [SIC: 301-306] 745 TH21: Business services [SIC: 83-88] 764 TG18: Transport and storage [SIC: 71-74] 1 550 TJ23: General government [SIC: 99] 1 961 SE15: Construction [SIC: 51-53] 2 214 TI22: Community, social and personal services [SIC: 93-96,98] 4 057 PB02: Mining and quarrying [SIC: 2] 5 279 TF16: Wholesale and retail trade [SIC: 61-63] 5 846 PA01: Agriculture, forestry and fishing [SIC: 11-13] 7 645
3.4.3. Locational preferences of economic sectors. Economic activities happens somewhere in space and it is important to understand the locational preferences of these activities. The table below sums up the location preference of all major economic sectors. Table 14: Local preferences of economic activities
Sector Locational preference Agriculture, forestry and fishing Activities strongly suited for locations in the rural hinterland of the municipality Mining and quarrying and with greatest potential to absorb lower skilled labour. Manufacturing Catering and accommodation Electricity gas and water Activities strongly suited for locations on the periphery of core nodes of the Wholesale and retail trade municipality and with potential to absorb lower skilled labour. Transport storage and communication. Construction Clustering of administrative functions in core node or town, delivery functions Finance, insurance, real estate and business spread throughout the municipality. Community, social and personal services
P a g e | 62
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
General government Relative preference for CBD location.
3.4.4. The importance of mining in Lephalale The pre-ceding analysis highlighted that mining (among other) is a very important economic sector in the municipality. It accounts for the bulk of the GVA and also employs around 5 000 people. However the following points should be considered regarding he relative importance of the mining sector in the area:
The sector generates a lot of money; The sector currently employs almost 16% of all people in the municipality The sector is also responsible for employment in other sectors: o Importantly, coal is used as fuel in the power stations of Medupi and Matimba; o Coal from Lephalale is also transported elsewhere, contributing to employment opportunities in transport and storage, o Mining in Lephalale is responsible for the significant growth of the town – resulting in demand for accommodation (permanent and temporary) and ancillary facilities such as retail and shopping. Of all the economic sectors highlight in the previous sectors, coal mining is set to grow significantly over time. The 2016/2017 IDP of the municipality provides the following indication of mining related projects: o Medupi Power station. The power station delivered its first unit in March 2016, and should see completion within 2016. o Grootegeluk coal mine: Construction works for the Grootegeluk mine expansion project (GMEP) to increase the capacity of the mine for the supply of coal for the Medupi power station commenced in 2010. Some 22Mt of annual production is power station coal, transported directly to Eskom’s Matimba and Medupi power stations on a 7 km conveyor belt in terms of the existing supply contract. An additional 1,5Mtpa of metallurgical coal is sold domestically to the metals and other industries on short-term contracts. Grootegeluk produces 2,5Mtpa of semi-soft coking coal, the bulk of which is railed directly to Mittal SA under a long-term supply agreement. Approximately 1Mtpa of semi-soft coking coal and thermal coal is exported through Richards Bay Coal Terminal or sold domestically. o Syntel char plant (phase 2): The new plant will produce an additional 280 000 ton per annum for local steel industries. Construction should commence in 2013. Apart from the transport of construction material during construction phase, it will also increase volumes of materials transported to industries in various provinces. o IPP Waterberg power station: The power station to be constructed and operated by an independent Power Producer will be built in the Steenbokpan area. Environmental studies in terms of the National Environmental Management Act are currently being done. o Boikarabelo mine: This coal mine is planned north-east of Lephalale. Construction works will result in the increased road freight transport during the development phase of the mine. o Sekoko mine: This mine will be located along the Botswana border. It will also result in an increase in construction traffic during construction phase of the project as well as the transport of coal when mining commences. o Thabametsi Mine: The proposed new mine adjacent to Grootegeluk should be under construction from 2017. This mine will supply coal to the proposed 600 to 1 200MW power station for the Limpopo Independent Power Producer (IPP).
P a g e | 63
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
3.5. Human Settlements The table below summarises the number of households per dwelling type (2011) in the Rural Focus Area, The Ellisras/Marapong Node and on farms: Table 15: Dwelling Type (2011)
Marapong - Total Dwelling Type Farms Rural focus area Lephalale Municipality House or brick/concrete block structure on a 3316 11255 8246 22817 separate stand or yard or on a farm Traditional dwelling/hut/structure made of 87 271 49 407 traditional materials Flat or apartment in a block of flats 21 36 792 849 Cluster house in complex 29 15 51 95 Townhouse (semi-detached house in a complex) 4 4 107 115
Semi-detached house 18 9 36 63 House/flat/room in backyard 23 30 287 340 Informal dwelling (shack; in backyard) 326 530 1242 2098 Informal dwelling (shack; not in backyard; e.g. in an 1123 116 1218 2457 informal/squatter settlement or on a farm)
Room/flatlet on a property or larger 196 22 104 322 dwelling/servants quarters/granny flat Caravan/tent 36 6 32 74 Other 99 59 89 247 Unspecified 0 0 0 0 Not applicable 0 0 0 0 Total 5278 12353 12253 29884
Should one take the view that all informal settlements and backyard shacks counts as housing backlog, using the above table places this figure at 4 555 for the whole municipality. The Municipal IDP, however, provides the following figures for housing backlog:
Housing type Units Backyard rental 6 300 Rural 3 801 Gap market 660 Social 2 546 CRU 7 000 Project Linked 450 Total Backlog 20 757
3.5.1. Provision of stand in the Rural Focus Area In 2010, the only formally surveyed townships within the rural focus area was Thabo Mbeki and extension 1, accounting for 1 240 stands. Since 2010, this figure has increased dramatically. Fifteen additional townships have been surveyed with an additional 8 940 stands. These townships can be seen in the map on the next page:
P a g e | 64
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Figure 40: Demarcation of stands - Rural Focus Area Table 16: Demarcated stands 2016
Name Total Stands The following observations should BANGALONG 1 289 be carefully noted: GA - MAETELETSA - A 102 Both the 2010 Rural Master Plan GA-SELEKA 1 005 as well as the 2012 Spatial Framework for Lephalale IMMELMAN 108 indicated that the rural focus area KGOBAGODIMO 490 will actually de-populate as a LEBU A 130 function of the increased LERUPURUPUNG 150 employment opportunities LETLORA 52 elsewhere in the municipality.
LETLORA EXT 1 200 The Flood line study done in 2012 MARTINIQUE 1 011 recommended that people be re- ROB ROY 2 194 located from communities such a ROB ROY A 412 Thabo Mbeki due to their proximity to the flood line. SEGALE 121
THABO MBEKI 560
THABO MBEKI EXT 1 680 THABO MBEKI EXT 2 4 623 TSELAMMAKE-A 53 Total 10 127
P a g e | 65
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
3.6. Land use A land use survey was conducted for the municipality. The results of the survey can be seen in the series of maps following. The table below provides headline results of the survey: Table 17: Land use summary - Ellisras/Marapong
No. of erven Hectare The obvious observation from the Land Use No. of erven % Ha % table alongside regarding the use Agricultural purposes 1 0.01% 0.3 0.01% of land in this node is the fact that more than half of all stands (54%) Business purposes 154 0.87% 90.9 3.77% in the Ellisras/Marapong area are Community purposes 25 0.14% 36.9 1.53% vacant (9 624 erven). Educational purposes 21 0.12% 50.8 2.11% Note that a number of townships Government purposes 5 0.03% 9.5 0.39% have not been registered. Industrial purposes 55 0.31% 40.5 1.68%
Institutional purposes 4 0.02% 2.7 0.11%
Municipal purposes 60 0.34% 19.4 0.81% Parking 6 0.03% 2.8 0.12% Private open space 8 0.05% 120.6 5.00%
Public open space 29 0.16% 42.3 1.75% Public service infrastructure 100 0.57% 420.9 17.46%
Residential purposes 7 571 42.85% 618.4 25.66%
Special 4 0.02% 7.1 0.29% Vacant 9 624 54.47% 947.2 39.30% Grand Total 17 667 100.00% 2 410.5 100.00% Table 18: Land use summary - Rural Focus Area
Land Use Demarcated stands Villages (Not Total rural focus area surveyed) No. of erven Hectare No. % Ha. % Ha. Total Hectare % Agricultural purposes 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 345.0 8.0% 345.0 6.6% Business purposes 7 0.1% 1.7 0.2% 54.2 1.3% 55.9 1.1% Community purposes 5 0.0% 3.1 0.3% 59.0 1.4% 62.1 1.2% Educational purposes 16 0.2% 21.4 2.4% 156.9 3.7% 178.4 3.4%
Government purposes 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 24.2 0.6% 24.2 0.5% Industrial purposes 1 0.0% 0.5 0.1% 4.5 0.1% 5.0 0.1%
Municipal purposes 8 0.1% 8.6 0.9% 0.0% 8.6 0.2% Public open space 7 0.1% 21.8 2.4% 404.9 9.4% 426.7 8.2% Recreational purposes 3 0.0% 17.8 2.0% 64.5 1.5% 82.3 1.6% Residential purposes 2 281 22.4% 149.7 16.5% 2 587.7 60.2% 2 737.5 52.6% Vacant 7 857 77.1% 682.9 75.2% 597.7 13.9% 1 280.6 24.6% Grand Total 10185 100.0% 907.6 100.0% 4 298.7 100.0% 5 206.3 100.0%
The above table indicates that the general trend regarding vacant land can also be observed in the rural focus area:
77% of all demarcated stands are vacant In total, 24.6% of all land (surveyed or not) is vacant.
P a g e | 66
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Figure 41: Land use - Ellisras/Onverwacht
P a g e | 67
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Figure 42: Land use – Ellisras (Old Node)
P a g e | 68
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Figure 43: Land use - Marapong
P a g e | 69
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Figure 44: Land use - Rural Focus Area (1)
P a g e | 70
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Figure 45: Land use - Rural Focus Area (2)
P a g e | 71
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Figure 46: Land use - Rural Focus Area (3)
P a g e | 72
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Figure 47: Land use - Rural Focus Area (4)
P a g e | 73
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Figure 48: Land use - Rural Focus Area (5)
P a g e | 74
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
3.7. Land ownership Ownership pattern can be seen in the following set of maps: Figure 49: Ownership - Ellisras
P a g e | 75
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Figure 50: Ownership Ellisras (Old node)
P a g e | 76
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Figure 51: Ownership Marapong
P a g e | 77
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Figure 52: Ownership Rural Focus Area (1)
Figure 53: Ownership Rural Focus Area (2)
P a g e | 78
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Figure 54: Ownership Rural Focus Area (3)
Figure 55: Ownership Rural Focus Area (4)
P a g e | 79
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Figure 56: Ownership Rural Focus Area (5)
3.8. Spatial form The following two maps provide an illustration of the built form of the Ellisras/Marapong node as well as an indication of how the area developed over time: Figure 57: Ellisras/Marapong built form
No integration
Leapfrog 1 KM development 13 KM 2.5 KM Sprawl
Sprawl
Figure 58: Development over time
P a g e | 80
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
The following observations can be made regarding the built form of this node:
o Ellisras has a linear shape that has developed from1960. The urban footprint started at the intersection between the R510 and what is now known as Nelson Mandela Drive. o From this intersection for about 4 kilometres, there is a lot of leapfrog development with no contiguous urban form. A number of township establishments in this area have not been completed, and could possibly be the result of speculation. o A number of “new townships” have been registered on the periphery of the town, most notably Altoostyd (Ellisras ext. 102), Ellisras ext. 70, 86, 87 and 97. Although registered within the last 10 years, these townships are mostly still vacant. o The towns of Marapong and Ellisras spatially tow completely separate towns. Marapong is 21 km away from the intersection of the R510 and Nelson Mandela Drive. o A number of new extensions have also been established around the Marapong area in the past 15 years. o Lengthwise, the Ellisras node (including Altoostyd) is 13km long, at its widest point only 2.5 km wide. o Plotting the rate of growth of Lephalale in terms of number of stands surveyed (approved general plans) versus the actual household growth rate over time provides a possible explanation for the built form of this node:
Figure 59: Household growth rate vs built form growth rate
Household Growth vs Built Form Growth
350% 300% 250% 200%
150% % growth % 100% 50% 0% 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Years
Hh growth rate Built form growth rate
P a g e | 81
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Since 2000 the rate at which stands were approved has significantly outstripped the rate at which households grew in the municipality. This has led to the substantial stock of vacant land: Figure 60: Cumulative number of vacant stands
Cumulative number of vacant stands 18000 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000
4000 Number of vacant vacant of Number stands 2000 0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Years
P a g e | 82
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
4. Assessing change and growth 4.1. Introduction 4.1.1. Purpose of this section
The Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act of 2013 (SPLUMA) establishes the following (among other) as components of a municipal SDF: Clearly define WHO and WHAT are being planned for. Prior to SPLUMA, many SDFs did not clearly specify the quantum of who and what are being planned for (e.g. the number of households, or square metres of a specific type of land use etc.). In addition, few SDFs included specific time frames of when development is expected to occur. SPLUMA includes specific requirements to address this: o Include a five-year population growth estimate and indicate how this growth will translate into a need for housing across different socioeconomic groups (and where in space this will occur); and o Include five-year estimates of economic activity and employment trends and locations in the municipal area. Spatially identify WHERE and WHEN development will occur. o Identify current and future significant structuring and restructuring elements of the spatial form of the municipality, including development corridors, activity spines and economic nodes (See Figure 4.1 for more detail) where public and private investment will be prioritised and facilitated; and o Include a written and spatial representation of five-, 10- and 20-year spatial development patterns (in other words where the quantum of residential and non-residential land uses identified above will spatially occur over time at specific locations within the municipality). Link future development needs with infrastructure requirements. o Identify, quantify and provide location requirements of engineering infrastructure and services provision for existing and future development needs for the next five years.
4.1.2. Contextualising growth Residential and household growth percentages are often quoted in official documents without fully understanding the context or meaning thereof. What does 5% growth mean, for example? The following graphs contextualises growth percentages, and allow for better interpretation of the growth scenario for Lephalale Local Municipality.
From 2014 to 2015, the population of South Africa grew by 1.65%6. In general, compared to the rest of the world, this is a relatively high population growth rate. Figure 51 below provides population growth rates for the whole world as an indicator of where South Africa ranks.
There is a general tendency toward declining population growth rates across the world. South Africa’s population growth rate has declined 3.1% in 1961 to 1.65% in 2015.7 In general, the more developed regions in the world is growing at a slower pace than the rest of the world.
Figure 61: Worldwide population growth
6 SatsSA – 2015 Mid-year population estimates. 7 The World Bank.
P a g e | 83
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Annual Population Growth Rate 5
4
3
2 South Africa – 1.65%
1
0
Iran
% Growth Rate Syria
Qatar
Benin
Malta
Guam
Serbia
Russia
Ghana
Eritrea
Croatia
Zambia
Bahrain
Ukraine
Sweden
Panama
Monaco
Pakistan Vietnam
-1 Vanuatu
Dominica
Colombia
Mauritius
Indonesia
Cambodia
SaintLucia
Kyrgyzstan
Kazakhstan
Montserrat
Netherlands
CookIslands
SouthSudan
NewZealand
Liechtenstein
Guinea-Bissau
PitcairnIslands
NewCaledonia
CaymanIslands MarshallIslands
-2 EuropeanUnion
PapuaNew Guinea
DominicanRepublic
SaintKitts and Nevis
UnitedArab Emirates Sao Sao and Tome Principe
-3
FalklandIslands (Islas Malvinas) SaintVincent and the Grenadines
-4 Congo,Democratic Republic of the
General worldwide population growth trends indicate that developed countries grows significantly slower than less developed countries. The general population growth trend is downwards, meaning that the word (developed and less developed) will in future grow at a slower rate. More developed countries are expected to show a negative population growth rate around 2030. Meaning that these countries will see shrinking populations. These trends are summarised in the following figure:
Figure 62: Worldwide population growth rates
P a g e | 84
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
4.2. Natural growth - population and household changes
The Actuarial Society of South Africa provides the following growth percentages for Lephalale Local Municipality for the past 20 years.
Figure 63: Population and household growth rates for Lephalale Local Municipality 1995-2015
Population and households growth rates
6.00% Tuesday, 14 August 2007 – Eskom has begun the 5.00% process of building the Medupi Power Station.
4.00%
3.00%
2.00%
1.00%
0.00% 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Household Growth Rate Population Growth rate
While the above growth percentages do correspond with the growth in the footprint of the Ellisras Node, the same cannot be said regarding the urban area. Based on the land use survey, it was clear that the Rural Focus Area grew significantly over the past 6 years, actually at much higher rate than the rest of the municipality.
4.2.1. Growth scenario for Ellisras/Marapong The following assumptions informed this scenario:
The growth rate is in line with that recommended by the actual society of South Africa and reduces from 1.87% in 2011 to 1.4% over 20 years. Average household size for this node educes from 3.6 in 2011 to 3.2 over the 20 year planning horizon.
The following table provide the number of households and people per year: Table 19: Population and household growth - Ellisras/Marapong HH Growth Household Population Year Households Population Hh Size Rate Increment Increment 2011 12 250 43 866 1.87% 3.6 2012 12 410 42 195 1.31% 3.4 2013 12 582 41 521 1.38% 3.3 2014 12 763 42 117 1.44% 3.3 2015 12 953 42 746 1.49% 3.3 2016 (base year) 13 158 43 421 1.58% 3.3 2017 13 366 44 107 1.58% 3.3 208 686 2018 13 577 44 804 1.58% 3.3 419 1 383 2019 13 791 45 512 1.58% 3.3 634 2 091 2020 14 009 46 231 1.58% 3.3 851 2 810 2021 14 228 46 952 1.56% 3.3 1 070 3 531 2022 14 450 46 240 1.56% 3.2 1 292 2 819
P a g e | 85
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
2023 14 674 46 956 1.55% 3.2 1 516 3 535 2024 14 901 47 684 1.55% 3.2 1 743 4 263 2025 15 131 48 419 1.54% 3.2 1 973 4 997 2026 15 364 49 164 1.54% 3.2 2 206 5 743 2027 15 594 49 902 1.50% 3.2 2 436 6 481 2028 15 828 50 650 1.50% 3.2 2 670 7 229 2029 16 062 51 400 1.48% 3.2 2 905 7 979 2030 16 300 52 161 1.48% 3.2 3 142 8 739 2031 16 541 52 933 1.48% 3.2 3 384 9 511 2032 16 780 53 695 1.44% 3.2 3 622 10 274 2033 17 021 54 468 1.44% 3.2 3 863 11 047 2034 17 260 55 230 1.40% 3.2 4 102 11 809 2035 17 501 56 004 1.40% 3.2 4 343 12 583 Over the 20 year planning horizon, the number of households increases by 4 343 and the number of people by 12 583.
Given the existing vacant land stock for this node (9 624 stands), this should be enough to accommodate growth.
4.2.2. Growth scenario for the Rural Focus Area The following assumptions informed this scenario:
The initial growth rate is based on the land use survey that confirmed villages in the rural area is growing at a significant rate. This rate will decrease over the 20 year planning horizon from 6.2% to 2 %. Average household size for this node reduces from 4.5 in 2011 to 3.5 over the 20 year planning horizon.
The following table provide the number of households and people per year: Table 20: Population and household growth - Rural Focus Area HH Growth Household Population Year Households Population Hh Size Rate Increment Increment 2011 12 551 56 393 4.5 2016 (base year) 17 241 75 032 6.2% 4.4 2017 18 275 76 756 6.0% 4.2 1 034 1 723 2018 19 280 79 049 5.5% 4.1 2 040 4 017 2019 20 244 80 977 5.0% 4.0 3 004 5 945 2020 21 155 82 506 4.5% 3.9 3 915 7 473 2021 22 086 86 136 4.4% 3.9 4 845 11 103 2022 23 036 89 840 4.3% 3.9 5 795 14 807 2023 24 003 93 613 4.2% 3.9 6 763 18 580 2024 24 987 97 451 4.1% 3.9 7 747 22 419 2025 25 937 101 154 3.8% 3.9 8 696 26 122 2026 26 897 104 897 3.7% 3.9 9 656 29 864 2027 27 865 103 100 3.6% 3.7 10 624 28 068 2028 28 840 106 709 3.5% 3.7 11 599 31 676 2029 29 763 110 123 3.2% 3.7 12 522 35 091 2030 30 686 113 537 3.1% 3.7 13 445 38 505 2031 31 545 110 407 2.8% 3.5 14 304 35 375 2032 32 365 113 278 2.6% 3.5 15 124 38 245 2033 33 109 115 883 2.3% 3.5 15 869 40 851 2034 33 838 118 433 2.2% 3.5 16 597 43 400 2035 34 515 120 801 2.0% 3.5 17 274 45 769 Over the 20 year planning horizon, the number of households increases by 17 274 and the number of people by 45 769.
4.3. Non-residential growth The non-residential customers of the municipality comprises of business, commercial and industrial and institutional customers.
P a g e | 86
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
4.3.1. Provision of social facilities. To model the impact of population growth on the demand for social facilities, use was made of the “CSIR Guidelines for the Provision of Social Facilities in South African Settlements”. The guidelines categorises Lephalale Local Municipality as a “Large Town/Regional Services Centre” with a catchment size of between 100 000 and 350 000 people. The future requirements for social facilities are indicated in the table below. Note that the requirements does not take into account existing backlogs – it only deals with the future provision of facilities in terms of growth. Table 21: Future provision of social facilities – Rural Focus Area
2021 2026 2035 Cluster Type of facility Units Hectare Units Hectare Units Hectare Civic Home Affairs - Small Office 0 0 0 0 1 0 Community Hall – Medium/Small 0 0 2 0 3 1 ICT Access Point 0 0 2 0 4 0 Post Office/Agency with post boxes 0 0 1 0 3 0 Social Services Social Grant Pay Point 0 0 0 0 1 0 Local market 1 2 5 10 9 18 Worship Centre 1 1 5 3 10 5 Secondary School 0 0 2 10 3 14 Primary school 1 3 3 8 6 17
Education Grade R Class at Primary School 7 0 26 0 45 0 Small crèche/early childhood development 3 0 10 0 19 0 centre ECD Resource Hub and Care Centre 0 0 1 0 2 0 Grassed surface (2 football fields equivalent) 0 0 1 3 3 9
Recreation (Sports Combi-court surface (x2) 0 0 1 0 3 0 and Parks) Community pool 0 0 2 0 4 1 Local/Neighbourhood Park 1 1 5 5 9 9 Total requirements 14 6 66 40 125 75
4.3.2. Provision of business and industrial stands
In order to predict the future need for business and industrial stands, the following norms were used: Business – 32m2 per household, and Industrial – 3m2 per household.
Based on existing average stand sizes in Lephalale, the following will be required:
Table 22: Business and industrial erven required 2021 – 2035 (Rural Focus Area) 2021 2026 2035 Type Number of Number of Hectare Hectare Number of stands Hectare stands stands Business purposes 31 15.7 63 31.3 112 56.0 Industrial purposes 3 1.4 6 2.8 10 5.0
4.3.3. Provision of housing The rural focus area will grow by 17 000 households over the next 20 years. Given the current stock of vacant land as well as the flood line implications, the following assumptions were made:
P a g e | 87
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
In 2016 – there are 7 681 vacant surveyed residential stands in the study area (a). These vacant stands need to absorb around 1 500 houses currently located within the flood line (b). In 2016, there are 314 hectares of vacant land within the boundaries of existing settlements (c). Currently, a residential stand inside a village is 1250m2 big (d) Therefore the current stock of land available for housing = (a-b) + (c x 1 0000/1250) = 8 693 erven. This can be enough to accommodate growth within existing settlement boundaries until 2025. Additional land requirements for the remainder of households can be calculated as follows over different densities: Table 23: Land required for housing (at different ruling stand sizes)
Hectare land required Year Households 1250m2 750m2 300m2 2026 963 120 72 29 2030 4 752 594 356 143 2035 8 581 1 073 644 257
P a g e | 88
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
5. Draft Vision Statement
• The Limpopo SDF (LSDF) envisions a provincial spatial structure where the natural environment and valuable agricultural land in the rural areas are protected for future generations, with a strong, diverse and growing economy focused around a range of nodal areas and that offers its residents high quality living environments and good job opportunities in a sustainable manner. • Waterberg District Municipality. We are the energy hub and eco-tourism destination in Southern Africa • The visions statement of the municipality is as follows: o Lephalale To build a vibrant city and be the energy hub of Africa. . We are committed to rural development, provision of quality, sustainable and affordable services, financial viability and good governance, local economic development and job creation. . Capacitate disadvantaged groups . Protect the environment and improve community well-being . Create a conducive environment for business to invest and prosper . Enhance revenue and financial management . Rational planning to bridge first and second economies and provide adequate land for development . Provide quality and well maintained infrastructural services in all municipal areas . Responsible, accountable, effective and efficient corporate governance . Improve functionality, performance and professionalism. • The 2012 Lephalale Spatial Development Framework provides the following spatial vision for the municipality: o A properly planned area, with a vibrant city which serves as energy hub for the wider region, conducive for development of all economies with proper protection of their environment and to ensure sustainable delivery of engineering services.
In coming up with a vison for the Rural Focus area – emphasis was placed on providing for people where they are currently residing. The analysis has indicated that while the mining sector is hugely important of the municipality, the rural area has grown at a much faster rate than the developed area, which is closest to opportunities linked to mining.
Vision for the Rural Focus Area:
Ensure sustainable livelihoods for those households residing in the rural areas of the municipality through proper planning, adequate linkage to rural development programs and products while at the same time protecting valuable environmental and agricultural resources.
This vision places people – rather than resources, facilities or organizations – as the focus of concern and action, emphasizing that development must be participatory and improvements must be sustainable.
In this sense the term “livelihood” is seen as including:
capabilities, knowledge and skills; assets and resources; and activities and actions required for a means of living.
A “sustainable livelihood” can cope with and recover from stress and shocks, maintain and enhance its capabilities and assets, and provide sustainable livelihood opportunities for the next generation; and which contributes net benefits to other livelihoods in the short and long term. In line with this vision, efforts should focus on empowering the poor to build their own opportunities.
P a g e | 89
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
6. Lephalale Spatial Development Framework 2017 6.1. Introduction Since the 2012 iteration of the Lephalale Spatial Development Framework, the following projects have been completed that updates the SDF, and will therefore be included as part of the 2017 SDF:
Lephalale CBD Development Plan (2013) LSDF for the Rural Focus Area (2017) LSDF for the Steenbokpan Focus Area (2017) In addition, updated sets of information (e.g. Waterberg Biodiversity Plan) was used to update the municipal wide SDF. 6.2. Lephalale Municipal Spatial Development Framework The MSDF of the municipality is depicted in Figure 64. The different elements of the SDF will be discussed below.
6.2.1. Hierarchy of Nodes The following hierarchy of nodes forms part of the Lephalale Local Municipality.
Provincial growth point: Lephalale/Onverwacht/Marapong.
This order of node represents the highest order in the Province. Lephalale has an established and diverse economy, together with a range of higher order social and government services. This node forms the spatial centre of the massive Waterberg Coal and Energy potential, of importance not only to the district but also the province and the country. The bulk of future economic development will be undertaken by the private sector, but should be supported by public investment in sufficient and high quality engineering infrastructure, and additional social services to serve the fast-growing local population.
Municipal growth point: Thabo Mbeki
This node represents the geographic centre of the rural priority area within Lephalale. It represents many thousands of households but with very small economic and institutional bases, and very limited local resources on which to build. It is very accessible via the district road network (specifically the D3110). It is proposed that this area be prioritised for the provision of engineering infrastructure, higher order community facilities, as well as economic infrastructure where relevant.
Rural Service Delivery Points: Ga-Seleka and Shongoane
Both Ga-Seleka and Shongoane forms the main village in the midst of a high number of small scattered villages that are isolated/ removed from the provincial road network. The isolated location of these villages is deterring efficient service delivery, hence the identification of a nodal point among these villages where services will be clustered to the benefit of the broader area. Although small local economies might emerge over time as a result of the proposed agglomeration of public services, it is acknowledged that the economic potential of these nodes is less than the three types of Growth Points described above. The focus should thus be on community infrastructure and not necessarily economic infrastructure.
P a g e | 90
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Figure 64: Lephalale Municipal Spatial Development Framework (MSDF)
P a g e | 91
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
6.2.2. Networks In line with the 2012 SDF, networks and strategic links have been identified for the area.
Development Corridors (DC) are links or transport routes between nodes with an increased intensity of development (mixed land use) in a linear form along the entire length of the route/corridor or at strategic intersections with lower order routes along such a corridor. The following corridors have been identified:
DC 1 – the Setateng/Lephalale/Steenbokpan Development Corridor. This DC is the most important corridor in the study area and it links the largest part of Limpopo (from Polokwane) with Lephalale. It would especially link “external areas” with the core of the envisaged energy hub. It also has a very important “internal function” to fulfil. In linking Polokwane with Lephalale PGP, it also links the eastern rural residential settlements with the Lephalale PGP. With the view of the energy hub in mind, it is more important to note however, that this DC stretches beyond Lephalale PGP, to link with Steenbokpan – the new/proposed Local Service Point (LSP) – in the western parts of the study area.
DC 2 – the Gauteng/Vaalwater/Lephalale Development Corridor. This DC links Gauteng and other parts of the Waterberg via Vaalwater with the Lephalale PGP. As in the case with DC1, this corridor link “external areas” with the core of the envisaged energy hub as well as serving the Waterberg biosphere and associated tourism activities. Hence this corridor should focus on tourism and nature conservation activities, linking the “inland” of the biosphere with the “outside world
DC 3 – the Mokopane/Tom Burke/Botswana Development Corridor. This DC is distinguished from the other two corridors by its character as national route between Botswana and Limpopo. At this point in time it also links Lephalale with Botswana and serves as major “export route” for products such as red meat. Therefore, the Strategic Links (SL3 & SL4) between Lephalale and Tom Burke play an important role as well. This DC is therefore maintained as an important export corridor running through the study area and may hold future potential for development should closer links with Botswana be established, due to the prospective development of the energy hub in Lephalale.
Strategic Links (SL) are link roads or transport routes between nodes and Development Corridors which provide in a level of connectivity between such points. It may also link internal nodes with outside areas (e.g. other municipalities or outside nodes). Table 24: Strategic link roads
Strategic Link and Description Strategic Importance
SL1 - R516 and R510 – From Vaalwater to Lephalale Alternative link between Vaalwater and Lephalale and link from Thabazimbi.
SL2 - R510 – From Thabazimbi to Lephalale Link from Thabazimbi to Lephalale
SL3 - R510 – From Lephalale to Stockpoort Link from Lephalale to Stockpoort and Tom Burke LSP’s Link Lephalale and rural areas with DC3 and Tom Burke SL4 - R572 – From R510 to Tom Burke/DC3 LSP. SL5 - Road between SL 4 and SL 10, finally lining to DC 1 Link rural settlements and Thabo Mbeki MGP with through rural settlements. Lephalale PGP via DC1 SL6 - District road between R510 and Steenbokpan Link Steenbokpan with Thabazimbi and Vaalwater SL7 - District road between Steenbokpan and Stockpoort Link Steenbokpan with Stockpoort and Botswana Connect PGP with passing DC’s and provide for internal SL8 - Urban arterial route between DC1 & DC2, running connectivity between neighbourhoods/strategic areas through Lephalale PGP within PGP. Also strategic link to proposed airport Connect PGP with passing DC’s and provide for internal SL9 - Urban arterial route between DC1 & DC2, running connectivity between neighbourhoods/ strategic areas through Lephalale PGP within PGP, especially Marapong with Onverwacht and Altoostyd. SL10 - District road between Marnitz running through rural settlements and finally linking with R518 which becomes Link Marnitz with rural settlements and DC1. DC 1. SL11 - District road between R510 (from Vaalwater & Link road for purposes of haul road transport. Thabazimbi) and Stockpoort passing close to existing PGP.
P a g e | 92
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
SL12 - Road between Lephalale PGP (passing Marapong) up Linking Lephalale PGP and DC1 with SL 11. Linking PGP with to District Stockpoort. Road. In addition to the above development corridors and atrstgeic link, an important component of SDF network element is the proposed railway from coalfields linking to the Thabazimbe rail link. Provincial and national roads should be maintained in good order to allow for the function as rad freight corridors. The district road D3110 from Ga-Seleka to Setateng is very important ensuring connectivity throughout that sub-region.
6.2.3. Resources From the spatial analysis it is clear that resources of various kinds drive the economic development in this municipality. The following is highlighted in the SDF as important considerations:
Energy Generation Zone. Consists of the Matimba – and Medupi Power Stations as well as the newly approved Thabametsi coal mine and Independent Power Producer. These activities are located within close proximity to the Ellisras/Overwacht and Marapong areas. In addition to the actual activity of energy generation, these areas can also have a serious impact on human settlements which needs to be considered going forward. Each of these areas require human resources (similar to mines below) to work in the specific areas. Often one of the first consideration is to build permanent accommodation per workers as close as possible to actual footprint of the land uses. Over time, there is a possibility that these human settlements can end up as isolated and fragmented when the initial reason for the land use ceases to exist (e.g. if the power station or de-commissioned or mothballed, or if the minerals becomes too expensive to mine (or runs out). Mining of especially coal plays a very important role in the municipality. The SDF maps existing mining activity and also highlight areas of coal deposits for future mining activities. Of importance is the proposed Ferrum Crescent Iron Ore Mine in the Rural Focus Area that could act as iportant economicdirver in the area. The importance of agriculture and game farming has been highlihgted. Of importace is in the rural focus area is the occurence of ssubstantial subsistence agriculture and animal husbandry. Proposals are made later on to harness this potential and expand on it through the agri-park concept.
6.2.4. Environmental considerations The SDF makes provision for the following environmental considerations:
A number of declared conservation areas can be found in the area (the bulk of which are private in nature). There areas are important due to the revenue and job opportunities generated by tourism/and related (e.g. hunting) activities. Critical biodiversity areas are areas of the landscape that need to be maintained in a natural or near-natural state in order to ensure the continued existence and functioning of species and ecosystems. In other words, if these areas are not maintained in a natural or near-natural state then biodiversity targets cannot be met. Maintaining an area in a natural or near-natural state can include a variety of biodiversity-compatible land uses and resource uses. The following strategies apply to CBA’s o Further loss of natural habitat should be avoided in these areas o Consider protection in terms pf the land use scheme for these areas o Degraded or disturbed CBA 1s and CBA 2s should be prioritized for rehabilitation through programmes such as Working for Water and Working for Wetlands. o Control of illegal activities, such as hunting and dumping, which impact on biodiversity, should be prioritized in these areas. o The introduction and breeding of invasive alien species should not be permitted in CBAs and ESAs. o The restriction of animal movement (e.g. cheetah, African wild dog) due to impenetrable fences should be discouraged. Ecological support areas are areas that are not essential for meeting biodiversity representation targets/thresholds but which nevertheless play an important role in supporting the ecological functioning of CBAs or protected Areas, or in delivering ecosystem services that support socio-economic development, such as water provision, flood
P a g e | 93
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
mitigation or carbon sequestration. The degree of restriction on land use and resource use in these areas may be lower than that recommended for CBAs. The following strategies should be considered fort these areas: o Maintain in a functional state, avoid intensification of land uses, and rehabilitate to a natural or near- natural state where possible o Overall maintain landscape connectivity by avoiding loss/degradation of CBAs and ESAs, especially in corridor pinch-points. o See strategies applicable to CBA’s above.
In addition to the above CBA’s the following management zones have been identified as important both for the SDF as well as the land use scheme.
Environmental Management Zone 1 - Protection of Natural Vegetation, Scenic Landscape and Rock Paintings Areas, with limited appropriate tourism
This zone represents areas with a generally high natural, visual and cultural quality that provides the core natural and cultural resource base for the establishment of the Waterberg as a conservation (even wilderness) destination. It is large and unique in form and character. The protection of the area as a whole is important.
Preferred activities Conservation of nature in protected areas in terms of the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act.
Compatible activities Limited tourism facilities that take place in a manner that: o Limits disturbance to natural vegetation to the minimum possible after undertaking an environmental assessment as required in terms of Government Notice No. R. 564 of 18 June 2010; o does not consume additional natural resources; o does not impact negatively on the sense of place of the area, being particularly sensitive to not breaking the skyline or impeding on views; o recycles its waste products; and o treats its sewage before release into natural streams. Existing game farms that are managed with conservation as the core activity; Existing hunting activities but within the context of conservation of nature as the main priority; Existing farming activities that takes place in a manner that does not consume additional, natural resources and does not impact negatively on the sense of place of the area; and Existing and new unpaved roads that are maintained at a basic level to provide access to the area that do not require 4X4 vehicles in a way limits disturbance to natural vegetation to the minimum possible, after undertaking an environmental assessment as required in terms of Government Notice No.R. 564 of 18 June 2010.
Undesirable activities Mining of any sort; Industries of any sort; Energy generation plants of any sort; Urbanisation and residential settlement, including lifestyle estates; Golf courses and golf estates; Additional surfaced roads; Airfields and landing strips which should only be allowed if their need and desirability is such that their impact on the environment can be justified in an environmental assessment as required in terms of Government Notice No. R. 564 of 18 June 2010; Commercial buildings for use by the public of any sort; Industrial facilities; and Filling stations.
P a g e | 94
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Environmental Management Zone 2 - Nature and Cultural Tourism Focus Areas within a High Quality Natural Setting
This zone represents areas with a generally high, natural, visual and cultural quality that has significant potential for the development of nature and/or culture based tourism. It also forms the area from which the conservation use in zone 1 can be explored.
Preferred activities Conservation of nature in protected areas in terms of the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act; and Tourism facilities that make use of the surrounding natural and cultural environments as the main attractions place in a manner that: o Limits disturbance to natural vegetation to the minimum possible after undertaking an environmental assessment as required in terms of Government Notice No. R. 564 of 18 June 2010; o does not consume additional natural resources; o does not impact negatively on the sense of place of the area, being particularly sensitive to not breaking the skyline or impeding on views; o recycles its waste products; and o treats its sewage before release into natural streams.
Compatible activities Larger game lodges, country hotels, lifestyle estates within large nature/cultural areas that take place on disturbed sites (no clearing of indigenous vegetation should be allowed) in a manner that: o Limits disturbance to natural vegetation to the minimum possible after undertaking an environmental assessment as required in terms of Government Notice No. R. 564 of 18 June 2010; o does not impact negatively on the sense of place of the area, being particularly sensitive to not breaking the skyline or impeding on views; o recycles its waste products; and o treats its sewage before release into natural streams. Existing game farms that are managed with conservation as the core activity; Existing hunting activities but within the context of conservation of nature as the main priority; Existing farming activities that takes place in a manner that does not consume additional, natural resources and does not impact negatively on the sense of place of the area; and Existing roads that are maintained at a level that is safe and appropriate for tourism activities.
Undesirable activities Mining of any sort; Industries of any sort; Energy generation plants with the exception of those that provide carbon free energy to the local area on disturbed areas in a manner that does not have a negative impact on the sense of place of the area, being particularly sensitive to not breaking the skyline or impeding on views; Urbanisation and dense residential settlement; and Golf courses and golf estates.
6.2.5. Intervention zones Specific areas of intervention has been identified – for which detail local spatial development frameworks are included I the next sections.
P a g e | 95
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
6.3. Local Spatial Development Framework – Ellisras/Onverwacht/Marapong As indicated in section 3.8 (spatial form) this node has borne the brunt of housing speculation as a result of the emphasis on coal mining and energy generation in the past few years. The result has left the spatial form of this node disconnected and fragmented, see figure below. Figure 65: Ellisras/Onverwacht/Marapong - built form
The spatial proposal for this node is provided in Figure 66and will be discussed below. 6.3.1. Lephalale CBD Importantly, the Lephalale CBD and Onverwacht Node will eventually be consolidated by means of business/ commercial expansion along the northern bypass route; and will become a new Primary Activity Node to serve Lephalale Town. In the meantime though, the following proposals pertain to the former Lephalale CBD:
Mixed Use and Diversity. Encourage new developments within the CBD to establish vertically in order to efficiently maximise space. Compactness and Densification. It is proposed that infill business development be accommodated as part of the CBD future expansion, namely in the west and north of J Louis Botha Dr, and in the south-western quadrant between the northern bypass route and route R510 (O.R. Tambo Road). The Department of Public Works could be re-located to the commercial/light industrial precinct (north of the Onverwacht Node). Housing. Medium density residential is proposed to be located closer to the business core in order to strengthen and increase viability of the town, and promote life (active 24 hours node), safety (eyes on the street) and a sense of convenience. Public Transport. Public Transport Facilities are well distributed within the Lephalale CBD. Due public transport services being one of the main feeders of life and energy into business areas, it is essential to integrate the three public transport facilities established within the town to one another through a well-defined pedestrian movement
P a g e | 96
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
network. Located close to public transport services, is proposed to promote and support informal trading by providing adequate and sufficient formal informal trading structures. Informal Trading. It is proposed that Informal Trading be formalized and consolidated at the three public transport facilities, and along J Louis Botha Road which links all three public transport facilities. Due to informal trading varying in the types of trading businesses, it is also important to provide formalized informal trading structures that will cater for the needs of traders in terms of scale (small or large quantity trading) and design (open-trade structure or lock-up structure. Pedestrian movement network. There are six primary pedestrian links, three of which being north-south orientate and three traversing east-west. Pedestrian movement network traversing north-west is proposed along the O.R Tambo Road (R510), J Louis Botha Street and Wells Street which alternates as Jan Street in the north. In the east- west direction, pedestrian movement is proposed along Nelson Mandela Dr, Hendrik Pistorius Street and along the proposed secondary road north of Marula Mall. - These six identified pedestrian links should be prioritised and be provided with adequate streetscape elements such as texture-paved pedestrian walkways, street lighting of human- scale, benches, waste disposal containers and trees (greenery for shade). Furthermore, to enhance pedestrian safety pedestrian crossings, speed humps and street bollards should also be placed across major attractions and services. Public Open Space. Develop the regional open space around the Moloko River (east of route R510) as Recreational Precinct. In order to achieve this, the Lephalale Local Municipality could do the following: o Clear excess vegetation between route R510 and the Moloko River; o Facilitate safe pedestrian crossing of route R510 e.g., via pedestrian bridge(s) or pedestrian crossings; o Provide paved pedestrian walkways that link into the Recreational area from the road network of the CBD; o Provide park signage, ‘human scale’ lighting (1.37m high), shelters, benches, hard and soft spaces, together with a variety of braai/ picnic facilities, activity square/ paved areas and sport facilities within the open space system. o Construct a tourism information centre as part of the Recreational Precinct adjacent to the existing lodge to provide visitors with information regarding the town and surrounds. The public open space close to the court and police station is proposed to have its current fenced area removed and integrated together with the taxi rank facility in the north, as well as with the court and police station. Proposed public open space/activity square at intersection between J Louis Botha and proposed extension of Hendrik Pistorius Drive. To serve as a gateway into the CBD. This public area should include paved surface, street lighting, benches and art features. Gateway. Establish the northern entrance to the CBD, at the intersection of O.R. Tambo Road and northern bypass road, as a gateway by means of a signpost, landscaping etc.
P a g e | 97
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Figure 66: Spatial proposals - Ellisras/Onverwacht/Marapong
P a g e | 98
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
6.3.2. Overwacht The Onverwacht Node is proposed for expansion, not only within the node itself but to also expand to the north linking with the Light Industrial/Commercial area. Along the Onverwacht Road, in the east of Lephalale Mall is proposed for a variety of activity as the road will be connected to the northern bypass road.
Compactness and Densification. It is proposed that infill business development be accommodated on vacant sites within and around the node. The construction of the Onverwacht Road, east of the node will unlock development potential in the eastern part of the node. Long-term business expansion is proposed at intersection between Nelson Mandela Drive and Chris Hani Street, this will link activity node in the south with the Regional Institutional Training Precinct and Light Industrial/Commercial area to the north. Infill light industrial activity on vacant sites in light industrial area. Proposed Institutional Precinct along the eastern side of Onverwacht Road as well as along Aalwyn Road. Consolidate tertiary training institutions in the Precinct. Housing. Residential densification is proposed close to the economic node in order to strengthen and increase viability of the node. Pedestrian Movement Network. There are three primary pedestrian movement links along Nelson Mandela Drive, Chris Hani Street, Onverwacht Road, and Dagbreek Road. These roads should be prioritised for the provision of paved pedestrian walkways, human-scale street lighting, trees and landscaping, and pedestrian crossings at major crossings or close to major attractions. Public Transport and Public Open Space. Due to the node not having a formal public transport facility, it is proposed that a taxi rank facility be provided either within the nodal point close to the Lephalale Shopping Mall and community facilities, or at one of the main intersections along Nelson Mandela Dr. It is recommended that close to the proposed taxi rank facility, be provided a formal public open space area with trees, benches, children’s playing equipment, park signage, street lighting, and a formalized informal trading area. Provide an additional formal lay-by facility at the intersection of Nelson Mandela Drive and Chris Hani, at the north-east quadrant. Formalise the two public open spaces within the residential fabric, in the north and the south of the node. Informal Trading. Formalize informal trading along Chris Hani Street close to the Ellisras Hospital. Gateway/Entrance. Intersections at major roads act as gateways, visually introducing the node to vehicles and pedestrians. The Nelson Mandela Dr and Onverwacht Road leads to various areas within and around the node, is it therefore proposed that an art feature be placed at the intersection of Nelson Mandela Dr and Onverwacht Road, as the intersection serves as a gateway to the business node in the south and the light industrial / commercial area in the north. Design elements to be erected at major intersections, include texture paving, signage, landscaping and/or an art feature portraying the character of the area. 6.3.3. Marapong It is proposed that future business development in Marapong be consolidated within the boundaries of the new activity node as proposed in the SDF. The reason is that the centre of gravity of the township is likely to shift eastwards once the northern bypass road has been constructed, as it will grant township residents more direct access to Lephalale town. The following interventions are proposed for the Marapong Node (read with Figure 26):
Mixed Use and Diversity. Promote mixed land uses within existing spar node, Tlou Street, and the proposed nodal point east of the township, along Chris Hani Street. Compactness and Densification. Consolidate business activities at the spar shopping complex, along Tlou Street (formalize the trend of spaza shops).and the eastern nodal point between Chris Hani Street and Ramatlhodi Street. Additional community facilities to be consolidated along Chris Hani Street, adjacent to the library and community hall. Housing. Fill the remainder of the eastern node to the north, with medium density residential development. - Proposed expansion of hostels in the south-west of the township, to connect with the two existing hostel complexes. Road Network. Proposed link road in the south- western part of Marapong, via hostel complexes, linking to Tlou Street. Pedestrian Movement Network. Main pedestrian movement network is namely along Relebogile, Mohlwiliri, Tlou, Chris Hani Streets and the extension of the northern bypass. Proposed design elements along these routes will include; paved pedestrian walkways, texture paving to define intersections, human scale street lighting, street furniture e.g. bins, benches, signage to main attractions. Public Transport. Proposed formal taxi rank within the new activity node. Informal Trading. Provide formalized informal trading structures at spar shopping complex, at the intersection of Tlou and Relebogile Street opposite the Marapong Clinic, as well as along Chris Hani Street.
P a g e | 99
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Public Open Space. Formalize three existing public open spaces, namely at Tlou Street and two situated along Relebogile Street. Provide a play park, paved walkways, seating, street lights, and signage eg the name of the park. Proposed sports field within the new activity node along Tswene Street. Integration. Marapong Township is separated from the rest of the node (Onverwacht/Ellisras) due to its proximity to employment opportunities offered by the Grootgeluk mine, Matimba Power Station, and more recently Medupi Power Station. To ensure sustainable Human Settlements that will outlive the activities of mining (with a possible lifetime of 30 years) and coal based power generation, care should be taken to ensure the integration of Marapong with the rest of the node OVER TIME. Figure 66 makes provision for an “Integration Zone”. This zone facilitates growth from Marapong in a southern direction towards Onverwacht. This portion of land is 528 hectares in extent and can accommodate a maximum of around 30 000 households over time (depending on the density). This area should also be prioritised as key area to accommodate the 7 000 informal households currently occupying land in and around Lephalale. NOTE that the land in question belongs to Eskom and not the municipality.
6.3.4. Growth Management Strategy Figure 65 illustrate the fact that growth has not actively been management in this specific node. To this end, an aggressive growth management strategy is proposed that is aimed at rectifying fragmented spatial form of this node. This node is NOT compact nor walkable. Table provides some of the characteristics of sprawled vs compact cities. Table 25: Sprawled vs. Compact Cities
Sprawled City Compact City Mixed use development Loss of ecosystem services Public Transport High cost infrastructure Increased energy use Pedestrian friendly Class segregation Cheaper infrastructure Air pollution Less carbon emissions implementation More sustainable
The different elements of the growth management strategy is discussed below.
P a g e | 100
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Element 1 – Urban edges and spatial development patterns (medium and long term).
The short and medium term growth management strategy see the vacant proclaimed residential stands being developed as a matter of priority. The municipality should consider NOT approving any new township establishment application until such a time as the majority of the vacant stands have been taken up. The exception to this would be any township establishment in the “Integration zone” which promotes integration between Marapong and Onverwacht. In addition, what new township establishment applications are submitted should focus on the ‘old’ Ellisras area, where one enters the town from the Vaalwater Road. This section of town has been most affected by small township establishment applications the past. The figure below spatially indicates the medium/long term development footprint.
Figure 67: Medium/Long Term Development Priorities
The following development can be accommodated within this area:
6 403 households on vacant, proclaimed residential stands, In addition 306 hectare of farm land is located within this area. At a density of 15du/ha, this translates into an additional 3 672 households and at a higher density (40du.ha) an additional 9700 households. In total between 10 000 and 16 000 households can be accommodated.
Element 2 – Tax on vacant residential land.
Almost all of the vacant residential land in the above priority area is privately owned. The municipality should therefore consider using financial instruments to ensure that land is developed and not used for speculation purposes. The current tariff policy of the municipality makes provision for a vacant/open land tariff of R 0.0091 cents (per annum). This, however, is not applied when one considers the rating categories in the valuation roll. Even vacant residential land have been valued as “residential”. It is therefore proposed that the municipality considers amending their tariff policy to include a “vacant residential land” tariff of at least R 0.07230. For a property valued at R 200 000 this would mean the owner pays a monthly property bill of R1 205 (instead of the normal R107). This should ensure that vacant land is built up as soon as possible.
P a g e | 101
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
6.3.5. Considerations for implementation Approve SDF
Approve spatial priority areas
Amend Urban Development Boundary
Commission urban design/layout plan for the Ellisras area. Principles:
o No more gated communities/small estates
o Design and layout plan to include central park and design a walkable city
o Accommodate a mix of incomes and housing typologies within the urban design plan
o Property developers to submit proposals for however many portions of the plan they would like to develop, BUT it must be within the plan.
Develop Land use incentives to incentivise developers within new urban development boundary
Commission property valuation study targeting land within priority areas
Budget for strategic land acquisition
Prepare vacant land tariff policy (no rebate on vacant res. land)
Workshop with property developers, mines, estate agents – discuss the growth management scenario and potential vacant land tariff.
Obtain buy in from mines to develop land within the existing urban fabric to limit sprawl.
Obtain buy-in from mines to consider housing development within the urban design plan AND to institute public transport to get people to and from work
Place moratorium on all development applications outside priority areas
P a g e | 102
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
6.4. Local Spatial Development Framework – Rural Focus Area The high level Local Spatial Development Framework for the rural focus area is depicted below. Figure 68: LSDF for Rural Focus Area
P a g e | 103
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
6.4.1. Agri-Park related proposals: The recently completed Rural Development Plan located a new Agri-Hub in the Modimolle area. The spatial analysis section of this document pointed out that agriculture is a very important economic sector in this focus area. The elements of the Agri- Park is listed below:
Agri-park (AP)
The Agri-park is a system innovation of agro-production, processing, logistics, marketing and training and extension services located in District Municipalities. As a network it enables a market-driven combination and integration of various agricultural activities and rural transformation services.
Rural Urban Marketing Centre (RUMC)
RUMCs are located on the periphery of large urban areas, these facilities provide market intelligence assist farmers, processors in managing a nexus of contracts. With large warehousing and cold storage facilities to enable market management. Both FPSU’s and Agri-hubs provide inputs to the RUMC. Agri-parks share RUMCs. A RUMC should have a reach of between 150km - 250km.
Agri-Hub (AH) – Located in Modimolle
Agri-hubs are located in central places in a District Municipality, preferably places both sufficient, physical and social infrastructure to accommodate; storage/warehousing facilities; Agri-processing facilities; packaging facilities; logistics hubs; agricultural technology demonstration parks; accommodation for extension support training; housing and recreational facilities for labourers. Agri-hubs receive primary inputs form FPSU’s for processing, value adding and packaging which is through-put into the Rural Urban Market Centres or exported directly to markets. Modimolle has been earmarked as the Agri- hub (or at least one of them) for the Waterberg District Municipality Agri-park.
Location parameters:
• centrality and accessibility
• available infrastructure
• close to logistics brokerage networks (transport networks)
• has a reach of between 60km and 120km
Farmer Production Support Units (FPSU).
Are centres (more than one per district) of agricultural input supplies, extension support, mechanization support, local logistics support, primary produce collection, and through-put to Agri-hubs. The FPSUs have limited sorting, packaging, storage, processing for local markets with through-put of excess product to Agri-hubs.
This LSDF makes provision for a FPSU in GA-Seleka, Thabo Mbeki and in Shongoane.
Logistics Brokerage
Are transport networks that operate between the FPSU’s - Agri-hubs - RUMCs and various derivatives thereof.
6.4.2. Mining related proposals The Moonlight Iron Ore Project is currently being investigated on the farms Moonlight, Julietta and Gouda Fontein within the study area. In terms of this proposal, iron ore will be mined on the property, “converted” into iron ore pellets and then transported as a slurry via pipeline to Thabazimbe. From there, it will be transported via rail to Richards Bay and exported abroad. Opportunities associated with this mining proposal is as follows:
The iron ore mine can direly employ people from the surrounding community The mine can “fund” certain developmental projects in the vicinity
P a g e | 104
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
FPSU (farmer production support units) in the area (specifically the FPSU at Thabo Mbeki) can manufacture products consumed by the mine. This does not necessarily have to relate to the activity of iron ore mining, but can be anything used by the mine, mineworkers etc. (e.g. protective clothing, meals and catering etc.) Most importantly, the mine can contribute towards creating sustainable human settlements.
6.4.3. Thabo Mbeki The detail spatial proposals for the Thabo Mbeki Area is provided in Figure 69.
Networks and connectivity
District road D3110 plays the role of mobility corridor in the sub-region by connecting the two rural service delivery point of Shongoane and Ga-Seleka with Thabo Mbeki. This road should be maintained to a high order (responsibility of the Waterberg District Municipality) to ensure mobility in this area. Road D3126 should be extended to the Moonlight Iron Ore Mine in the east to ensure access to and from the Mine and Thabo Mbeki extension 2. The following roads were identified as logistics corridors with the function of facilitating access from farms to the farmer production support unit. o D3126 o D3112 o D1754 o D3102 o D1754
Land use proposals
The role of Thabo Mbeki as municipal growth point is strengthened with an activity node proposed at the intersection of the D3110 and D3126 with a small shopping centre proposed as well as a further strengthening of institutional facilities in support of the magistrate’s court, police station and hospital already located within this area. Thabo Mbeki extension 2 is currently vacant. Over time this significant townships needs to be populated in the following manner: o Re-location of houses affected by the 1:100 year flood line (Thabo Mbeki and extension 1) o Mixed income housing to accommodate ALL mineworkers from the Iron Ore Mine. o CoGHSTA – no more demarcation of sites except for around Thabo Mbeki ext. 2. o Provide a significantly higher level of service around Thabo Mbeki ext. 2 than in other areas in order to attract residents from all over the sub-region - consider this area as Pilot site for alternative ‘green infrastructure’ solutions. Discuss with sector departments to provide education and other facilities at Thabo Mbeki. Farmer production support unit located in the area will focus on agriculture as well as manufacturing of goods and services required at the mine (protective clothing, signage etc.) Future low income residential in the area adjacent to the D3110 and north of D3126. Mixed agricultural and residential to the north of the D3126 and closer to the farmer production support unit.
Environmental controls
No allocation of stand within the 1:100 year flood line Protection of land labelled as “critical biodiversity areas”
P a g e | 105
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Figure 69: Spatial Proposals Thabo Mbeki
P a g e | 106
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
6.4.4. Shongoane and Ga-Seleka The spatial proposals for the Shongoane area id depicted in Figure 70.
The proposed farmer production support unit in Shongoane will focus on the commodities of livestock, poultry, vegetables and other cash crops. Potential to expand agricultural areas with support of FPSU & Dept. of Agriculture. Consider communal kraals as well as a mobile abbatoir.
The 1:100 floodline is very important, no allocation of stands within this area this should be included on land use scheme and discussed with traditional leaders to ensure compliance.
Future growth direction for ALL villages within the Shongoane Traditional Authority area should be accommodated in the eastern part of this node. Consider a mix of the following types of residential categories as indicated on the map : o Low density (1000m2 stands) = 1755 households o Medium density (300m2) = 4103 households o Mixed Res/Ag (1 HA) = 354 households o Total Households = 6 212 The proposed activity node alongside the D3110 (in the vicinity of the existing mall) to magistrates court, police station and Eskom offices Protect areas labelled critical biodiversity areas.
6.4.5. Ga-Seleka The spatial proposals for the Shongoane area id depicted in Figure 71.
The proposed farmer production support unit in Ga-Seleka will also focus on the commodities of livestock, poultry, vegetables and other cash crops. Potential to expand agricultural areas with support of FPSU & Dept. of Agriculture. Consider communal kraals as well as a mobile abattoir.
The 1:100 floodline is very important, no allocation of stands within this area this should be included on land use scheme and discussed with traditional leaders to ensure compliance. This particularly affects Bossche Diesch and Beauty.
Future growth direction for ALL villages within this Traditional Authority area should be accommodated in the north of the D3110. Consider a mix of the following types of residential categories as indicated on the map : o Low density (1000m2 stands) = 1792 Hholds o Medium density (300m2) = 668 Hholds o Mixed Res/Ag (1 HA) = 213 Hholds o Total Households = 2 673 o In addition – 470 vacant stands in Ga-Seleka which should also be taken up. The proposed activity node alongside the D3110 should further be strengthened by the location of the farmer production unit as well as future institutional and business uses.
P a g e | 107
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Figure 70: Spatial Proposals Shongoane
P a g e | 108
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Figure 71: Spatial Proposals Ga-Seleka
P a g e | 109
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
Annexure A: List of Protected Areas Map Name Type Date of declaration Hectare reference 1 Waterberg Biosphere Reserve Biosphere Reserve 2001/01/01 308 024.66 2 Wonderkop Nature Reserve Nature Reserve 1993/03/03 0.07 3 Danie Steenkamp Private Nature Reserve Nature Reserve 1964/01/29 1 140.30 4 Alexander Estate Private Nature Reserve Nature Reserve 1968/05/29 2 982.38 5 HUWI iii Private Nature Reserve Nature Reserve 1967/09/13 2 499.27 6 Bettieshof Nature Reserve Nature Reserve 1973/12/12 931.82 7 Chriwilma Private Nature Reserve Nature Reserve 1974/05/15 1 303.58 8 Duplo Private Nature Reserve Nature Reserve 1964/01/29 1 493.10 9 E. H. Rachmann Private Nature Reserve Nature Reserve 1965/07/28 937.90 10 Elizabeth Private Nature Reserve Nature Reserve 1958/02/26 2 504.03 11 Emaria Private Nature Reserve Nature Reserve 1955/08/17 1 165.13 12 Gideon Troskie Private Nature Reserve Nature Reserve 1958/02/26 3 183.83 13 Gys Vlok Nature Reserve Nature Reserve 1974/05/15 1 109.39 14 Harmse Private Nature Reserve Nature Reserve 1955/08/17 513.74 15 HUWI ii Private Nature Reserve Nature Reserve 1967/09/13 3 723.06 16 I. J. van Vuuren Private Nature Reserve Nature Reserve 1964/01/29 4 845.38 17 J. C. R. Pretorius Private Nature Reserve Nature Reserve 1968/05/29 2 372.47 18 J. G. Erasmus Private Nature Reserve Nature Reserve 1962/08/29 1 761.94 19 Jacob van der Merwe Private Nature Reserve Nature Reserve 1969/05/21 705.17 20 Jacobs Private Nature Reserve Nature Reserve 1959/11/02 2 248.20 21 Jancornel Private Nature Reserve Nature Reserve 1956/11/07 3 293.09 22 Jee Lee Private Nature Reserve Nature Reserve 1970/02/25 1 941.15 23 Krupel Private Nature Reserve Nature Reserve 1967/09/13 1 472.02 24 Kindjie Private Nature Reserve Nature Reserve 1965/01/27 1 260.28 25 Koedoe Private Nature Reserve Nature Reserve 1962/08/29 1 226.18 26 Korvanleo Private Nature Reserve Nature Reserve 1955/08/17 1 973.99 27 Kroondal Private Nature Reserve Nature Reserve 1960/01/27 1 797.11 28 Moepel Private Nature Reserve Nature Reserve 1968/05/29 2 267.08 29 Mokolo Nature Reserve Nature Reserve 2014/02/25 8 071.32 30 Palala Private Nature Reserve Nature Reserve 1954/09/08 0.62 31 Olifantspad Private Nature Reserve Nature Reserve 1967/09/13 1 122.83 32 Not Currently Available Nature Reserve 1962/08/29 1 890.53 33 Ons Toekoms Private Nature Reserve Nature Reserve 1954/09/08 2 855.32 34 Pat Cloete Private Nature Reserve Nature Reserve 1970/02/25 2 909.88 35 Pearson Private Nature Reserve Nature Reserve 1955/08/17 3 324.91 36 Spruytskloof Private Nature Reserve Nature Reserve 1967/09/13 1 204.97 37 Phillippus Private Nature Reserve Nature Reserve 1959/02/11 936.88 38 Rinda Private Nature Reserve Nature Reserve 1969/05/21 2 919.29 39 Safari No 1 Private Nature Reserve Nature Reserve 1965/01/27 4 864.87 40 Safari No 2 Private Nature Reserve Nature Reserve 1965/01/27 2 587.07 41 Rusoord Private Nature Reserve Nature Reserve 1958/02/26 1 015.80 42 Zandfontein Private Nature Reserve Nature Reserve 1962/10/29 2 443.53
P a g e | 110
Lephalale Local Municipality – DRAFT SDF March 2017
43 Zeekoei Private Nature Reserve Nature Reserve 1960/01/27 1 197.75 44 Spoorsny Private Nature Reserve Nature Reserve 1964/01/29 2 015.99 45 Tweerivier Private Nature Reserve Nature Reserve 1967/02/15 862.12 46 Familie Private Nature Reserve Nature Reserve 1964/01/29 664.11 47 Welgevonden Game Reserve Nature Reserve 2014/02/25 15 050.74 48 Austin Roberts Private Nature Reserve Nature Reserve 1954/09/08 3 431.22 49 Waterval Game Reserve Nature Reserve 1952/12/31 3 431.22 50 Driehoek Private Nature Reserve Nature Reserve 1958/02/26 4 455.02 51 HUWI i Private Nature Reserve Nature Reserve 1967/09/13 10 684.17 52 Louis Kotze Private Nature Reserve Nature Reserve 1964/01/29 5 011.31 53 Marakele National Park National Park 1994/02/11 28 235.49
P a g e | 111