Home | Feature | HOUSING RESTRICTIONS NEED TO BE REVIEWED

HOUSING RESTRICTIONS NEED TO BE REVIEWED

14/11/2013 04:36:00 By Burns Dlamini (Lobhoncela)

Font size:

In the many years I have been involved with township developers and individuals trying to dispose of part of their land in the urban and peri-urban centres, I have come to the conclusion that the Land Management Board is responsible for the lack of serviceable plots and, consequently, decent housing for the ever-growing number of urban dwellers.

The municipalities, too, are also institutions that frustrate the delivery of development and housing, in that they rely on archaic legislation and policies. The end result is that the Ministry of Housing, which is in charge of this aspect of our lives, has also not been of assistance in making the legislative reforms to improve land economy.

To illustrate my point; I have seen proposals for township developers fail just because they proposed smaller-size plots for the areas concerned and were, therefore, not complying with the zoning of those areas. Dalriach in Mbabane, for instance, is zoned ‘low density’, requiring a minimum plot size per dwelling of 2 000 square metres while Thembelihle, just adjacent to it, is zoned differently with as little as 625 square metres per dwelling unit. The Makholokholo and Sidwashini areas go to as low as 400 square metres; just because these are zoned differently, as ‘high density’ areas. While I believe the authorities meant well with this zoning, I still think the rationale for this is no longer in keeping with the demand for land and the need to house the populace in the cities.

I mean, really, who is to believe the story that if you do not have sewer mains running next to your property and are required to sink a septic tank you need 2 000 square metres of land? Again, some areas like Dalriach already have sewer mains running through those properties; why can’t present owners be allowed to subdivide their land and give it to their children, or sell it at that? Here is what I see as a classic case of wasting land; that is, by allocating huge chunks of land to a few people. This is a complete waste of a precious resource like land if you consider Mbabane with its topography and all.

I mean 10 000 square metres of land in Dalriach settles a maximum of five dwellings but could settle 16 homes in Thembelihle and 25 homes in the high-density locations like Makholokholo, Mbangwani and Msunduza. Why the disparity? I ask here as a layman looking to conserve our land and make every square metre count. I mean, new townships being proposed are evaluated using the same laws that contribute nothing to the development of housing in the sector except to restrict housing. I say this because larger plots cost far more than smaller ones, making it expensive for the average person to own a home. And the opportunity to own a home, by the way, is a basic right of every citizen, so the Land Management Board with its agencies are effectively denying citizens this right.

Talking of questionable decisions; I cannot forget an incident when a particular church wanted to build a 250-seater church in Fairview, Manzini, and the City Council there insisted on a parking bay for every four or five people; meaning that this church was to provide 50-62 parking bays. The funny thing about it was that in 10 years the church had had the same number of members and had had two cars parked every Sunday; that of the Pastor and the Elder.

How the cars were expected to suddenly increase from two to 62 after building the church, I don’t know. I mean, these are archaic laws left by the British that nobody cared to review and at a time when advanced and civilised nations no longer have these laws themselves. In South Africa, for instance, top-class suburbs are sitting on 500 square metres of land in the high-density areas. Why? Because people there have responded to the demand for housing and wanted to do something positive about it.

The question needing to be asked in the review of these laws and town planning schemes is whether these laws are still relevant given an increased population. I mean, for a long time we held the view that the country’s population barely exceeded a million people; but today you hear estimates of around 1.3 million people; and obviously it’s set to increase.
Now, with such increases there doesn’t come increased land availability. The 17 364 square kilometres of land that Swaziland is endowed with is unlikely to grow (unless the Border Restoration Committee performs a miracle to get back the land lost to the South Africans). Given this state of affairs, isn’t it time to review these archaic laws? I bet it is.