Informality and sustainability : reflecting on South Africa's informal backyard rental sector from a planning perspective

(1)

Informality and sustainability: reflecting

on South Africa’s informal backyard

rental sector from a planning

perspective

LG Lategan

21441480

Thesis submitted for the degree

Philosophiae Doctor

in

Urban and Regional Planning

at the Potchefstroom Campus

of the North-West University

Promoter:

Prof EJ Cilliers

(2)

Informality and sustainability:

reflecting on South Africa’s informal

backyard rental sector from a

planning perspective

LG Lategan

21441480

Thesis submitted for the degree Philosophiae Doctor in

Urban and Regional Planning at the Potchefstroom

Campus of the North-West University

Promoter:

Prof EJ Cilliers

May 2017

The financial assistance of the National Research Foundation (NRF) towards this research is hereby acknowledged. Opinions expressed and conclusions arrived at, are

(3)

i

PREFACE

Before commencing with the study at hand, it is important to note that research and subsequent findings captured as part of this thesis are assimilated in the article format allowed under the Manual for Master’s and Doctoral Studies at the North-West University (NWU, 2013a) and the University’s Faculty of Natural Sciences’ Quality Manual (NWU, 2013b). In case of submission in the article format, the Faculty of Natural Sciences requires that at least one article be accepted for publication on the day that the thesis is submitted for examination (NWU, 2013b:111).

The article format was selected for this study for various reasons. Firstly, the article format suits the subject matter of this study by providing the opportunity to relate literature directly to empirical research and findings, without the traditional division between literature and empirics required in a more traditional thesis approach. The article format further meets a primary research objective for the Faculty of Natural Sciences in realising the objective to ‘add new knowledge to natural sciences by publishing scientific articles in subject journals’ (NWU, 2013b:79). Producing publishable articles provides immediately tangible outputs as a result of the PhD study, preventing research from becoming a solely academic exercise without further application potential or real-world penetration. The article format also provides a significant challenge, but provides the opportunity to hone research skills and develop competency as an academic, as the NWU (2013b:114) recognises that ‘writing a compact research article is a much more advanced skill’.

It is important to note that there is no minimum requirement on the number of articles to be included in a thesis submitted in the article format (NWU, 2013b:112), but that three articles are considered the norm. This study exceeds the minimum expectation by providing two review manuscripts and four research articles in addition to the conclusion and recommendation chapters provided. The research articles included in this study were either submitted or prepared for submission to the following journals:

(4)

ii

 Town and Regional Planning (article accepted for publication). This journal was selected as it is the only DHET (Department of Higher Education and Training) accredited Town and Regional Planning journal in South Africa, with the journal’s research focus aligned to that of the article submitted.

 Housing Studies (prepared for submission). The journal was selected based on its impact factor and the journal’s publication objectives that could be aligned with the article prepared for submission.

 Community Development Journal (prepared for submission). The journal was identified based on its impact factor and the platform the journal presents for cutting-edge debates on community development in theory and practice.

 Environment and Planning A (prepared for submission). This journal was again identified based on its impact factor, but also selected due to its cross-cutting focus on human geography, environmental studies and urban and regional research.

More detail on the above journals and further motivations for their selection are provided within the contents of the study, under each research article in Chapter Three. It should be noted that article texts are not provided in the preferred font and size of each journal, for the sake of thesis uniformity. It is accepted that the articles will undergo substantial changes and abridgements before ultimate publication, pending reviewer comments (as also acknowledged in the NWU Manual). Although all articles are officially co-authored by the promoter, Professor E.J. Cilliers, all research, writing and editing was conducted by the candidate. Professor Cilliers acted as reviewer, making comments and suggestions to improve the chapters, review manuscripts and research articles as well as the study in its totality, as befitting the role of a promoter. Professor Cilliers was added as co-author on all articles submitted and prepared for submission in recognition of her contributions. Substantiation to this fact may be found in her declaration provided on the following page and attached as

(5)

iii

Re: Declaration from co-author

I, Prof Elizelle Juanee Cilliers (NWU personnel nr 12248029), am the promotor of Mr L.G Lategan (Student nr 21441480) for his Thesis submitted for the degree Philosophiae Doctor, entitled “Informality and sustainability: reflecting on South Africa’s informal backyard rental sector from a planning perspective”.

I hereby confirm that, as promotor, I am co-author of the papers submitted for publication. As co-author my role was defined by the Code of conduct for supervisors and promoters, as captured in the Manual for Postgraduate Studies of the NWU. As such my role included:

- Ensuring quality of the research

- Assisting in the development of the research process and guidance throughout the introductory phase, the planning phase, the implementatio n phase, the reporting phase and the evaluation phase.

- Guiding the development of expertise in the research field - Supporting appropriate methodologies employed in the research

- Review and assessment of submitted work in terms of technical and academic stand ards - Ensuring that ethical research processes are followed throughout

Mr L.G Lategan, as first author, conducted all research, and was solely responsible for the writing and editing of the research. Mr Lategan illustrated the ability to conduct high level research independently, he made a distinct scholarly and original contribution to the knowledge and insight in the field of Urban and Regional Planning.

His thesis complies with rule 5.4.2.7 of the quality manual, stating that where the article option is used, “the thesis must still be presented as a unit, supplemented with an inclusive problem statement, a focused literature analysis and integration and with a synoptic conclusion, and the guidelines of the journal concerned must also be included”. As co-author I hereby give permission that the article(s) can be submitted for degree purposes. All included articles in this thesis flow forth directly from the student’s research after registration for the doctoral degree at NWU. Regards,

Prof. Juaneé Cilliers

Sub-program leader: Sustainable Planning and Development Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management

Urban and Regional Planning North-W est University Potchefstroom Campus

Private Bag X1290, Potchefstroom South Africa 2520

Tel: 018 299-4900 Fax: 018 299-4910 Web: http://www.nwu.ac.za

Urban and Regional Planning

Tel: 018-299 2486

Email: juanee.cilliers@nwu.ac.za

(6)

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study owes a great deal to the support and guidance of several key institutions and individuals. Special acknowledgement is reserved for Professor E.J. Cilliers, whose mentorship, patience, encouragement and expert supervision steered this study to completion. Thank you also to family and friends, for their love, tolerance and motivation. The National Research Foundation is thanked for their unrelenting financial support and trust. A word of appreciation is further extended to the North-West University and the staff of its Potchefstroom Campus and Ferdinand Postma Library for the excellent academic support provided. Furthermore, the chaperones, survey assistants and people of Rose Valley, Bridgton and Bongolethu are thanked for their contributions to surveys, as well as the officials in the Oudtshoorn Local Municipality and City of Cape Town who conceded to interviews. Finally, sincere gratitude is warranted for the reviewers who evaluated articles submitted to journals and conferences and the international audiences who attended conference presentations and provided valuable insights through their comments.

(7)

v

ABSTRACT

South Africa’s low-income housing sector is typified by sprawling subsidised housing, informal settlements and a hybrid typology manifest as the informal backyard rental sector. Despite growth in informal backyard rentals post-apartheid, housing policies have discounted the sector, focussing on subsidised homeownership and eradicating informal settlements according to Northern-derived modernism. Figures on the scope of informal backyard renting are unreliable and existing literature provides a piecemeal account based on metropolitan case studies. The neglect of the informal backyard rental sector disregards prospects for more sustainable human settlements. This study reflects on these sustainability outlooks from a planning perspective, addressing the research question: ‘What challenges and potentials do South Africa’s informal backyard rental sector present towards the sustainability of human settlements?’ The study employs a literature review informed by electronic data bases and implements mixed method research relying on quantitative data gathered via questionnaires and qualitative data from semi-structured interviews and anecdotal observation in the nonmetropolitan case study of Oud tshoorn, the Rose Valley informal settlement, Bridgton and Bongolethu. The thesis focuses on housing policy and legislation, planning theory, spatial, economic, social and environmental considerations in relation to the informal backyard rental sector.

Research evidences that South African housing policy has made negligible reference to informal backyard rentals and that a dedicated national policy is overdue. By discussing the informal backyard rental sector within planning theory, relating the sector to radical planning and co-production, the study strengthens the argument to consider everyday practice and theorise from the South towards more representative and just outcomes. In investigating the spatial impacts of the informal backyard rental sector, the study reaffirms that informal backyard infill increases dwelling unit and population density substantially, promoting urban compaction and redirecting urban growth from informal settlements. Furthermore, the excellent access to basic services enjoyed by informal backyard tenants improves living conditions, but also stresses infrastructure networks. In terms of economic sustainability, findings suggest that low-income dwellings rarely realise financial asset value, trapping homeowners on the low levels of the property ladder in unaffordable housing. Conversely, informal backyard rentals provide rental income or other remittances, realising economic asset value, whilst providing tenants with affordable rental accommodation.

(8)

vi

Informal backyard rentals further promote the social asset value of housing and support social sustainability, evidenced in co-dependent, low-conflict landlord-tenant relationships framed by filial connections that provide tenure security. Findings indicate that informal backyard rentals challenge sustainability through health and safety concerns. In terms of environmental considerations, research evidences that informal backyard densification does not necessarily require an increased number or area of urban green space to compensate for backyard infill, simply that access to public greenery must be readily available. Evidence suggest that littering and dumpling are concerns connected to an increased number of consumers accommodated in backyard rentals. The study concludes that informal bac kyard rentals contribute towards the sustainability of South Africa’s human settlements, but that interventions should be considered by authorities and planners to address impediments and amplify potential, especially in terms of informality and sustainability from a planning perspective.

Key words: Informality; sustainable development; informal backyard rentals; low -income housing; urban and regional planning; South Africa

(9)

vii

OPSOMMING

Informaliteit en volhoubaarheid: ‘n besinning oor Suid-Afrika se informele agterplaas verhuringsektor vanuit ‘n beplannings perspektief

Suid-Afrika se lae-inkomste behuisingsektor word gekenmerk deur uitgebreide gesubsidieerde behuising, informele nedersettings en ‘n hibriede tipologie wat as die informele agterplaas verhuringsektor manifesteer. Ondanks groei in informele agterplaas verhurings na apartheid, ignoreer huidige behuisingbeleide die sektor en word die fokus op gesubsidieerde huiseienaarskap en die uitwissing van informaliteit toegespits in oorstemming met modernisme uit die Noorde. Syfers oor die omvang van informele agterplaas verhurings is onbetroubaar en huidige literatuur verskaf ‘n sporadiese oorsig gebaseer op metropolitaanse gevallestudies. Die verwaarlosing van die informele agterplaas verhuringsektor veron tagsaam vooruitsigte vir meer volhoubare menslike nedersettings. Hierdie studie besin oor diè volhoubaarheidsvooruitsigte vanuit ‘n beplannings perspektief deur die volgende navorsingsvraag aan te spreek: ‘Watter uitdagings en geleenthede hou Suid-Afrika se informele agterplaas verhuringsektor vir die volhoubaarheid van menslike nedersettings in?’ Die studie steun op ‘n literatuur oorsig wat van elektroniese databasisse gebruik maak en implementeer gemengde metode navorsing deur op kwantitatiewe data afkomstig van vraagbriewe en kwalitatiewe data van semi-gestruktureerde onderhoude en anekdotiese waarneming in die nie-metropolitaanse gevallestudie van Oudtshoorn, die Rose Valley informele nedersetting en Bridgton en Bongolethu te steun. Die tesis fokus op behuisingsbeleide en wetgewing, beplanningsteorie, ruimtelike, ekonomiese, sosiale en omgewings oorwegings in verband met die informele agterplaas verhuringsektor.

Navorsing bewys dat Suid-Afrikaanse behuisingsbeleide weglaatbare verwysings na informele agterplaas verhurings bevat en dat ‘n toegewyde nasionale beleid benodig word. Deur die informele agterplaas verhuringsektor vanuit ‘n beplanningsteorie invalshoek te bespreek en die sektor tot radikale beplanning en ko-produksie te verbind, versterk die studie die argument om die alledaagse te oorweeg en vanuit die Suide te teoretiseer om meer verteenwoordigende en regverdige uitkomstes te bereik.

(10)

viii

Deur die ruimtelike impakte van die informele agterplaas verhuringsektor te ondersoek herbeklemtoon die studie dat informele agterplaas invul wooneenheid en bevolkingsdigtheid merkwaardig verhoog, wat stedelike kompaktheid bevorder en groei weg van informele nedersettings kanaliseer. Verder verbeter die uitstekende toegang tot basiese dienste wat informele agterpl aas huurders geniet lewenstoestande, maar plaas dit ook druk op infrastruktuur-netwerke. In terme van ekonomiese volhoubaarheid dui bevindinge daarop dat lae-inkomste wooneenhede selde finansiële bate waarde realiseer en huiseienaars dikwels op die lae vlakke van die behuisingsleer vasvang in onbekostigbare wonings. Informele agterplaas verhurings verskaf huurinkomste of ander bydraes wat ekonomiese bate waarde realiseer, terwyl huurders van bekostigbare akkommodasie voorsien word. Informele agterplaas verhurings bevorder verder die sosiale bate waarde van behuising en ondersteun sosiale volhoubaarheid, bewys in mede-afhanklike, lae konflik verhuurder-huurder verhoudings wat deur familie bande gekenmerk word en stabiele verblyfreg verskaf. Bevindinge dui ook daarop dat informele agterplaas verhurings sekere uitdagings vir volhoubaarheid inhou in terme van gesondheid - en veiligheidsbekommernisse. In terme van omgewingsoorwegings dui navorsing daarop dat informele agterplaas verdigting nie noodwendig ‘n vermeerderde getal of groter oppervlak van stedelike groen ruimtes vereis om te vergoed vir agterplaas invul nie, slegs dat openbare groen ruimtes beter toeganklik moet wees. Navorsing voer aan dat rommelstrooi en afvalstorting die gevolg is van ‘n verhoogde aantal verbruikers wat gehuisves word in agterplaas verhurings. Die studie kom tot die gevolgtrekking dat informele agterplaas verhurings tot die volhoubaarheid van Suid -Afrika se menslike nedersettings bydra, maar dat ingryping oorweeg moet word deur owerhede en beplanners om struikelblokke aan te spreek en geleenthede verder uit te bou, veral in terme van informaliteit en volhoubaarheid vanuit ‘n beplanningsperspektief.

Sleutelwoorde: Informaliteit; volhoubare ontwikkeling; informele agterplaas verhurings; lae-inkomste behuising; stads- en streekbeplanning; Suid-Afrika

(11)

ix

3. Defining South Africa's informal backyard rental sector ... 46 3.1 Locational characteristics of informal backyard rental structures .... 48 3.2 Physical attributes of informal backyard rental structures ... 48 3.3 Nature of rental agreements ... 49 3.4 Constructing a new definition for the informal backyard rental sector

... 49 4. Housing policy in the post-apartheid age ... 52 4.1 South African housing policy and legislation in the period 1994 to

2003 ... 55 4.1.1 1994: The Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) ... 56 4.1.2 1994: White Paper - A New Housing Policy and Strategy for South

Africa (The White Paper on Housing or the Housing White Paper) ... 57 4.1.3 1996: Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (The

Constitution) ... 58 4.1.4 1998: The People’s Housing Process (PHP) ... 61 4.1.5 2000: The Housing Code ... 63 4.1.6 Concluding housing 1994-2003: Substantial yet insufficient and

unsustainable housing delivery ... 63 4.2 South African housing policy and legislation in the period 2004 to

2015 ... 65 4.2.1 2004: Breaking New Ground: A Comprehensive Plan for the

Development of Sustainable Human Settlements (Breaking New Ground or BNG) ... 65 4.2.2 2007: Framework for an Inclusionary Housing Policy in South

Africa (Inclusionary Housing Policy or IHP) ... 66 4.2.3 2009: The Revised Housing Code... 67

(15)

xiii

4.2.4 2009: The Enhanced People’s Housing Process (EPHP) ... 68

4.2.5 2011: The National Development Plan (NDP) ... 69

4.2.6 Concluding housing 2004-2015: a continued case of breadth over depth ... 70

5. South Africa’s approach to rental and social housing ... 74

6. Past responses to informal backyard rental issues ... 78

6.1 Approaches to backyard rental interventions in the Gauteng Province ... 80

6.1.1 Alexandra Renewal Project as a combined response by all levels of government ... 81

6.1.2 Orlando East and Zola as urban improvement in a low-income township ... 82

6.1.3 Cosmo City, City of Johannesburg: Controlled backyarding growth in a new, mixed income settlement... 84

6.1.4 Additional subsidised room rentals in the K206 RDP settlement ... 85

6.1.5 Findings on Gauteng’s attempts at addressing the informal backyard rental sector ... 86

6.2 Approaches to backyard rental interventions in the Western Cape Province ... 88

6.2.1 Factreton, Cape Town, as a services intervention in a municipal housing area ... 89

6.2.2 An attempt by the Knysna Local Municipality ... 91

6.2.3 Findings on the Western Cape’s attempts at addressing the informal backyard rental sector ... 91

6.3 The way forward ... 93

7. Conclusion... 98

(16)

xiv

MANUSCRIPT TWO ... 116

OVERCOMING THE EQUATORIAL DIVIDE: PLANNING THEORY IMBALANCES AND OPPORTUNITIES FROM THE GLOBAL SOUTH BASED ON SOUTH AFRICA’S INFORMAL BACKYARD RENTAL SECTOR ... 116

Abstract ... 116

2. Placing the global South in a research context ... 118

2.1 The case of South Africa and its informal backyard rental structures ... 120

3. The Planning idea and its foci ... 122

4. Reflections on some normative planning theories ... 122

4.1 The rational planning model ... 123

4.2 Advocacy Planning ... 124

4.3 The just city and the right to the city ... 125

4.4 Participatory planning ... 127

4.4.1 Collaborative or communicative planning... 127

4.4.2 Radical or insurgent planning ... 131

5. Other relevant planning influences and concepts less related to normative theory ... 133

5.1 Modernism ... 135

5.2 Neoliberalism as an instrument of modern development ... 137

5.3 The formal-informal dichotomy... 140

(17)

xv

5.5 Co-production and hybridity across borders... 145

Acknowledgements... 151

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH ARTICLES ... 166

RESEARCH ARTICLE ONE ... 166

TOWARDS MORE COMPACT SOUTH AFRICAN SETTLEMENTS THROUGH INFORMAL HOUSING: THE CASE OF BACKYARD DENSIFICATION IN BRIDGTON AND BONGOLETHU, OUDTSHOORN .. 166

Abstract ... 167

Abstrak ... 168

2. Literature Review ... 170

2.1 The urban sprawl concept... 170

2.2 The density concept ... 171

2.3 Informal housing in South Africa and the post-Apartheid status quo ... 173

2.4 Introducing the informal backyard rental sector ... 176

3. Empirical Investigation ... 179

3.1 Research methodology ... 179

3.1.1 Sampling methods, sample sizes and data collection ... 179

3.1.2 Response rate and limitations ... 181

(18)

xvi

3.2 The case of Oudtshoorn ... 182

3.3 Housing demand in the Oudtshoorn Local Municipality ... 184

3.4 Informal settlement in Oudtshoorn – from Riemvasmaak to Rose Valley ... 185

3.5 The Bridgton and Bongolethu study area... 187

3.5.1 Results and discussion based on Bridgton/Bongolethu case study findings ... 188

3.5.1.i Introduction and demographic findings ... 188

3.5.1.ii The Structures Themselves... 189

3.5.1.iii Findings related to Dwelling unit and Population Densities ... 190

3.5.1.iv Reflections on Sprawl Issues... 192

3.5.1.v Infrastructure Considerations and Service Access ... 193

RESEARCH ARTICLE TWO ... 205

HOW INFORMAL BACKYARD RENTALS REALISE THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL ASSET VALUE OF SUBSIDISED HOMES IN SOUTH AFRICA ... 205

Abstract ... 206

2.1 Reviewing the concept of property rights ... 209

(19)

xvii

2.3 Subsidised housing against poverty in post-apartheid South Africa

... 213

3.1 Oudtshoorn and the Bridgton and Bongolethu townships ... 220

3.2 Housing as a financial asset – The Bridgton and Bongolethu case 221 3.3 Housing as an economic asset – The Bridgton and Bongolethu case ... 225

3.3.1 Informal backyard industries in Bridgton and Bongolethu ... 225

3.3.2 Informal backyard rentals in Bridgton and Bongolethu ... 225

3.3.2.1 Informal backyard rental landlord profiles in the Bridgton and Bongolethu case ... 226

3.3.2.2 Informal backyard rental tenant profiles in the Bridgton and Bongolethu case ... 228

3.3.3.3 Informal backyard rental contributions in the Bridgton and Bongolethu case ... 229

3.4 Housing as a social asset – The Bridgton and Bongolethu case ... 231

RESEARCH ARTICLE THREE ... 245

SOUTH AFRICA’S INFORMAL BACKYARD RENTAL SECTOR THROUGH THE LENS OF SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY: A CASE STUDY OF BRIDGTON AND BONGOLETHU, OUDTSHOORN ... 245

Abstract ... 246

(20)

xviii

1.1 Coming to terms with social sustainability and planning for socially

sustainable communities ... 248

1.2 Social sustainability challenges in the South African context ... 252

2. The informal backyard rental sector and issues of social sustainability ... 254

2.1 The access, safety and security provided by backyard locations .... 255

2.2 Opportunities to access basic services ... 256

2.3 Demographic trends for landlords and their backyard tenants ... 257

2.3.1 Connections between landlords and backyard tenants: family, friends or strangers? ... 258

2.3.2 The evolving supportive nature of the landlord-tenant relationship ... 259

3.1.1 Methodology ... 262

3.1.2 Demographic findings ... 263

3.1.3 The nature of landlord-tenant connections in the Bridgton/Bongolethu case study ... 268

3.1.4 Evaluating the relationship between landlords and their tenants in Bridgton and Bongolethu ... 269

3.1.5 Conflict resolution and recourse in the Bridgton and Bongolethu case ... 271

3.2 Other challenges to social sustainability uncovered in Bridgton and Bongolethu... 273

3.2.1 Alcohol and substance abuse, crime and safety ... 273

3.2.2 Fires threats and related backyarding risks... 275

(21)

xix

RESEARCH ARTICLE FOUR ... 292

REVISITING THE COMPENSATION HYPOTHESIS: PLANNING FOR URBAN GREEN SPACE AND INFORMAL BACKYARD RENTALS IN SOUTH AFRICA ... 292

Abstract ... 293

2.1 Coming to terms with urban green space, related services and benefits ... 296

2.2 Urban green space and South Africa’s low-income communities ... 302

2.3 South African shantytowns, informal backyard rentals and environmental considerations ... 303

3.1 Case Study: Introducing Oudtshoorn, Bridgton and Bongolethu .... 307

3.2 Methodology ... 309

4. Findings and Discussion ... 310

4.1 Findings on public green spaces in the Bridgton/Bongolethu case 310 4.2 Domestic gardens in Bridgton and Bongolethu ... 316

(22)

xx

CHAPTER FOUR: CONCLUSIONS ... 331 4.1 Introduction ... 331 4.2 Conclusions based on thirteen main themes ... 331 4.2.1 South African policy and legislation have failed to account for

informal backyard rentals ... 332 4.2.2 Past critiques on the approach to low -income housing are

reaffirmed ... 335 4.2.3 Informality is a promising, but unrecognised form of modern

urbanisation ... 336 4.2.4 Contextualised research at smaller scale is paramount ... 337 4.2.5 Population density is a an especially significant planning

consideration ... 338 4.2.6 Infrastructure considerations are pivotal in terms of planning for

informal backyard rentals ... 339 4.2.7 Backyard rentals realise the multidimensional asset value of low

-income housing ... 342 4.2.8 Familial connections between landlords and tenants may be more

significant than previously recorded... 344 4.2.9 Formalising the landlord-tenant relationship may be untenable ... 346 4.2.10 Specific landlord and tenant characteristics could be identified to

guide planning interventions ... 347 4.2.11 The informal backyard rental sector levies substantial

environmental impacts ... 349 4.2.12 Backyarders are generally disenfranchised and need

representation ... 350 4.2.13 Past interventions provide significant lessons for the future ... 351 4.3 Certain generalisations are confirmed and new contributions are

(23)

xxi

CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS ... 357 5.1 Planning recommendation one: Recognising and supporting the

informal backyard rental sector in policy and legislation 357 5.2 Planning recommendation two: Developing an improved

understanding based on more (local) research ... 359 5.3 Planning recommendation three: Certain site layout and planning

considerations should be contemplated ... 361 5.4 Planning recommendation four: Infrastructure capacity and access to services should be prioritised ... 364 5.5 Planning recommendation five: The structural elements of informal

backyard dwellings should be addressed to improve health and safety ... 367 5.6 Planning recommendation six: Subsidies should focus on informal

backyard rental tenants ... 369 5.7 Planning recommendation seven: The multidimensional asset value

of housing should be encouraged in planning approaches ... 369 5.8 Planning recommendation eight: Funding should be acquired and

secured to finance interventions and address capacity constraints at local level ... 371 5.9 Planning recommendation nine: Rental agreements and the landlord

tenant relationship should be explored and understood to inform interventions ... 371 5.10 Planning recommendation ten: Backyarders have a voice and must

be heard ... 373 5.11 Planning recommendation eleven: Opportunities for future research

... 374 5.12 Closing remarks ... 375 ANNEXURES... 380

(24)

xxii

Annexure A: A closer look at the OLM and Oudtshoorn town ... 381 ... 381 Annexure B: Satellite image of Oudtshoorn 2016 ... 382 Annexure C: Satellite image of rose valley in 2013 ... 383 Annexure D: Satellite image of Rose Valley in 2016 ... 384 Annexure E: Satellite image of the Bridgton pavilion and surrounding

area ... 385 Annexure F: 2012 Rose Valley questionnaire (English) ... 386 2012 Rose Valley questionnaire (Afrikaans) ... 391 Annexure G: 2013 Bridgton and Bongolethu questionnaire (English) ... 396 2013 Bridgton and Bongolethu questionnaire (Afrikaans) ... 403 Annexure H: 2015 Bridgton and Bongolethu questionnaire landlords

(English) ... 410 2015 Bridgton and Bongolethu questionnaire landlords (Afrikaans) ... 418 Annexure I: 2015 Bridgton and Bongolethu questionnaire backyard

tenants (English) ... 426 2015 bridgton and bongolethu questionnaire backyard tenants

(Afrikaans) ... 434 Annexure J: Guidelines for authors Town and Regional Planning... 442 Annexure K: Guidelines for authors Housing Studies ... 444 Annexure L: Guidelines for authors Community Development Journal 450 Annexure M: Guidelines for authors Environment and Planning A ... 456 Annexure N: Letter from co-author... 463 Annexure O: Permission from the editor of Journal, Town and Regional

(25)

xxiii

Annexure P: Case study photographs ... 466 BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 471

(26)

xxiv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Unpacking the title ... 1 Table 2: Figures on the scope of the informal backyard rental sector in

South Africa ... 51 Table 3: Post-1994 South African housing policies and rental refere nces

... 53 Table 4: Post-1994 South African housing legislation ... 54 Table 5: The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa and the right to housing ... 60 Table 6: Most prevalent challenges to be addressed by a backyard

intervention policy ... 79 Table 7: Publications on small-scale and informal backyard rentals

post-2004 ... 93 Table 8: Advantages and disadvantages of both lower and increased

densities ... 172 Table 9: Summary of density findings for 2013 and 2015

Bridgton/Bongolethu Surveys ... 191 Table 10: Service access for backyard respondents in study area vs

average access in the Oudtshoorn Local Municipality 193 Table 11: Average backyard rental charges per month, per informal

backyard structure ... 230 Table 12: Urban social sustainability related to non-physical and

physical forms ... 251 Table 13: Summary of informal backyard landlord and tenant profiles in

Bridgton/Bongolethu ... 347 Table 14: A SWOT analysis of previously piloted interventions in the

(27)

xxv

Table 15: Main generalisations confirmed and new contributions made by this study ... 354 Table 16: Linking research objectives, conclusions, recommendations

(28)

xxvi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Apartheid’s ten homelands or Bantustans ... 37 Figure 2: The typical apartheid city model ... 40 Figure 3: Arnstein’s participation ladder ... 131 Figure 4: The OLM within South Africa ... 182 Figure 5: The spatial layout of Oudtshoorn town ... 183 Figure 6: The Bridgton/Bongolethu case study area ... 187 Figure 7: A simplistic view of South Africa’s property ladder in the

low-income housing market ... 214 Figure 8: The Bridgton and Bongolethu study are within the town of

Oudtshoorn ... 220 Figure 9: Correlation coefficient graph for property valuation versus

number of backyard structures ... 223 Figure 10: Mean ages backyard tenants and landlords for both sexes in

years ... 264 Figure 11: Landlord marital status in actual numbers... 265 Figure 12: Backyard tenant marital status in actual numbers ... 266 Figure 13: Comparing sources and prevalence of conflict for landlords

and informal backyard tenants ... 270 Figure 14: Terms negotiated in Rental Agreements (%) ... 272 Figure 15: The town of Oudtshoorn and the Bridgton/Bongolethu case

study ... 308 Figure 16: Aerial view of The Bridgton Pavilion and surrounding urban

green space ... 309 Figure 17: Regularity of public green space use ... 311 Figure 18: Features of a public green space rated as critical ... 313

(29)

xxvii

Figure 19: The thirteen main conclusions drawn for this study ... 332 Figure 20: A view of Oudtshoorn………...466 Figure 21: A view of Oudtshoorn………..466 Figure 22: A view of Oudtshoorn………..466 Figure 23: An aerial view of a still expanding Riemvasmaak, circa 2011 ………466 Figure 24: Another view of Riemvasmaak from the air in 2011 ………...466 Figure 25: A more populated Rose Valley visible from the highway in 2012 ………467 Figure 26: A chaperone and his sibling take a break during the Rose Valley surveys in 2012 ……….467 Figure 27: A decorated section of the Bridgton Pavilion’s corrugated metal………..467 Figure 28: The Bridgton Pavilion wall, undecorated and jagged in most parts………...467 Figure 29: A glimpse of the inner sanctum of the Bridgton Pavilion…...467 Figure 30: Locked gates bar entrance to a local playpark………..467 Figure 31: Even surrounded by razor wire and fences children find a way into this playpark………467 Figure 32: Litter dumped in a liminal area………..468 Figure 33: Litter dumped in a liminal area………..468 Figure 34: An informal backyard rental dwelling under construction…468 Figure 35: An elderly wheelchair bound homeowner who depends on backyard

tenants……….468 Figure 36: A timber backyard dwelling draped with canvas resembles a tent………468

(30)

xxviii

Figure 37: A timber backyard dwelling, typical in the case study…..468

Figure 38: Survey assistants engage with a respondent outside her timber and metal shack……….469

Figure 39: A survey assistant explaining the questionnaire to a

respondent………..469 Figure 40: Residents of a main dwelling pose in the morning sun….469 Figure 41: Two mail backyard tenants share a single small room….469 Figure 42: The inside of an informal backyard structure poorly insulated with cardboard………..469

Figure 43: A view of a bedroom in an informal backyard dwelling of improved construction……….469

Figure 44: A larger backyard dwelling with rooms divided by curtains. Note the television………..470

Figure 45: An antenna and electrical wire connected to a timber backyard shack……….470 Figure 46: Informal electricity lines enter an informal backyard

dwelling……….470 Figure 47: One of the few private vehicles encountered in the case study………..470

(31)

xxix

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

20 PTP: ………...Twenty Prioritised Townships Programme ANC: ………African National Congress ARP: ………..Alexandra Renewal Project AsgiSA: ………Accelerated and Shared Growth Initiative BESIP: ………..Backyard Essential Services Improvement Programme BNG: ………..……….Breaking New Ground: A Comprehensive Plan for the

Development of Sustainable Human Settlements

CBD: ………..Central Business District CRU: ………Community Residential Units CSIR: ……….Council for Scientific and Industrial Research DBS: ……….Discount Benefit Scheme DHET ………..……….Department of Higher Education and Training DRC: ……….Democratic Republic of the Congo EDM: ……….Eden District Municipality EPHP: ………..Enhanced People’s Housing Process FAR………..………..Floor Area Ratio FLISP: ……….Finance Linked Individual Subsidy Programme GDHS: ……….Gauteng Department of Human Settlements GEAR: ………Growth, Employment and Redistribution Strategy HDI: ………...Human Development Index ICESCR: …………...International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights IDP: ………Integrated Development Plan IHP: ……….Framework for an Inclusionary Housing Policy (IHP) in South Africa

(32)

xxx

IMF: ………..International Monetary Fund IUDF: ……….Integrated Urban Development Framework LDC: ……….Least Developed Country LED: ………...Local economic development

LUS: ………..Land Use Scheme

MDG: ………Millennium Development Goal MTSF: ……….Medium Term Strategic Framework NDP: ………..National Development Plan NGO: ………Non-Governmental Organisation NHF: ………...National Housing Forum NHSS: ………..National Housing Subsidy Scheme

NP: ………National Party

NRF: ………National Research Foundation OLM: ………Oudtshoorn Local Municipality PHP: ………People’s Housing Process PIE: ………...………..Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and

Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998

RDF: ……….. Rural Development Framework RDP: ……….Reconstruction and Development Programme RHT: ………Rental Housing Tribunal RSA: ………...Republic of South Africa

SA: ………...South Africa

SALGA: ……….South African Local Government Association SDF: ………..Spatial Development Frameworks

(33)

xxxi

SHI: ………...Social Housing Institution SHP: ………Social Housing Policy Soweto: ………..South Western Townships SPLUMA: ………Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act 16 of 2013

TB: ………..Tuberculosis

UDF: ………Urban Development Framework UDF UISP: ……….Informal Settlement Upgrading Programme

UN: ………..United Nations

(34)

1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1. Unpacking the title of this thesis

This chapter provides a primary introduction to the research theme and elaborates on the research methodology employed in this investigation. Before the contents of the chapter is officially initiated under the heading ‘Problem statement and motivation’, this section deciphers the study’s title to provide some orientation. The title of this research, ‘Informality and sustainability: reflecting on South Africa’s informal backyard rental sector from a planning perspective’, is decoded in Table 1.

Table 1: Unpacking the title

Informality The unauthorised and ostensibly unorganised practices commonly relied on by the indigent, but regarded by authorities as illegal, undesirable and anti-modern as an increasingly critical planning consideration in the local (South African) context.

Sustainability Generally premised on economic, social and environmental considerations for sustained future wellbeing and framed by broader resilience-minded thinking as a point of departure in considering human settlement planning.

Reflecting To review and contemplate with intense consideration, in accordance with Bloom’s taxonomy in reference to doctoral level outputs.

Informal backyard rental sector

The small-scale private rental sector constituted by informal tenements erected adjacent to formal dwellings as a growing housing subsector in South Africa to be considered within the local planning environment.

Planning perspective

Through the lens of the urban and regional planning profession, in terms of planning theory and practice towards improved future outcomes.

Source: Own construction (2016)

This research therefore aims to reflect on informality and sustainability as two critical considerations within the planning profession, by evaluating the role and contribution of the informal backyard rental sector within the local South African reality. It should be noted that new knowledge generated in this regard, in keeping with the requirements set for a PhD, are provided in Chapters Four and Five of this study, specifically via Tables 15 and 16.

(35)

2

2. Problem statement and motivation

Informality has become, and will remain a part of urban life for the foreseeable future across the globe (Ernstson et al., 2014:1568). Traditionally associated only with the developing world, relegated to the geographies of the global South, informality is progressively recognised as a feature of urban life in the western world, regularly identified in the cities of the global North (Porter et al., 2011:119). Whilst informality conceptualises a range of unregulated settlements, unsanctioned social networks, livelihood and income-generating strategies, cultural and political mobilisation practices (Huchzermeyer, 2009:59; Watson, 2009a:186; Yiftachel, 2009:88; Duminy, 2011:1; Ernstson et al., 2014:1568), it is most distinct where physically manifested. In this regard, informal housing has become an especially pertinent field of investigation within a number of fields and particularly in urban planning. In connection with previous assertions on informality as a developing world issue, the informal has traditionally been conceptualised around potential negative impacts in terms of an illegal and improper corruption of the modern and progressive, as chaotic and anarchistic and as fundamentally unsustainable (Shapurjee & Charlton, 2013:654). The last is especially pertinent given the now well-established focus on sustainability as a planning and development guideline, and that framing informality as in the aforementioned way curtails sustainable development objectives (Odendaal, 2012:176).

Sustainable development is most commonly defined according to the landmark definition provided by the Brundtland Commission in the 1987 report, Our Common

Future, as: ‘Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the

present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (Blewitt, 2008:9; Claes et al., 2012:10; Barkemeyer et al., 2014:16; Imran et

al., 2014:134).

Following the Brundtland definition, sustainable development is often conceptualised by a concentric model that consists of economic, social and environmental spheres, also referred to as the three pillars of sustainable development, or the ‘triple bottom line’ (Barkemeyer et al., 2014:17). Following the triple bottom line approach, sustainable development requires a compromise between economic, social and environmental objectives that may establish wellbeing for both present and future generations (Ciegis et al., 2009:34; Claes et al., 2012:10; McCormick et al., 2013:4).

(36)

3

Whilst Brundtland-derived interpretations on sustainability have been criticised (Blewitt, 2008:9; Dixon & Woodcraft, 2013), the above definition is still the most widely cited and remains as the foundation of sustainability-thinking. Sustainability-led thinking has formed part of urban planning dogma for some time and urban planning is now reciprocally fundamental to the idea of sustainability (McCormick et al., 2013:4) as urban development provides challenges and opportunities for more sustainable futures (Weingaertner et al., 2014:124). In elaborating on sustainability within planning for human settlements, references are made to stewardship of the natural processes that support human life and equivalently to the social dimensions of urban life, equity, community and social justice, as well as to the aesthetic and spiritual qualities of the built environment (Friedmann, 2005:213). Planning for more sustainable outcomes is however fraught with challenges. To quote Dixon (2011:3): ‘There are formidable issues to address if transitions to a more sustainable future in urban areas are to be managed successfully’.

Porter et al. (2011:115) articulates these challenges as including rapid urbanisation, poverty and informality. In pursuit of true sustainability, it is perhaps fitting to acknowledge that sustainability is a fluid and transient target and that we can at best seek to be more sustainable than we are at present (Childers et al., 2014) by continuously revaluating our understanding of the subject and what may be included under sustainable practice. In keeping with the fluidity of sustainability and related theorising, this study also recognises the emergence of resilience as a concept now increasingly related to sustainability (Davoudi et al., 2012:299) with both sustainability and resilience theory included under the emerging interdisciplinary field of sustainability science (Childers et al., 2014:320). Resilience is a recent addition to the planning repertoire (Davoudi et al., 2012:300) conceptualised broadly as the ability of a system to respond to change or disruption without altering its basic state (Ahern, 2011:324), alternatively termed as the ability of a system to ‘bounce back’ or ‘bounce forth’ (Davoudi et al., 2012:301).

Ahern (2011:341) states: ‘While the concept of resilience is intellectually intriguing, it remains largely unpractised in contemporary urban planning’ and whilst resilience is gaining currency in the planning field, there are still critical issues to be addressed (Davoudi et al., 2012:333). Resilience is key to sustainability, but sustainability remains as ultimate objective (Cilliers & Cilliers, 2016:18). This study thus acknowledges resilience, but depends on sustainability and its triple-bottom line to inform and guide research.

(37)

4

Sustainable development is a key focus in the rhetoric of South African policy and legislation, well represented in especially planning and housing policy (RSA, 1994b; RSA, 2004; RSA, 2011; RSA, 2014a). For example, articulated as the integration of social, economic and environmental factors into planning, implementation and decision making (Gardner, 2009:15) and advancing spatial justice and spatial sustainability (Nel, 2016). Sustainable housing practice is framed as balancing the technical aspects of housing construction with the acute need for appropriate, sufficient and affordable shelter within communities through a co-evolutionary process between empowered stakeholders engaging with government, comprehending and implementing appropriate technologies and denouncing the conventional ‘one size fits all’ style of housing delivery (Gardner, 2009:16). A focus on sustainability in housing is significant, given that housing is a complex and multi-dimensional concept that intersects with social institutions, the economy, demographic changes and the natural environment (Turok & Borel-Saladin, 2015:5). Despite policy assertions, sustainability is poorly integrated into practice (Todes, 2011:123) and both planning and housing continue to grapple with a range of challenges in this regard.

The South African city is characterised as an architype of the modernist city owing to past apartheid planning and contemporary low-density, sprawling urban development (Gardner, 2009:8) patterns. The approach followed in South Africa’s approach to low-income housing, in its delivery of extraordinary volumes of low residential densities constituted by a detached typology of one-house per stand designed to accommodate a nuclear family (Poulsen & Silverman, 2005:20; Gardner, 2009:7) placed in monotonous suburbs generally located on the urban periphery (Poulsen & Silverman, 2005:20; Turok & Borel-Saladin, 2015:5) further contribute to an unsustainable urban morphology. Homeownership has been championed in the South African approach to low-cost housing in the post-apartheid era (Poulsen & Silverman, 2005:20; Gunter, 2014:98), neglecting other forms of tenure and their legitimacy (Gilbert et al., 1997:134) centred on eradicating informality in all forms (Morange, 2002:3), to deliver on the ‘suburban bliss’ (Robins, 2002) associated with the ideals of modern urban life. As such, South Africa essentially resorts to apartheid-era approaches in dealing with the informal (Miraftab, 2009:36; Huchzermeyer, 2014b:42) and reverts to the default response historically employed by the bourgeois when faced with housing the poor, resorting to displacement (Fainstein, 2014:2) through slum clearance and relocation programmes (Watson, 2009a:167).

(38)

5

The emphasis on homeownership is critiqued as a very narrow interpretation of the Constitutional right to housing (Turok & Borel-Saladin, 2015:5). It is well documented that the subsidised dwellings offered for ownership rarely meet the needs of the beneficiaries they are intended to serve (Carey, 2009:7; Gardner, 2009:7; Lemanski, 2009:482; Turok & Borel-Saladin, 2015:5). In addition, subsidised housing delivery has slowed down (Gardner, 2009:6; Watson, 2009b:9; Rubin & Gardner, 2013:29; Shapurjee et al., 2014:19), the housing backlog is increasing (Turok & Borel-Saladin, 2014:688; Turok & Borel-Saladin, 2015:5) and despite attempts at eradication, informality has taken root more aggressively (Watson, 2009b; Bradlow et al., 2011:268).

The bulk of recent growth in informal housing has taken place in the form of informal backyard rentals and not as free-standing informal dwellings in shantytowns (du Plessis, 2014:82; Turok & Borel-Saladin, 2015:4), despite expectations that informal backyard rental numbers would decline given increased household incomes and continued housing subsidisation (Turok & Borel-Saladin, 2015:8). Backyard dwellings are one of the fastest growing housing sub-sectors, absorbing more households than informal settlements and delivering a major share of new accommodation compared to the state’s subsidised housing programmes (Tshangana, 2013:2-3). Low-income private rentals, of which informal backyard dwellings constitute a significant proportion, have been recognised as both efficient and pervasive (Gardner, 2009:3), representing the ‘second-most successful functioning housing sub-market’ in South Africa (Carey, 2009:11). Informal backyard rentals are progressively becoming more of a practical and rational accommodation choice to a range of heterogenic households (Watson, 2009b:5; Rubin & Gardner, 2013:26; Tshangana, 2013:2; Shapurjee et al., 2014:20) who are awaiting housing subsidies, prefer rental over ownership or are better served by informal options (Carey, 2009:10; Gardner, 2009:10). Informal backyard rentals continue to grow (Zwaig, 2015:3) due a range of both supply and demand side factors (Rubin & Gardner, 2013:16), without state intervention (Zwaig, 2015:3).

South Africa’s informal backyard rental sector has enjoyed limited acknowledgement in official housing policy (Morange, 2002:23; Lemanski, 2009:475; Shapurjee et al., 2014:19), only narrowly referenced in certain policy documents and addressed in limited piecemeal attempts at national, provincial and metropolitan level (Gardner, 2009:13; Rubin & Gardner, 2013:44).

(39)

6

The disregard shown for the informal backyard rental sector to date stands as a testament to the complexity of the issue and the negative lens through which it has been perceived by most authorities (Poulsen & Silverman, 2005:22) and politicians (Watson, 2009b:9; Rubin & Gardner, 2013:72), largely framed by perspectives focused on condemnation and eradication (Lemanski, 2009:480; Bradlow et al., 2011:269; Rubin & Gardner, 2013:68). Whilst scholarship has progressively engaged with informal backyard rentals from a more positive viewpoint and the state’s dialog on the subject is showing a turn towards recognition and policy intervention in the distant future (RSA, 2014a), the issue requires more ardent and urgent support in pursuit of more sustainable human settlement outcomes.

In attempting to view informal backyard rentals through the sustainability lens, it is important to recognise that the sector produces various challenges, but more importantly, also potentials (Morange, 2002:23; Poulsen & Silverman, 2005:22; Carey, 2009:10; Gardner, 2009:12; Lemanski, 2009:476; Watson, 2009b:7; Rubin & Gardner, 2013:10; Shapurjee & Charlton, 2013:663; Tshangana, 2013:7; Shapurjee

et al., 2014:19; Turok & Borel-Saladin, 2015:11) for more sustainable futures in terms

of informal backyard rental landlords, tenants, the state and South Africa’s human settlements. The accuracy of such assertions will only come from continued research on the subject to validate and disprove existing generalisations and enrich our understanding towards a more nuanced comprehension.

As early as 1997, Gilbert et al. (1997:144) called for more research on the informal backyard rental sector to fill knowledge gaps and increase our understanding of the sector’s complexities. Whilst much research has been conducted on South Africa’s housing sector in the meantime, backyard dwellings are often still referenced as ‘a subsidiary element of studies focusing on other aspects of housing’ (Lemanski, 2009:474), leaving the informal backyard rental niche as fairly obscured and hidden from analytical view. In 2007 Bank (2007:207) commented that ‘…one is struck by how little we know about the yards as residential, social and economic environments’. By 2009, Lemanski (2009:474) maintained that informal backyard rentals was still an under-researched area, covered only by a handful of in-depth studies.

(40)

7

Notwithstanding such claims, both Carey (2009:15) and Watson (2009b:7) proclaimed that the then existing empirical work conducted on landlords and tenants in the sector was self-reinforcing and that whilst case studies would present variations on established generalisations, the chances of uncovering significant new insights would be slim and that the discussion could move to possible interventions. However, this study shows that there are still significant contradictions in findings on the informal backyard rental sector in prevailing literature. For example, Crankshaw et al. (2000:847); Morange (2002:13); Bank (2007:211) and Lemanski (2009:478) report that informal backyard landlords and tenants rarely share filial ties, whereas Watson (2009b:19) and Zwaig (2015:5) find that many landlords and tenants are related. Furthermore, Gardner (2009:23); Lemanski (2011:479); Shapurjee and Charlton (2013:658) and Gunter (2014:102) cite a financial motivation as primary consideration in landlords’ decision to provide informal backyard rentals, whilst Gilbert et al. (1997:133) maintain that landlords provide rentals mainly motivated by compassion for the otherwise destitute, with Morange (2002:16) and Tshangana (2013:11) concurring that financial motivations are rarely at play. In terms of the landlord-tenant relationship, Gilbert et al. (1997:133); Morange (2002:13); Carey (2009:16); Watson (2009b:6) and Rubin and Gardner (2013:6) report non-exploitative and relatively conflict-free rental conditions, Lemanski (2009:481) typifies the relationship as one of indifference, whereas Gunter (2014:100) and Zwaig (2015:2) emphasise the vulnerability of tenants in the midst of exploitative and constrained settings. Moreover, Morange (2002:5) reflects on the scarcity of backyard shacks in relatively new subsidised housing projects, whilst Lemanski (2009) shows the contrary. Shapurjee and Charlton (2013:663) and Turok and Borel-Saladin (2015:5) laud the informal backyard rental sector for providing improved accommodation outcomes compared to the dispersed informality manifest in shantytowns, whereas Morange (2002:3) posits that informal backyard tenancy does not provide tenants with improved accommodation in this regard.

As such, much of the current information on informal backyard rentals is based on contradictory evidence from quite dated studies (Rubin & Gardner, 2013:31) and it would still be premature to offer specific policy proposals without more comprehensive research (Turok & Borel-Saladin, 2015:22). Shapurjee et al. (2014:25) contend that more qualitative research is needed to address what Rubin and Gardner (2013:79) refer to as a dearth of accurate data on informal backyard rentals in South Africa. It is important to improve our understanding of the causes and effects related to informal backyard rentals if an appropriate policy is to be devised (Turok & Borel-Saladin, 2015:5).

(41)

8

It is only through persistent review, reassertion and interpretation within the flow of human activity that the value of planning (Healey, 2012:201-202) in terms of real world application may be shaped.

In this regard, future backyard planning interventions must be informed by those stakeholders involved in the informal backyard rental sector (Zwaig, 2015), leading Robins (2002:543) to recall the value of ‘further fine-grained ethnographic research in specific sites’ to arrive at realistic and implementable interventions’ based on lived experience and everyday practice (Robins, 2002:513-518). In a broader sense, such research endeavours are supported by calls for ethnography, surveys, extensive quantitative and qualitative exercises, mindful reflection and comparative study in the enduring quest to engage meaningfully with the Southern city and all its intricacies (Parnell et al., 2009:236). In the South African context connecting research to real world applications has become synonymous with the approach followed at most academic institutions (Ernstson et al., 2014:1569) and research entities, demonstrated in the case study approach that has come to define the bulk of research on the informal backyard rental sector locally.

It must be noted however that almost all informal backyard rental case studies in South Africa have been based on specific locations (Rubin & Gardner, 2013:79), being metropolitan or city-based (Zwaig, 2015:2), reflecting a broader research bias towards such areas (Visser, 2013). The metropolitan and larger city focus stems from contentions that rental housing is a significant component mostly in major cities (Gilbert et al., 1997:134) and that the ‘success of backyard shacks seem to be linked to the size of the city’ (Morange, 2002:6). This study challenges these generalisations following (Zwaig, 2015:2), addressing the concern raised by (Rubin & Gardner, 2013:79) that ‘little is known about the real (rental) conditions in smaller cities and towns across South Africa’. Differences in the informal backyard rental sector across urban scales and between different contexts must be acknowledged and accommodated by planners in the spirit of South Africa’s guide to sustainable human settlements, the breaking New Ground policy (Bank, 2007:226). It is only through more representative data that a national policy on informal backyard rentals may be drafted with application power at all urban scales. Research at the local level is further substantiated as until a national policy emerges, local authorities will be responsible for the challenges informal backyard rentals may present (Shapurjee et al., 2014:19). Here, the resources and capacity to address issues may be substantially weaker than in metros and larger cities (Zwaig, 2015:5).

(42)

9

Accordingly, and in recognising that research practices cannot be reduced into a tidy package of pragmatic answers applicable to any and every context (Bond, 2009:20), this study draws the research lens to the smaller town of Oudtshoorn and the informal backyard rentals in its Bridgton and Bongolethu townships

Given the problem statement and motivation provided in this section, it is important to crystallise the main research question posed by this study.

3. Main research question

The main research question posed by this study is articulated as follows: What challenges and potentials do South Africa’s informal backyard rental sector present towards the sustainability of human settlements?

In keeping with the main research question, this study aims to meet certain primary and secondary research objectives, briefly captured below.

3.1 Research objectives

The primary and secondary research objectives formulated for this study are provided in the following subsections. Note that these objectives are revisited in Chapter Five of the study, with Table 16 linking these objectives to the final conclusions drawn, recommendations made and new contributions ultimately provided by this research.

3.1.1 Primary research objectives

 Reflecting on South Africa’s informal backyard rental sector in terms of spatial, economic, social and environmental sustainability;

 Framing South Africa’s informal backyard rental sector within established planning theory discourse;

 Constructing a suitable definition for the informal backyard rental sector;

 Contextualising South Africa’s informal backyard rental sector in terms of the historic, policy and legislative framework;

 Drawing the research focus to nonmetropolitan areas as the next frontier to be investigated in terms of the informal backyard rental sector;

 Concluding which established generalisations can be confirmed and which new contributions can be made following this study;

Informality and sustainability : reflecting on South Africa's informal backyard rental sector from a planning perspective

Informality and sustainability: reflecting

on South Africa’s informal backyard

rental sector from a planning

perspective

LG Lategan

21441480

Thesis submitted for the degree

Philosophiae Doctor

in

Urban and Regional Planning

at the Potchefstroom Campus

of the North-West University

Promoter:

Prof EJ Cilliers

Informality and sustainability:

reflecting on South Africa’s informal

backyard rental sector from a

planning perspective

LG Lategan

21441480

Thesis submitted for the degree Philosophiae Doctor in

Urban and Regional Planning at the Potchefstroom

Campus of the North-West University

Promoter:

Prof EJ Cilliers

May 2017

PREFACE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ABSTRACT

OPSOMMING

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION