2J INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY
5.3 BACKGROUND ID THE STUDY AREA
5.4.4 Informal Settlements
After the implementation of the plan, it was apparent that people were not ready to stop illegal land subdivision and allocation. The first informal house (1991) was demolished by the LDLHC in collaboration with the other three planning authorities, with an attempt to discourage more informal structures. However, the attempt was done in vain because the court ordered the LHLDC to compensate the owner, indicating that the procedure followed to demolish the house was improper. Thereafter, more informal settlements took place (field owners).
One respondent at LSPP commented that, the four offices had something to hide because none of them wanted to take the blame. Itappears that this was supposed to be a secret, but later it was revealed that, the bulldozing machinery was borrowed from MCC, while the Ministry of Interior, through the LSPP, issued demolition instructions and the LHLDC carried out the process. The fact that these offices did not want to openly admit their role in the demolition process has also played part in development of informal settlement.
The MCC claims that, it was difficult to control the development effectively as informal buildings were made over night. Seeing that it was not getting adequate support from other planning bodies, the LHLDC opted to sue the informal settlers. However, the matters are still pending, and problems in the study area still stand. A major problem, which has always been there concerning full implementation of plans in Lesotho is lack oflegal support, which planners cannot do anything about, as they does not have control over the legal system (planning Authorities). The ineffective legal system has played a major part in hindering development control. However, LSPP says that, the LHLDC is guilty of not inspecting and supervising its scheme. To add to this, the MCC points out that the LHLDC was unaware of any illegal settlement because it did not expect any. However by the time it was aware of it, it was too late.
The land had already been double allocated, and infonnal structures were being constructed at a fast rate.
Itwas however, pointed out by the LHLDC that, it could not afford to provide public spaces, such as cemeteries and open spaces, as this is the responsibility ofMCC. Besides, the LHLDC could not do otherwise, but subdivide these sites, so that it could recover some of the costs incurred in the plan. The infonnal resident argues that, ifthe LHLDC owned the scheme, then it should have monitored and regulated its development.Itshould have seen to it that the provision of services was done properly and did not pose any threats to the residents. As it is, there are electrical poles and lines that are imposed on his dwelling site. Integrated work with service providers is required to correct this problem. However, the LEe points out that it cannot work with Physical Planners because they take too long to deliver and the LEC would run at a loss ifit were to keep the same pace.
The infonnal resident went on to point out that the government fails to exercise authority, and this also causes problems within the development environment. For instance, he says Taumanes' site is too big to be in an urban area and it needs to be subdivided into smaller and acceptable plot sizes as recommended by planning standards of Lesotho. Apart from this site, there are many other offensive activities, such as the farm and motor clinic, which the residents are opposed to.
According to LSPP, in 1993, the Ministry of Local Government was too lenient with field owners, when tackling the infonnal land subdivision matter. As such, it missed its focus by concentrating more on the compensation issue than to deal with the problem as a whole. Itwas during this time that infonnal settlement was made at an increased rate. It appears that, by 1997, there was more damage done on the study area (see Map .3).
There may always be something to hamper the full implementation of development schemes if there is no common understanding between the developer and the end-user. This is currently a serious problem, which calls for self-introspection within the planning body. Planning is at present, more theoretical than practical, because people do not understand it. Planners need to adapt a more workable approach lest more land disorders occur. Many places will have to be re- planned in the long run, as they will most certainly pose environmental hazards to the infonnal residents.
The government has made an attempt to settle the illegal land allocation problem in the study area by granting the people more compensation. However, there is credible evidence that compensation per se is not a viable solution for the unceasing problems that prevail on the ground in the study area. No matter how much compensation the government offers, it does not address the problem adequately, nor rescue the water mains trapped under some of the illegal buildings, nor create more access nor restore the public sites.
5.4.5 Compensation (1990 -1991)
The issues that had adverse impact on the compensation process and subsequently on the development scheme have been identified and summarized as follows: -
1. The discrepancy that existed in compensation rates. This has been a result of two planning authorities working with one issue, but not really harmonizing. Here, the tenurial investigations were made by the LSPP in the absence of the LHLDC, which was supposed to pay the compensation according to rates stipulated by the LSPP. The rates ranged from 70c/square meter to R1.70c/square meter (see compensation process, AppendixRI). The LHLDC made the payments, without the knowledge and understanding of how the LSPP determined the rates. Assuch, when field owners showed their dissatisfaction, it was hard for the LHLDC to deal with the matter appropriately.
2. The fact that the LSPP determined compensation rates without investigating prices in the black market was also problematic because field owners were unprepared to settle for less, regardless ofthe implications of an SDA.
3. The distorted information given by the Chief about compensation, as a temporary arrangement, confused field owner and their ideas and expectations about the development scheme were different from those ofthe LHLDC.
4. The better compensation ofR8.00 per square meter, which was offered by Lesotho Highlands Development Authority (LHDA), has also contributed to the spatial disorganization that occurred in Ha Matala study area because field owners were demanding the same amount, which the government could not afford.
5. The inauguration of the new, democratically elected government in 1993, aggravated the issue of compensation and consequently the informal settlement.