Municipal capacity support for one municipality in the western cape, over an 18-MONTH period to the
Department of environmental affairs and development planning, cape town, western cape
Bid response documents may be deposited in the bid box situated at dea&dp main entrance
Entrance department of environmental affairs and development planning
1 & 3 dorp street, utilitus building
Cape town
Bidding procedure enquiries may be directed to technical enquiries may be directed to:
CONTACT Donna Swartz CONTACT PERSON Allan Rhodes
Person
Note: all enquiries must be made via email and will be responded to via email.
[email protected] and
E-MAIL ADDRESS [email protected] E-MAIL ADDRESS
[email protected]
Supplier information
Name of bidder
Postal address
Street address
Telephone code number
Number
Cell phone
Number
E-mail address
VAT
Registration
Number
Contractor to initial...................................
of 89
www.westerncape.gov.za
Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning
Supplier tcs
Maaa
COMPLIANCE WCSEB Pin CSD
And
STATUS No. No:
B-bbee status b-bbee status [tick applicable box]
[Tick applicable box]
Level level sworn
VERIFICATION AFFIDAVIT Yes No
Yes NoCERTIFICATE
If yes, was the
1.1 Service providers with relevant expertise and experience are herewith invited to submit bids
for the appointment of a specialist professional service provider to support the
implementation of the Western Cape Inclusionary Housing Policy Framework (WCIHPF) and
the Housing Market Studies undertaken in Round 1 and Round 2, through the Housing Market
Studies Implementation Round 3 project.
1.2 The appointment is for an 18-month period spanning the 2026/27 and 2027/28 financial years
(October 2026 to March 2028) and focuses on translating existing housing market evidence
into practical, implementable municipal policy instruments, supported by financial feasibility
testing and targeted municipal capacity support.
2.1 Housing Market Studies Round 3 (HMS Round 3) shifts the programme's focus from evidence
generation to implementation. The project operationalises the findings of the previous two
rounds by developing standardised policy tools, testing their viability in selected
municipalities, and building municipal institutional capacity to adopt and apply these tools.
2.2 The four tasks of the project are:
- Task 1: The development of a standard draft Pro Forma Inclusionary Housing Policy for
municipalities, providing municipalities with a structured, adaptable policy tool aligned to
the WCIHPF, that they can adapt to their circumstances and adopt as an Inclusionary
Housing Policy.
- Task 2: Undertaking light-touch Inclusionary Housing feasibility studies for three
municipalities, to determine the financial and market viability of inclusionary housing.
- Task 3: Provision of targeted capacity assistance to one municipality to develop and
prepare its own draft Inclusionary Housing Policy (excluding the need for council approval,
or any public participation, which the municipality will need to undertake itself).
- Task 4: Development of a standard draft Pro Forma Affordable Housing Enablement Policy
for municipalities, outlining a practical menu of mechanisms to support the delivery of
affordable housing beyond inclusionary approaches that municipalities may choose to
adopt.
- Background & context
3.1 Programme History
3.1.1 The Western Cape Inclusionary Housing Policy Framework (WCIHPF), adopted by Provincial
Cabinet in 2022, identifies a sound understanding of local housing market dynamics as a
prerequisite for the design of effective, evidence-based inclusionary housing policies.
3.1.2 In response, the Western Cape Government initiated Housing Market Studies Round 1
(2021/22), covering four intermediate cities: Stellenbosch, George, Mossel Bay, and
Drakenstein. The findings informed municipal planning instruments, including IDPs, SDFs,
Human Settlement Plans, and the preparation of an inclusionary zoning policy in
Stellenbosch.
3.1.3 Building on this, HMS Round 2 (2023/24 to 2025/26) expanded the evidence base by:
- Extending studies to seven additional urban areas in the following municipalities: Bitou
(Plettenberg Bay), Knysna (town of Knysna), Oudtshoorn (town of Oudtshoorn),
Overstrand (Greater Hermanus), Saldanha Bay (several towns), Swartland (several
towns), and Breede Valley (Worcester);
- Updating the original four studies using refined methodologies and current data; and
- Producing a consolidated analytical framework, individual municipal studies, and
synthesis outputs.
Contractor to initial...................................
of 89
www.westerncape.gov.za
Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning
3.1.4 Together, Rounds I and 2 have established a credible, province-wide evidence base on
housing market performance and affordability dynamics. A key gap remains: many
municipalities lack the practical tools, tested approaches, and institutional capacity to
translate this evidence into implementable inclusionary housing policies and broader
affordable housing delivery mechanisms.
3.2 Strategic Alignment
3.2.1 The project directly responds to the following strategic frameworks:
- Western Cape Provincial Strategic Plan 2025-2030: operationalises transversal outcomes
on access to shelter, household stability, and spatial transformation, bridging the gap
between strategic intent and on-the-ground delivery.
- Growth4Jobs Strategy: responds to Priority Focus Area 1 (Driving Growth Opportunities
through Investment) by reducing policy uncertainty, improving development feasibility,
and supporting capital formation in the construction and property sectors.
- Western Cape Inclusionary Housing Policy Framework (WCIHPF): directly supports the
implementation phase of the WCIHPF by translating its objectives into practical
municipal policy instruments.
4.1 The service provider will be required to undertake four tasks, combining policy development,
applied feasibility analysis, and institutional capacity support. All work must build directly on
the existing Housing Market Studies and be delivered in a manner that supports municipal
implementation, not only policy formulation.
4.2 Task 1: Development of a Standard Draft Pro Forma Inclusionary Housing Policy
The service provider must develop a standard draft pro forma Inclusionary Housing Policy (IHP)
that Western Cape municipalities can adapt to their local contexts where inclusionary housing is
feasible. The pro forma must function as a practical, structured, and legally defensible model that
a municipality can take through a political adoption process with minimal external assistance. It
must be capable of creating certainty for municipal officials adjudicating applications, Municipal
Planning Tribunals, and private developers responding to the policy.
The service provider's approach must be informed by a critical review of existing South African IH
policy experience, including but not limited to the Stellenbosch Municipality Inclusionary Zoning
Policy (2023), the City of Johannesburg Inclusionary Housing Incentives, Regulations and
Mechanisms (2019), and relevant academic and practitioner literature including Weakley (2025)
and Turok, Rubin and Scheba (2024). Lessons drawn must be explicitly applied to the Western
Cape context and must not be uncritically transposed from metropolitan conditions.
The pro forma policy deliverable must, at minimum, address the following:
- Task 1.1: Enabling preconditions and transitional arrangements: Identify and explain the
spatial planning, bylaw, and zoning scheme preconditions that must be in place before a
municipality can implement a formal IH policy. This must include guidance on how a
municipality may impose IH contributions as conditions of planning approval during a
transitional phase prior to formal policy adoption, as occurred in Stellenbosch, and the
governance and probity requirements that apply in such circumstances.
- Task 1.2: Policy scope and trigger conditions: Define the development types, sizes, and
circumstances that trigger an IH obligation, including the relationship between existing
Contractor to initial...................................
of 89
www.westerncape.gov.za
Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning
and additional land use rights. Address both greenfield and densification scenarios.
Specify threshold options and the rationale for each, with contextual criteria to guide
municipal selection.
- Task 1.3: Set-aside requirements and feasibility calibration: Present a range of set-aside
options (expressed as a percentage of total units, floor area, or additional rights value)
with accompanying guidance on how the appropriate set-aside level must be
determined for each municipality through an economic and financial feasibility study and
a standardised contribution calculator. The pro forma must include a model brief for a
feasibility study and guidance on developing or adapting an IH contribution calculator,
drawing on the CoJ calculator experience and City of Cape Town pilot work referenced
in the WCIHPF.
- Task 1.4: Policy options framework: Present clearly defined options across each of the
following policy dimensions, with contextual selection criteria for each option covering
local housing market conditions, development feasibility, institutional capacity, and stage
of municipal IH policy readiness:
- Set-aside approaches, including differentiated requirements for standard trigger areas
versus spatially targeted overlay zones or catalytic areas.
- Income targeting, including segmentation of the affordable housing income range
and proportional allocation across income sub-bands.
- Tenure options, including for-sale, rental, social housing, and hybrid models.
- On-site, off-site, and in-lieu contribution mechanisms, including the conditions under
which each is appropriate and governance requirements for in-lieu funds.
- Affordability preservation measures, including tenure restrictions, title deed conditions,
HOA/Body Corporate provisions, and monitoring requirements.
- Developer incentive options, including density bonuses, parking relaxations,
development contribution discounts, overlay zone rights, and expedited permitting.
- Task 1.5: Spatial targeting and land use management integration: Provide guidance on
designating IH trigger areas and priority receiving areas in MSDFs, creating IH overlay zones
in zoning schemes and Municipal Planning By-Laws, and aligning IH obligations with
existing spatial designations such as restructuring zones, densification encouragement
areas, and PHSHDA declarations.
- Task 1.6: Administrative process and institutional requirements: Set out the end-to-end
administrative process for applying the IH policy from pre-application engagement
through to the planning permission, the IH agreement (a legal agreement between a
municipality and a private developer that binds the developer to deliver affordable
housing units as a condition of receiving development approval or additional
development rights), affordability preservation monitoring, and enforcement. Include
guidance on the capacity, systems, and delegations a municipality needs to implement
the policy. Draw on the Johannesburg experience regarding the need for standardised
conditions and a simpler framework to reduce administrative burden and tribunal
uncertainty.
- Task 1.7: Certainty, consistency, and enforceability: The pro forma must include model IH
policy clauses, a model IH agreement template, and model planning permission
conditions that municipalities can adapt directly. It must propose practical enforcement
measures that are proportionate to non-metro institutional capacity and identify the
consequences of non-compliance that must be embedded in the IH agreement and
conditions of approval.
Contractor to initial...................................
of 89
www.westerncape.gov.za
Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning
- Task 1.8: Monitoring and evaluation framework: Include a minimum monitoring and
evaluation framework aligned with the output and outcome indicators set out in the
WCIHPF, adapted to non-metro capacity constraints.
The Task 1 deliverable is a single structured document constituting the pro forma IHP, supported
by concise technical notes within the pro forma documenting the evidence base, comparative
analysis, and rationale for the policy options presented. The pro forma IHP and its technical notes
must explicitly address the lessons drawn from Stellenbosch, Johannesburg, and the academic
literature, and explain how these have been applied or adapted for the Western Cape context.
4.3 Task 2: Inclusionary Housing Feasibility Studies for Three Municipalities
The service provider must undertake cost-effective, applied inclusionary housing feasibility
assessments for three municipalities for which Housing Market Studies have already been
completed under the Round 1 and 2 of the Housing Market Studies project. The municipalities to
be assessed are George, Drakenstein, and Mossel Bay.
The feasibility work must be practical and proportionate, not exhaustive, voluminous or
theoretical. Its primary purpose is to determine whether, where, and under what conditions
inclusionary housing is financially viable in each municipality, and to provide sufficiently robust
evidence to support the development of an inclusionary housing policy for each, if feasible, in the
appropriate locations and market bands. The feasibility work must be consistent with the Western
Cape Inclusionary Housing Policy Framework, in which the inclusionary housing obligation is offset
by the value of additional development rights and associated incentives. The service provider
may motivate for the testing of complementary approaches where local conditions warrant this.
The service provider must propose and motivate their methodology in the bid and be approved
in the inception report. The following components must, at minimum, be addressed:
- Task 2.1: Policy intent confirmation: Before modelling commences, the service provider must
facilitate, with DEA&DP and each municipality, the confirmation of the primary objective(s) of
a prospective inclusionary housing policy, including the depth of affordability to be targeted
(income reach within the gap market), the relative priority of unit numbers versus depth of
affordability, and the preferred balance between on-site contributions and fees in lieu. These
confirmed objectives must be recorded and must anchor the scenario design in the feasibility
modelling, since different objectives imply materially different modelling assumptions. If
necessary, feedback from the consultant team to the municipality, if variables or primary
objectives are unworkable or require adjustment.
- Task 2.2: Spatial market assessment: Using existing Housing Market Study datasets and any
supplementary spatial and property market data, identify areas within each municipality's
urban area where inclusionary housing is likely to be viable, marginal, or not viable, with
reference to property values, development activity, and the strength of the residential land
market. This assessment must be spatially expressed and must inform both the feasibility
modelling and the recommended IH application zones.
- Task 2.3: Existing development rights audit: For each municipality, the service provider must
assess the extent, distribution, and uptake of existing development rights within the candidate
IH application zones and/or future urban growth areas, including the degree to which unused
bulk and density already exist under the zoning scheme in these areas. The audit must establish
a clear, agreed definition of "additional development rights" for the purposes of the study,
specifying the baseline against which additionality is measured (primary rights, consent use
rights, or both). This component is essential because an oversupply of existing or unused rights
diminishes the market value of additional rights and can render a density-based incentive
package ineffective. Prior to commencing the existing development rights audit, the service
provider must identify and document all datasets and information required from each
municipality, distinguishing between data available from existing Housing Market Study
outputs and new data to be sourced from the municipality. This may include the current zoning
scheme and any amendments, approved and pending development applications, records
of consent use approvals, and any municipal GIS layers relevant to development rights and
Contractor to initial...................................
of 89
www.westerncape.gov.za
Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning
land use. The service provider must submit this data requirements list to DEA&DP and the
relevant municipality, with sufficient lead time for the municipality to compile and provide the
required information before the audit commences. The depth of this analysis depends on what
data municipalities can actually provide.
- Task 2.4: Financial and economic feasibility analysis: Assess the financial viability of
inclusionary housing in each municipality through development feasibility modelling. The
analysis must be grounded in at least three (3) representative residential development
typologies that reflect what is actually being developed, or proposed for development, in
each municipality, informed by recent development applications and local market evidence.
Both ownership and rental development scenarios must be assessed as distinct cases, given
their different cost structures, revenue profiles, and viability thresholds. The analysis must apply
a residual land value methodology, using a comparative residual land value calculation to
determine the value of a property under existing rights versus the value under existing plus
additional rights. This approach must be capable of isolating the land value created by
additional development rights, since this is the theoretical basis on which the IH obligation is
justified. The residual land value calculation, in which profitability is held constant and land
value is the output, must serve as the primary basis for the sensitivity analysis; the developer
hurdle rate functions as the viability floor within the residual land value model and must not be
applied as an alternative, parallel sensitivity method.
All incentives included in the feasibility model must be accurately and explicitly costed. The
modelled value of each incentive, including but not limited to density bonuses, parking
relaxations, height relaxations, development contribution reductions or deferrals, and
streamlined approvals processes, must be derived from verifiable local market data and must
be expressed as a quantified impact on residual land value. Assumed or indicative incentive
values are not acceptable. Where the cost or value of an incentive cannot be reliably
quantified from available data, this must be stated, the limitation must be carried through the
sensitivity analysis, and the service provider must propose how the gap can be addressed. The
accuracy of incentive costing is material to the validity of the feasibility findings and to the
municipality's ability to implement a financially sustainable policy.
Other considerations include:
- The service provider must motivate the databases used to establish base land and property
values in each municipality, including whether the municipal valuation roll, recent
comparable sales evidence, or a median of the two is used, having regard to the currency
and reliability of each source in the local market.
- The typology cost structures must explicitly include engineering infrastructure and
development contribution costs applicable to each typology, and the analysis must record
the extent to which infrastructure is municipally funded, developer-funded, or co-financed,
since high infrastructure cost burdens directly reduce the capacity of a development to
absorb an inclusionary housing obligation.
- Where a development includes multiple typologies or product types, the service provider must
assess cross-typology subsidisation opportunities, specifically whether surplus residual land
value generated by higher-margin typologies within the same development can be used to
offset the cost of the inclusionary housing obligation, and under what conditions this is
financially viable. The service provider must also assess phased construction as a mechanism
for enhancing affordability, including the financial implications of phasing for development
viability and the contractual and monitoring requirements that phasing would impose on the
municipality.
- The analysis must, at minimum, answer the following questions:
o What is the residual land value of representative development typologies under
existing rights, and how does this change when additional development rights and
associated incentives are applied? What land value increase is attributable to the
Contractor to initial...................................
of 89
www.westerncape.gov.za
Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning
incentives offered, and is this sufficient to absorb an inclusionary housing obligation
while maintaining development viability?
o What is the minimum acceptable rate of return, or hurdle rate, that developers in each
municipality's market require in order to proceed with development? Separately, at
what point does the residual land value generated by a development, after
accounting for the hurdle rate, support a feasible inclusionary housing contribution?
These are distinct questions and must be answered as such.
o What is the economic value of additional development rights in the relevant areas of
each municipality, measured against the agreed additionality baseline established in
the existing development rights audit, and what land value increase is attributable to
the incentives offered?
o What quantum of additional rights generates sufficient residual land value to support
a feasible inclusionary housing contribution without reducing the residual land value
below the level needed to attract development?
o What set-aside percentage, expressed in relation to additional development rights,
total units, or floor area, is financially viable across the income sub-bands of the
affordable housing market in each municipality, and at what point does the IH
obligation reduce residual land value to a level that undermines development
viability?
o What development size threshold, expressed as a number of units or floor area, should
trigger the inclusionary housing obligation in each municipality, having regard to the
typology and development application analysis and the administrative cost of
applying the obligation to small developments?
o What is the projected yield of each policy scenario, expressed as a likely range of
inclusionary units and/or fee revenue over a five-year period, based on development
activity over the preceding three to five years in the recommended IH application
zones? The analysis must indicate whether the projected pipeline justifies the
institutional cost of adopting and administering a policy and must comment on any
risk that the obligation could suppress the supply of market units.
o How does unit size affect both development cost and the affordability of the end
product to the target income group, and what are the implications for policy?
o What affordability risks arise over time, including cost escalation, levy increases, and
household income trajectories, and what are the implications for affordability
preservation provisions in the policy? Note: the feasibility model is not expected to
resolve long-term affordability; it must identify the risks and their policy design
implications.
o What is the cost-benefit of developer incentives, including but not limited to density
bonuses, parking relaxations, height relaxations, development contribution reductions,
and streamlined approvals processes, in terms of their impact on residual land value
and the range of viable set-aside requirements, and is the incentive package as a
whole sufficient to generate developer participation? Any recommended incentive
package must be accompanied by a clear assessment of its impact on long-term
municipal financial sustainability, including the revenue implications of development
contribution reductions or deferrals, rates base effects, and any other material fiscal
consequences. Incentives must not be recommended where their cumulative effect
would materially undermine the municipality's financial position, and where trade-offs
exist, these must be explicitly stated.
o On what basis should fees in lieu of on-site inclusionary housing contributions be
calculated? The calculation method must be derived from and consistent with the
residual land value analysis and market evidence generated by the feasibility study
and must reflect the difference between the open market value and the restricted
affordable value of the required inclusionary units.
o Do these findings differ across stronger and weaker property market areas within each
municipality, in ways that have implications for spatially differentiated policy?
Contractor to initial...................................
of 89
www.westerncape.gov.za
Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning
o Which incentives are of greatest practical value to the development sector in each
municipality, and in what combination are they most effective in enabling an
inclusionary housing contribution? The analysis must consider a range of incentive
types including but not limited to overlay zones providing as-of-right additional
development rights, parking requirement reductions, height and bulk relaxations,
development contribution discounts or deferrals, and streamlined approvals
processes, and must rank or differentiate these by their relative impact on
development feasibility in the local market context. The answer to this question,
together with the hurdle rate and market absorption assumptions used in the model,
must be validated through structured engagement with engineering firms, developers
and/or financiers actively operating in each municipality's market; desktop evidence
alone is not sufficient. The engagement method and participant profile must be set
out in the report.
o What is the projected net fiscal impact of the recommended incentive package on
each municipality over the policy implementation period, expressed as a quantified
range of income foregone and offsetting revenue generated, including rates base
growth attributable to increased development activity?
o Does the municipality have sufficient bulk services and engineering infrastructure
capacity to absorb the additional development density that the recommended
incentive package is intended to unlock, and if not, what are the estimated upgrading
costs and who bears them? The analysis must assess whether infrastructure capacity
constraints materially limit the viability or scale of an inclusionary housing policy in any
recommended application zone.
o Where development contribution reductions or deferrals are recommended as
incentives, how will the resulting DC income shortfall be funded by the municipality,
having regard to the requirements of the legislation governing Development Charges?
The service provider must propose a funding argument that satisfies the DC legislative
framework and does not simply transfer the cost burden to other ratepayers or
development applicants.
(Note: The service provider must produce a simple, replicable feasibility model and inclusionary
housing contribution calculator, including a method for calculating fees in lieu anchored in the
residual land value analysis, that DEA&DP and the municipality can use independently after the
contract concludes, in accordance with the data governance provisions of this contract.)
- Task 2.4.1: Developer & Stakeholder Engagement and Validation: The service provider must
conduct structured engagement with developers, engineering firms and financiers and
developer representative organisations actively operating in each municipality's market. This
engagement must not be limited to incentive validation. It must be used to test and refine the
key assumptions underpinning the feasibility model, including development cost structures,
finance costs, hurdle rates, market absorption rates, and unit price expectations, and to
validate the findings and draft recommendations of the feasibility analysis before these are
finalised. Engagement must be conducted after preliminary modelling is complete, so that
developers are responding to evidence-based findings rather than abstract propositions. The
service provider must document the engagement method, the profile and number of
participants in each municipality, and the material ways in which developer input influenced
or amended the analysis or recommendations. It is recommended that one session be
undertaken per municipal area.
- Task 2.5: Institutional capacity and readiness assessment: Assess each municipality's
institutional capacity and readiness to implement an inclusionary housing policy. This is a
distinct component from the financial feasibility analysis. The assessment must, at minimum,
answer the following questions:
o Which planning implementation instrument, or combination of instruments, is best
suited to giving effect to an inclusionary housing policy in each municipality, having
regard to the municipality's existing spatial planning framework, the recommended IH
application zones, and the administrative capacity of the municipality? The
Contractor to initial...................................
of 89
www.westerncape.gov.za
Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning
assessment must consider the relative merits of instruments including but not limited to
the Municipal Spatial Development Framework, a precinct plan or local spatial
development framework, the zoning scheme and municipal planning by-law, and an
overlay zone providing as-of-right additional development rights and must
recommend the most appropriate instrument with reasons.
o Are the municipality's planning instruments, including its MSDF, Municipal Planning By-
Law, and zoning scheme, in a state that would enable implementation of an IH policy,
and if not, what must change?
o Does the municipality have the human resource, systems, and administrative capacity
to implement and enforce an IH policy over the long term, including adjudication,
agreement negotiation, affordability preservation monitoring, and compliance?
o Who would hold, allocate, and manage the inclusionary units over the affordability
period? The assessment must identify the available institutional arrangements in each
municipality, including the presence and capacity of social housing institutions or other
operators, the willingness and capacity of developers to retain and manage rental
stock, and the municipality's own capacity to administer allocation. The viability of the
rental tenure scenario in the feasibility analysis is conditional on a credible answer to
this question.
o What preconditions must be met and what capacity must be developed before the
municipality can implement the policy?
- Task 2.6: Per-municipality feasibility assessment report: For each municipality, the service
provider must produce a concise Inclusionary Housing Feasibility Assessment that includes:
o A residual land value analysis showing the value under existing rights, the value
under additional rights, and the land value increment attributable to incentives, for
each representative typology tested.
o A summary of housing market conditions and the evidence base informing the
feasibility analysis, including the development typologies used, the tenure
scenarios tested, and the basis for their selection.
o A statement of the proposed policy objectives and the agreed definition of
additional development rights against which the analysis was conducted,
together with the findings of the existing development rights audit.
o A viability outcomes table setting out the results of the feasibility modelling across
development typologies, tenure scenarios, set-aside scenarios, income sub-bands,
and market value zones, with the hurdle rate and residual land value threshold
clearly identified for each scenario.
o A comparative assessment of the cost per affordable unit generated across
typologies and market value zones, expressed as a consistent metric that allows
municipalities to be compared, such as residual land value per square metre or
net present value per affordable unit produced.
o GIS shapefiles and maps identifying recommended IH application zones,
differentiated by market strength.
o Clear recommendations on feasible set-aside percentages, the development size
threshold triggering the obligation, tenure approaches, unit size parameters,
incentive requirements, income targeting, and the basis for calculating fees in lieu,
all derived from the residual land value analysis.
o An assessment of long-term affordability risks and the implications for affordability
preservation provisions in the policy.
o A concise municipal fiscal impact assessment of the recommended incentive
package, quantifying where possible the revenue foregone through development
contribution reductions or deferrals, the offsetting rates base growth attributable to
increased development activity, and a net assessment of whether the incentive
package is fiscally sustainable over the policy implementation period.
Contractor to initial...................................
of 89
www.westerncape.gov.za
Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning
o Clear identification of areas, or conditions under which, inclusionary housing should
not be applied and the reasons for this.
o A concise narrative on municipal readiness and the preconditions and capacity
development required before the policy can be implemented.
o A concise identification of early implementation opportunities, being the
conditions, locations, and/or development typologies where an inclusionary
housing obligation is likely to be viable in the near term with minimal preconditions,
and which could be prioritised for initial policy application to generate early results
while longer-term capacity and instrument development proceeds.
Deliverables must include:
- One draft feasibility assessment per municipality will be submitted in digital format (PDF
and PowerPoint, including an Executive Summary) for engagement with the relevant
municipality and review by the Project Management Team (PMT) and Project Steering
Committee (PSC) before finalisation. One final feasibility assessment per municipality,
incorporating all comments and inputs from the PMT, PSC and the relevant municipality,
will follow. The final reports must be suitable for use by the municipality and the Western
Cape Government, and for sharing with the public.
- In addition to the per-municipality reports, the service provider must hand over a
replicable feasibility model and IH contribution calculator (including the fees-in-lieu
method) in fully working editable format, and GIS shapefiles for all spatial outputs, in
ArcGIS-compatible format. All data sources, vintages, assumptions and data gaps
underpinning the feasibility models must be documented, with any limitations affecting
the confidence of findings clearly flagged.
Note on methodology: DEA&DP is not prescribing a feasibility methodology beyond the
requirement that the residual land value calculation serves as the primary sensitivity basis and that
the approach must be capable of isolating the land value created by additional development
rights. The service provider must propose and justify their approach in the bid and inception report.
The specifications above define the minimum questions the feasibility work must answer and the
minimum outputs it must produce.
Note on municipality substitution: DEA&DP reserves the right to substitute any selected municipality
with another of comparable profile, provided such substitution is agreed in writing between the
parties.
4.4 Task 3: Targeted Inclusionary Housing Capacity Assistance for One Municipality
The service provider must provide hands-on, targeted support to one selected municipality,
selected from task 2, to enable it to develop, refine, and prepare a draft Inclusionary Housing
Policy that is both contextually appropriate and implementable, drawing on the work from Task 1
and 2. The municipality to be supported will be determined upon completion of the feasibility
work.
The emphasis of this component is on long-term institutional capacity building, not document
production alone. Before support commences, the service provider must confirm, with DEA&DP
and the municipality, the approach underpinning the draft policy (mandatory, incentive-based,
or hybrid), the primary policy objectives, and the depth of the gap market to be targeted. This
confirmation must be consistent with the policy intent confirmed under Task 2 for that municipality
and must be recorded in writing. Support cannot be meaningful if the municipality and the service
provider do not share a common understanding of what the policy is trying to achieve and on
whose cost or burden the obligation will fall. Support must include:
- Task 3.1: Assisting the municipality to interpret and apply the WCIHPF;
- Task 3.2: Adapting the Pro Forma Inclusionary Housing Policy to its local market, spatial,
and institutional conditions;
Contractor to initial...................................
of 89
www.westerncape.gov.za
Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning
- Task 3.3: Translating the outcomes of the feasibility study into its own IHP; and
- Task 3.4: Working across planning, human settlements, legal, and land use management
functions to build shared understanding of the policy levers, feasibility thresholds,
administrative requirements, and legal pathways to implementation of a proposed IHP.
- Task 3.5: Assisting the municipality to identify and engage the institutional arrangements
required to hold, allocate, and manage inclusionary units, including social housing
institutions or other operators where relevant, since the absence of a credible
management arrangement is one of the most common reasons draft IH policies cannot
be implemented.
Deliverables must include:
- Deliverable 3.1: A tailored draft municipal Inclusionary Housing Policy, informed by the
feasibility work, and reflecting the confirmed policy approach and objectives. The draft
policy must, at minimum, specify: the trigger threshold; the set-aside requirement and its
basis; the incentive package; the income targeting criteria; the tenure options and
conditions; the fees in lieu methodology and calculation basis; the affordability
preservation mechanism and time horizon; and the monitoring and compliance
framework;
- Deliverable 3.2: A simple, replicable IH contribution assessment tool, consistent with the
feasibility model produced under Task 2, that municipal officials can use to evaluate the
IH obligation and incentive package applicable to a specific development application
without specialist assistance;
- Deliverable 3.3: A short internal implementation guide, covering the administrative
workflow from development application receipt through IH condition negotiation,
agreement execution, unit transfer or fee payment, and ongoing compliance monitoring;
and
- Deliverable 3.4: At least two structured working sessions with the relevant municipal officials
and departments, focused on applying the policy and tools to realistic development
application scenarios, and at least one broader internal awareness session for senior
management (and councillors, if at the correct stage of development) that addresses the
policy rationale, the feasibility evidence base, and the political and institutional
preconditions for implementation. The service provider must confirm the format,
participants, and objectives of each session in writing with DEA&DP before it is held.
Note on municipal selection: DEA&DP reserves the right to determine the municipality to be
supported under this task, to be confirmed within four weeks of submission of the final Task 2
feasibility studies, with reference to municipal readiness, political support for the policy process,
and the findings of the institutional capacity and readiness assessments conducted under Task 2.
Where the selected municipality is assessed as insufficiently ready to develop a policy within the
contract period, the service provider must advise DEA&DP accordingly and propose a scope
focused on precondition development rather than policy drafting, drawing on Tasks 3.1 to 3.5,
and Deliverables 3.1 to 3.4.
4.5 Task 4: Development of a Pro Forma Municipal Affordable Housing Enablement Policy
The service provider must develop a standard draft Pro Forma Municipal Affordable Housing
Enablement Policy that could be adapted by municipalities to support expanding affordable
housing supply using a broader set of tools beyond Inclusionary Housing. The pro forma must be
capable of adaptation by any Western Cape municipality. The service provider must take
account of existing municipal affordable housing enablement and incentive policies already
adopted or in preparation in the Western Cape or South Africa, including the Garden Route
District Municipality Incentive Policy for Affordable Housing (2025), and must build on, reconcile
with, and improve upon these rather than duplicate them. The inception report must include a
short review of the existing policy landscape.
Contractor to initial...................................
of 89
www.westerncape.gov.za
Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning
The pro forma policy must:
- Task 4.1: Present a clear and practical menu of affordable housing enablement
mechanisms available to municipalities, distinguishing between direct fiscal (financial)
instruments such as development charge rebates, rates phasing, fee waivers, and the
release of municipal land at discounted values or on long-term lease, and regulatory and
development rights-based instruments, including density bonuses, bulk and parking
relaxations, streamlined development approvals, and project packaging. While
analytically distinct, both categories must be recognised as having material financial
implications for development feasibility, either through direct cost reductions or by
enhancing development yield, reducing risk, and improving project viability.
- Task 4.2: Include guidance on large-scale and institutional affordable rental, owner-driven
small-scale rental, and replicable small and medium-scale affordable housing models
identified in the Housing Market Studies, and align the income bands and instrument
definitions used in the policy with national and SHRA legislated criteria, expressed so that
they update automatically as those criteria are revised;
- Task 4.3: Anchor every financial incentive in a test of municipal fiscal affordability, so that
no incentive is recommended without reference to the revenue foregone and the
municipality's capacity to absorb it. Where the service provider proposes a financial
affordability or scorecard model for this purpose, it must be consistent with, and improve
upon, the financial incentive model already developed in the Garden Route work, and
must be usable by municipal officials without specialist support;
- Task 4.4: Outline key preconditions for success and risks to manage, including the spatial
targeting of incentives to designated restructuring zones, priority human settlement and
housing development areas, and corridors identified in municipal SDFs, so that incentives
reinforce rather than work against the spatial development framework;
- Task 4.5: Demonstrate how planning controls, land use management, municipal land, and
capital investment levers can be used to support delivery; and
- Task 4.6: Specify the institutional arrangements required to operate the policy, including
the evaluation and approval pathway for incentive applications, the departments
responsible for each mechanism, and the delegations required, recognising that
affordable housing enablement cuts across planning, human settlements, finance,
engineering, and legal functions;
- Task 4.7: Include a monitoring and evaluation framework with defined performance
indicators, data sources, and reporting responsibilities, and a measures-for-non-
performance provision addressing lapsing of incentives and recovery of rebates where a
project does not proceed;
- Task 4.8: Include the relationship between this policy and a municipal Inclusionary Housing
Policy developed under Tasks 2 and 3, so that the two instruments may operate together:
inclusionary housing as a condition of land use approval, and the enablement incentives
as the offsetting support, without double-counting or contradiction; and
- Task 4.9: Be concise, evidence-based, and designed for easy municipal adaptation and
implementation, structured so that a municipality can populate local figures, income
bands, and spatial targets without redrafting the policy architecture.
Deliverables must include:
- Deliverable 4.1: A draft Pro Forma Affordable Housing Enablement Policy in a format that
municipalities can adopt and adapt through their own council processes; and
- Technical notes set out in Deliverable 4.1 that provide short adaptation guide notes
explaining which provisions are fixed (for legal or alignment reasons) and which are
intended to be amended or populated locally.
Contractor to initial...................................
of 89
www.westerncape.gov.za
Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning
- Phasing and timeframes
5.1 This project will run over an 18-month period from ~October 2026 to March 2028. Deliverables
must be completed within the following timeframes as a minimum:
Category / Deliverable(s) Target /
Component Deadline
1 Project Initiation & Inception Report confirming methodology, sequencing, task Month 1
Inception Report dependencies, governance arrangements, data acquisition
strategy, and invoicing schedule for the 18-month period.
Inception meeting to be held within 20 working days of
appointment; report delivered to PMT within 7 working days of the
inception meeting.
2 (Task 1) Draft Pro (Task 1) Draft Standard draft Pro Forma Inclusionary Housing ~ Month 4 / 5
Forma Inclusionary Policy for municipalities, aligned to the WCIHPF, incorporating (Before mid-
Housing Policy policy options framework with contextual selection criteria, spatial March 2027)
targeting guidance, enabling preconditions and transitional
arrangements, model policy clauses, model IH agreement
template, model planning permission conditions, and monitoring
and evaluation framework. Submitted for comment by PMT and
Psc.
3 (Task 2) Draft (Task 2) Draft IH feasibility Studies: ~ Month 4 / 5
Inclusionary Housing Per municipality: residual land value analysis; viability outcomes (Before mid-
Feasibility table across typologies, tenure scenarios, set-aside scenarios, March 2027)
Assessments (3 income sub-bands, and market value zones; comparative cost
municipalities) per affordable unit metric; GIS shapefiles of recommended IH
application zones; replicable feasibility model and IH contribution
calculator including fees-in-lieu calculation method; assessment
of long-term affordability risks; institutional capacity and readiness
assessment; and recommendations on set-aside percentages,
tenure, incentives, income targeting, fees in lieu, and exclusion
areas. Submitted for comment by PMT, PSC, and relevant
municipalities.
4 (Task 1) Final Pro (Task 1) Final version of the Pro Forma Inclusionary Housing Policy, ~ Month 12
Forma Inclusionary incorporating comments and inputs from PMT and PSC
Housing Policy
5 (Task 2) Final (Task 2) Final IH Feasibility Studies for each municipality, ~ Month 12
Inclusionary Housing incorporating comments and inputs from PMT, PSC, and relevant
Feasibility Studies (3 municipalities.
municipalities)
6 (Task 4) Draft Pro (Task 4) Draft Standard draft Pro Forma Affordable Housing ~ Month 13
Forma Affordable Enablement Policy presenting a practical menu of enablement
Housing Enablement mechanisms, and incentives anchored in municipal fiscal
Policy affordability, implementation pathways, spatial targeting
guidance, institutional arrangements, and monitoring and
evaluation framework. Submitted for comment by PMT and PSC.
7 (Task 3) Targeted (Task 3) Draft tailored municipal IH policy for one selected ~ Month 15
Municipal Capacity municipality, informed by Task 2 feasibility findings; simple IH
Support (1 contribution assessment tool for use by municipal officials; short
municipality): Draft internal implementation guide covering the administrative
Tailored Municipal workflow from application receipt to compliance monitoring.
Inclusionary Housing Submitted for comment by PMT, PSC, and municipality.
Policy and
Implementation Tools
8 (Task 4) Final Pro (Task 4) Final Standard draft Pro Forma Affordable Housing ~ Month 15
Forma Affordable Enablement Policy, incorporating comments and inputs from PMT
Contractor to initial...................................
of 89
www.westerncape.gov.za
Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning
Category / Deliverable(s) Target /
Component Deadline
Housing Enablement and PSC.
Policy
9 (Task 3) Targeted (Task 3) Tailored final draft municipal Inclusionary Housing Policy; ~ Month 18
Municipal Capacity incorporating comments and inputs from PMT, PSC, and
Support (1 municipality; record of two structured working sessions and one
municipality): Final broader awareness session held with municipal officials and
Tailored Municipal relevant stakeholders.
Inclusionary Housing
Policy and
Implementation Tools
10 Knowledge Transfer One-day workshop for provincial and municipal officials covering ~ Month 17
Workshop feasibility methodology, pro forma IH policy, and pro forma (prior to
affordable housing enablement policy; handover of all tools and project close-
models in fully working editable format; lessons learnt reflection. out)
11 Monthly Progress Concise monthly written progress reports submitted via email to Monthly
Reports the Project Manager, covering progress, risks, and throughout the
data/information needs. contract
period
12 Close-out and Report documenting outcomes, lessons learnt, process reflection, ~ Month 18
Overview Report and record of all key stakeholder engagements, documented data
Data Handover limitations and their effect on feasibility conclusions, and
recommendations for future iterations; full handover of all
statistical, financial, and spatial data, models, and tools in
editable working format, subject to the data governance
agreement.
5.2 The service provider may propose their own sequencing and scheduling of tasks, provided
this is clearly motivated by the internal logic of the methodology and the dependencies
between deliverables. The proposed schedule must, however, ensure that the total cost of
delivery is spread approximately equally across the two financial years of the contract
period, being 2026/27 (October 2026 to 31 March 2027) and 2027/28 (1 April 2027 to 7 March
2028). All final deliverables must be submitted no later than 7 March 2028, to allow sufficient
time for review, comment, and sign-off before the close of the 2027/28 financial year.
5.3 Whilst the exact start date is to be confirmed on appointment, the contract period must
conclude no later than 31 March 2028. The service provider may propose to complete the
project sooner in its bid, provided quality and engagement requirements are not
compromised.
Contractor to initial...................................
of 89
www.westerncape.gov.za
Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning
- Deliverables
6.1 The service provider must provide the following deliverables as part of the project:
DELIVERABLES Reply Add
“COMPLY” comments
or “DO NOT and
COMPLY” attachments
in the as required
boxes
below
1 project inception meeting and inception report
a) The project will begin with an Inception Meeting between the successful
bidder and the PMT, to be held within 20 working days of appointment. The
purpose of the meeting is to clarify and confirm the scope, methodology,
deliverables, project timeframes, invoicing schedule, meeting
arrangements, access to existing HMS Round 1 and 2 data, and any
related matters. This meeting may also serve to introduce the service
provider to the participating municipalities for the Task 2 feasibility studies.
b) One Inception Report covering the full scope of work must be delivered to
the PMT within seven working days of the Inception Meeting.
c) The Inception Report must include, at a minimum:
- The proposed methodology for each of the four tasks, including the
proposed feasibility methodology for Task 2 and the basis for the
selection of representative development typologies, with motivation for
the approach;
- A gap analysis identifying data requirements, data sources, and the
data acquisition strategy, including identification of any gaps in the
existing HMS Round 1 and 2 datasets that may affect the confidence
of Task 2 feasibility findings, and how these will be addressed;
- A project plan setting out the phasing of deliverables, key milestones,
task dependencies, meeting schedule, and alignment of expenditure
across the two financial years of the contract period. The schedule must
make provision for the development of draft deliverables, commenting
on draft deliverables, and final deliverables;
- The proposed sequencing of tasks, with motivation where this departs
from the indicative sequencing in the ToR;
- Roles and responsibilities for both the service provider and DEA&DP,
including the nominated contact persons and key personnel for each
task; and
d) The inception report must be agreed with the PMT before substantive work
on any task commences.
2 task 1: standard draft pro forma inclusionary housing policy
One draft and one final version of the Standard Draft Pro Forma Inclusionary
Housing Policy must be submitted in digital format (PDF and editable Word
format). The draft must be submitted to the PMT and PSC for comment before
the final version is produced. The final version must consider and/or incorporate
all comments and inputs from the PMT and PSC.
The Pro Forma Inclusionary Housing Policy report must, at minimum, include:
- The pro forma IH policy document itself, structured as a model policy
that a municipality can adopt and adapt directly through its own
council processes, covering all sections specified in Task 1 of this ToR,
namely: enabling preconditions and transitional arrangements; policy
scope and trigger conditions; set-aside requirements and feasibility
calibration; policy options framework with contextual selection criteria;
spatial targeting and land use management integration; administrative
process and institutional requirements; certainty, consistency, and
enforceability provisions; and monitoring and evaluation framework.
Each section must be supported by concise internal technical notes
Contractor to initial...................................
of 89
www.westerncape.gov.za
Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning
DELIVERABLES Reply Add
“COMPLY” comments
or “DO NOT and
COMPLY” attachments
in the as required
boxes
below
documenting the evidence base, comparative policy analysis, and the
rationale for the options and contextual selection criteria presented,
with explicit reference to lessons drawn from Stellenbosch,
Johannesburg, and relevant academic and practitioner literature, and
how these have been applied or adapted for the non-metro Western
Cape context;
- Model IH policy clauses in a format suitable for direct incorporation into
a municipal IH policy;
- A model Inclusionary Housing Agreement template; and
- Model planning permission conditions for IH obligations.
3 task 2: inclusionary housing feasibility studies for three municipalities
a) One draft feasibility assessment per municipality must be submitted in
digital format (PDF and PowerPoint presentation format) in an agreed
template, including an Executive Summary, for engagement with the
relevant municipality and for review and comment by the PMT and PSC
before finalisation.
b) One final feasibility assessment per municipality must be submitted in
digital format (PDF and PowerPoint presentation format) in an agreed
template, including an Executive Summary, incorporating all comments
and inputs from the PMT, PSC, and the relevant municipality. The final
reports must be suitable for use by the municipalities and the WCG, and
for sharing with the public.
Each draft and final feasibility assessment must include, at minimum:
- A summary of housing market conditions and the evidence base
informing the feasibility analysis, including the development typologies
used, the tenure scenarios tested, and the basis for their selection;
- A residual land value analysis showing the value of representative
development typologies under existing rights, the value under
additional rights, and the land value increment attributable to
incentives, for each typology tested;
- A viability outcomes table setting out the results of the feasibility
modelling across development typologies, tenure scenarios, set-aside
scenarios, income sub-bands, and market value zones, with the hurdle
rate and residual land value threshold clearly identified for each
scenario;
- A comparative assessment of the cost per affordable unit generated
across typologies and market value zones, expressed as a consistent
metric such as residual land value per square metre or net present
value per affordable unit produced, to allow municipalities to be
assessed on a consistent basis;
- GIS shapefiles identifying recommended IH application zones,
differentiated by market strength;
- Clear recommendations on feasible set-aside percentages, tenure
approaches, unit size parameters, incentive requirements, income
targeting, and the basis for calculating fees in lieu, all derived from the
residual land value analysis;
- An assessment of long-term affordability risks and the implications for
affordability preservation provisions in the policy;
- Clear identification of areas or conditions under which inclusionary
housing should not be applied, and the reasons for this; and
- A concise narrative on municipal readiness and the preconditions and
capacity development required before the policy can be
implemented.
Contractor to initial...................................
of 89
www.westerncape.gov.za
Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning
DELIVERABLES Reply Add
“COMPLY” comments
or “DO NOT and
COMPLY” attachments
in the as required
boxes
below
c) In addition to the per-municipality feasibility assessment reports, the service
provider must produce and hand over the following tools and supporting
outputs:
- A simple, replicable feasibility model and inclusionary housing
contribution calculator, including a method for calculating fees in lieu
anchored in the residual land value analysis, in a fully working editable
format that DEA&DP and the municipalities can use independently
after the contract concludes; and
- GIS shapefiles for all spatial outputs produced under Task 2, in ArcGIS-
compatible format.
d) The service provider must document all data sources, vintages,
assumptions, and data gaps underpinning the feasibility models, and must
flag where data limitations affect the confidence of findings. This
documentation must be included in the feasibility assessment reports and
in the close-out and overview report.
Note on municipality substitution: DEA&DP reserves the right to substitute any
selected municipality with another of comparable profile, provided such
substitution is agreed in writing between the parties.
4 task 3: tailored municipal inclusionary housing policy and
Implementation tools for one municipality
a) One draft report (in PDF and editable Word format) setting out the tailored
draft Inclusionary Housing Policy for the selected municipality, for
engagement with the municipality and review and comment by the PMT
and PSC before finalisation.
b) One final draft report (in PDF and editable Word format) setting out the
agreed upon final draft Inclusionary Housing Policy for the selected
municipality, incorporating all comments and inputs from the PMT, PSC,
and the municipality, for further development, engagement, and later
council approval by the municipality.
Note: The service provider will not be expected to take this document through
any public participation or council approval processes. Responsibility for
tabling and processing the technically-verified final draft through the
municipality's internal governance and council approval processes rests with
the municipality.
The draft and final tailored municipal IH policy report must, at minimum, include:
- A tailored draft municipal Inclusionary Housing Policy, informed directly
by the Task 2 feasibility findings for the selected municipality, and
structured so that it can be adopted and adapted through the
municipality's own council processes. The policy must, at minimum,
specify: the trigger threshold and its basis; the set-aside requirement
and the feasibility evidence supporting it; the incentive package and
its cost-benefit justification; the income targeting criteria and income
sub-band allocations; the tenure options and conditions; the fees in lieu
methodology and calculation basis derived from the Task 2 residual
land value analysis; the affordability preservation mechanism and time
horizon; the spatial targeting of IH obligations and receiving areas; the
administrative process from pre-application engagement through to
compliance monitoring; and the monitoring and compliance
framework;
- A simple, replicable IH contribution assessment tool, consistent with the
feasibility model produced under Task 2, that municipal officials can
use to evaluate the IH obligation and incentive package applicable to
Contractor to initial...................................
of 89
www.westerncape.gov.za
Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning
DELIVERABLES Reply Add
“COMPLY” comments
or “DO NOT and
COMPLY” attachments
in the as required
boxes
below
a specific development application without specialist assistance; and
- A short internal implementation guide covering the administrative
workflow from development application receipt through IH condition
negotiation, agreement execution, unit transfer or fee payment, and
ongoing compliance monitoring.
c) The following engagements must be conducted with the selected
municipality and documented in writing:
- At least two structured working sessions with the relevant municipal
officials and departments, focused on applying the policy and tools to
realistic development application scenarios, with written notes
confirmed with participants after each session; and
- At least one broader internal awareness session for senior
management, and councillors if at an appropriate stage of policy
development, addressing the policy rationale, the feasibility evidence
base, and the political and institutional preconditions for
implementation.
The service provider must confirm the format, participants, and objectives of
each session in writing with DEA&DP before it is held.
d) The service provider must document all engagements conducted under
Task 3, including attendance, key discussion points, decisions taken, and
follow-up actions required. This documentation must be submitted to the
PMT after each engagement and included in the close-out and overview
report.
Note on municipal selection: DEA&DP reserves the right to determine the
municipality to be supported under this task once feasibility analysis is complete
(or for all practical purposes, almost complete), with reference to municipal
readiness, political support for the policy process, and the findings of the
institutional capacity and readiness assessments conducted under Task 2.
Where the selected municipality is assessed as insufficiently ready to develop a
full policy within the contract period, the service provider must advise DEA&DP
accordingly and propose a revised scope focused on precondition
development rather than policy drafting.
5 task 4: standard draft pro forma affordable housing enablement
Policy
a) One draft and one final version of the Standard Draft Pro Forma Affordable
Housing Enablement Policy must be submitted in digital format (PDF and
editable Word format). The draft must be submitted to the PMT and PSC
for comment before the final version is produced. The final version must
incorporate all comments and inputs from the PMT and PSC.
b) The report must include a short review of the existing affordable housing
enablement policy landscape in the Western Cape and South Africa,
identifying existing policies that the pro forma must build on, reconcile with,
and improve upon rather than duplicate, including but not limited to the
Garden Route District Municipality Incentive Policy for Affordable Housing
(2025).
c) The Pro Forma Affordable Housing Enablement Policy report must, at
minimum, include:
- A practical menu of affordable housing enablement mechanisms
available to municipalities, clearly distinguishing financial incentives,
including development charge rebates, rates phasing, fee waivers,
and municipal land made available at reduced value or on long lease,
from non-financial incentives, including density bonuses, parking and
bulk relaxations, streamlined approvals, and project packaging, and
Contractor to initial...................................
of 89
www.westerncape.gov.za
Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning
DELIVERABLES Reply Add
“COMPLY” comments
or “DO NOT and
COMPLY” attachments
in the as required
boxes
below
indicating which mechanisms apply to each affordable housing
instrument and delivery model;
- Guidance on large-scale and institutional affordable rental, owner-
driven small-scale rental, and replicable small and medium-scale
affordable housing models, with income bands and instrument
definitions aligned to national and SHRA legislated criteria and
expressed so that they update automatically as those criteria are
revised;
- A financial affordability assessment for every financial incentive
proposed, demonstrating the revenue foregone and the municipality's
capacity to absorb it, using a financial affordability or scorecard model
that is consistent with and improves upon the model developed in the
Garden Route work, and that is usable by municipal officials without
specialist support;
- Guidance on spatial targeting of incentives to designated restructuring
zones, priority human settlement and housing development areas, and
corridors identified in municipal spatial development frameworks, so
that incentives reinforce rather than undermine the spatial
development framework;
- Guidance on how planning controls, land use management
instruments, municipal land, and capital investment levers can be used
to support affordable housing delivery;
- The institutional arrangements required to operate the policy, including
the evaluation and approval pathway for incentive applications, the
departments responsible for each mechanism, and the delegations
required, recognising that affordable housing enablement cuts across
planning, human settlements, finance, engineering, and legal
functions;
- A monitoring and evaluation framework with defined performance
indicators, data sources, reporting responsibilities, and a measures-for-
non-performance provision addressing the lapsing of incentives and
recovery of rebates where a project does not proceed;
- A clear articulation of the relationship between this policy and a
municipal Inclusionary Housing Policy developed under Tasks 2 and 3,
so that the two instruments may operate together without double-
counting or contradiction, with inclusionary housing operating as a
condition of land use approval and the enablement incentives
operating as the offsetting support mechanism; and
- Short adaptation guide notes, integrated into the policy document,
explaining which provisions are fixed for legal or alignment reasons and
which are intended to be amended or populated locally, so that a
municipality can adapt and adopt the pro forma through its own
council processes without specialist assistance.
6 data
All data produced, acquired, or synthesised under this contract must be
handed over to DEA&DP in fully working, editable format at project close-out,
subject to the data governance agreement. The following must be included:
a) All spatial data created for the analysis and reports, including all GIS
shapefiles for maps and spatial outputs produced under Tasks 1, 2, 3, and
4, in ArcGIS-compatible shapefile format. Spatial data must include all
recommended IH application zones, market value zone delineations, and
any other spatially expressed outputs produced under Task 2.
b) All statistical, financial, and property market data acquired or synthesised
for the project, including all feasibility models, contribution calculators, and
Contractor to initial...................................
of 89
www.westerncape.gov.za
Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning