When Phasiwe Ngwenya bought her first home in Wilfordon Extension 11, west of Johannesburg, she believed that she was investing in her children’s future.
Like many first-time homeowners, she imagined a place where her children could grow up and one day inherit.
Barely a month after moving in during October 2023, a sinkhole opened in her yard. Water began seeping through the ground. Cracks spread across the walls of her home.
Now she fears something beneath her neighbourhood is shifting.
Her experience is echoed by other homeowners in the Roodepoort development, who describe cracking walls, rising damp, recurring sinkholes and uneven roads have become increasingly common.
Wilfordon Extension 11, developed by MDV Developments, was marketed as an affordable housing development for first-time buyers and families.
The City of Johannesburg said its building inspectorate observed structural damage to some buildings during a site inspection. It has launched an investigation into whether the development complied with planning conditions and if historic mining or other ground conditions may be contributing to the problems.
The municipality said it would also engage the department of mineral and petroleum resources as part of its investigation. Its findings could determine whether the problems stem from planning failures, engineering shortcomings or other ground conditions. The department did not respond to the Mail & Guardian’s enquiries.
The signs of distress were difficult to miss. At some homes, hairline cracks ran across walls and floors. Pools of stagnant water collected against homes despite the dry winter weather, while residents pointed to rising damp, sinkholes, uneven roads and paving that they said had shifted since they moved in.
Residents showed doors that no longer closed properly, freshly painted cracks that had reopened and floor tiles that had lifted.
For Ngwenya, purchasing her first home was about far more than owning property.
“I bought this house for my future and for my children who depend on me,” she said. “This house is an investment for my children and the generations that come after them. It's the legacy I'm trying to build for my family.”
She never imagined becoming the face of the community’s fight. Instead of settling into her first home, she spends evenings drafting Promotion of Access to Information Act requests, reading technical reports and corresponding with government departments.
Wilfordon Extension 11 lies within Johannesburg's historic gold mining belt, in the shadow of the Princess tailings storage facility, which the Federation for a Sustainable Environment (FSE) describes as Gauteng’s only “ownerless” tailings dam.
Before approving the township, authorities required geotechnical investigations, including an assessment of the site’s current and historic mining status, environmental authorisation and specialist engineering measures while requiring foundations to be designed in accordance with a professional engineer’s recommendations.
The city is now investigating whether the approved conditions were complied with.
Mariette Liefferink, the chief executive of the FSE, said the available technical and regulatory documents showed authorities were aware of the site’s geotechnical challenges before approving the township.
The city’s conditions of establishment state that the erven lies in “an area with soil conditions that can cause serious damage to buildings and structures”, requiring foundations to be designed by a professional engineer in accordance with a geotechnical report.
Liefferink said technical investigations undertaken before the development identified historic mining, problematic soils, seasonal seepage, perched groundwater, drainage concerns and the need for specialist engineering measures.
However, she cautioned against drawing premature conclusions. “The cause of the water problem remains unknown. A proper investigation would require hydrogeological, geotechnical and engineering specialists.”
She said the central question was whether the developer had implemented the recommendations contained in the various technical reports.
“The critical legal question is not whether the property was sold voetstoots but what the developer knew about the geotechnical and groundwater conditions of the site at the time of sale and whether that information was adequately disclosed to purchasers.”
Liefferink said the former department of mineral resources and energy approved the township subject to conditions. Those included recognition that parts of the site had historically been undermined, with shallow mine workings extending to about 70m below the surface near the southern boundary.
The department also relaxed the recommended buffer between the township and the Princess tailings storage facility from 2km to about 700m, while allowing development closer to historic mine workings than would ordinarily be permitted, subject to specialist risk assessments and compliance with prescribed conditions.
Such buffer zones are intended to provide a safety margin between homes and potential mining-related hazards.
Liefferink said the approval required the developer to comply with recommendations contained in a risk assessment from Jones & Wagener Environmental Specialists, which she described as “the single most important missing document” because it could show what risks were identified and what mitigation measures were required before construction began.
“It's well established that the site was previously mined, contains a wetland and presents geotechnical and hydrological risks,” she said. “The question now is whether the developer implemented the recommendations made by the Council for Geoscience, the department of mineral resources and the city.”
The city said the township was approved after certified geotechnical investigations and environmental authorisations had been submitted. Approved as Wilfordon Extension 7 in 2015 before being phased into Extensions 10 and 11, the development was proclaimed in July 2020. Conditions relating to geotechnical risks were incorporated into title deeds, it said.
However, following complaints from residents, the city has launched a comprehensive investigation into whether the developer complied with approved plans, whether prescribed buffer zones were altered, whether wetland conditions were breached and whether any mining-related factors require further investigation.
The municipality added that the investigation could lead to an independent peer review of the township approval process and legal action against the developer or other parties if wrongdoing is identified.
Asked whether the land remains suitable for long-term residential occupation and who would be responsible should mining-related damage be confirmed, the city declined to give definitive answers, saying these issues would be addressed once its investigation had been completed.
MDV Developments, however, rejected suggestions that the township was built on unstable or previously mined land.
It said a detailed mining risk assessment by Jones & Wagener found that Extension 11 lay north of the Main and South Reef outcrop and had “not been undermined”. It said the site had “never been mined and was declared safe for development”, adding that the township was approved after the relevant technical reports were submitted to authorities.
MDV said environmental studies included a radiological survey by Necsa and wetland and aquatic assessments before environmental authorisation was granted by the Gauteng department of agriculture and rural development.
Purchasers, it said, were informed that the nearby Princess Tailings Dam could be rehabilitated in future and that this disclosure formed part of their offers to purchase. It maintained that the development had been approved “with no geotechnical or mining-related risks.”
The developer disputed residents' claims of widespread structural problems, saying that only five of the 273 homeowners had reported cracking or dampness. Inspections by the project's structural engineer and, where applicable, the National Home Builders Registration Council found “no structural damage”, apart from loose floor tiles caused by faulty adhesive, which had been replaced.
According to MDV, the complaints were confined to a small group of properties along the southern retaining wall. Civil engineers appointed by the developer concluded that persistent dampness resulted from blocked surface drainage channels and alterations made by homeowners after occupation, including boundary walls and concrete slabs that changed the natural flow of stormwater.
The developer alleged that recent inspections found some drainage channels had been “intentionally” blocked.
The company said it had carried out recommended repairs, despite maintaining that no structural defects had been identified and noted that the National Home Builders Registration Council’s inspections had likewise found no structural failures in the homes reported to it.
In one resident’s waterlogged yard, Liefferink pointed to damp patches and persistent standing water. Academic research, she said, has consistently shown that residential development within the zone of influence of historic mines carries significant risks for developers, residents and the state.
A homeowner, who did not want to be identified, showed the cracks that ran through parts of her house and how it was tilting. “I’m worried because we’re going to pay for this house for 20 years and look at what is happening here.”
“My house is sinking,” said Gladness Maluleka. “When it rains, it floods and sometimes the stove moves. That's when I know something underneath the house is shifting. There are cracks throughout the house.”
Another resident, who also requested anonymity, said: “Almost every house has cracks … “Even-newly laid paving starts shifting.”
Standing outside the house she once hoped would become her children’s inheritance, Ngwenya said certainty has been replaced by questions.
“We need those reports because we need to understand how this development came to be approved.”