Sharpening the Planning Tools

Sharpening the Planning Tools Discussion Document providing a review of local government

planning instruments in the context of the implementation of

the IUDF

DRAFT

22 January 2018

Sharpening our Planning Tools: Discussion Document providing a review and reform of local government planning systems in support of the implementation of the IUDF

1 DRAFT 7 January 2018

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 3

2 Situational Analysis .......................................................................................... 4

3 The Integrated Urban Development Framework (IUDF) ....................................... 7 3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 7 3.2 IUDF Policy Levers .................................................................................................. 7 3.3 Implementing the IUDF through IDP’s and other Development Management mechanisms .................................................................................................................. 9 3.4 IUDF Goals and Actions to be taken up in IDP’s or Development Management tools ... 10

4 Municipal planning – the legislative context ...................................................... 19 4.1 Planning Powers and Functions .............................................................................. 21 4.2 Municipal Systems Act No 32 of 2000 ...................................................................... 23 4.3 Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act (SPLUMA) ..................................... 27 4.4 Municipal Finance Management Act - SDBIPs .......................................................... 29 4.5 Division of Revenue Act - BEPPs ............................................................................. 30 4.6 Intergovernmental Relations Framework Act .......................................................... 32 4.7 Draft Intergovernmental Planning Framework – August 2015 .................................. 33

5 Sectoral Legislation ........................................................................................ 35 5.1 Environment ........................................................................................................ 36 5.2 Water and Sanitation ............................................................................................ 37 5.3 Waste .................................................................................................................. 37 5.4 Energy and the reticulation of Electricity ................................................................ 37 5.5 Housing ............................................................................................................... 38 5.6 Transport ............................................................................................................. 39 5.7 Disaster Management ........................................................................................... 40 5.8 Agriculture ........................................................................................................... 40 5.9 Mineral Resources ................................................................................................. 41 5.10 Economic Development and Trade and Industry ...................................................... 41 5.11 Concluding comments ........................................................................................... 41

6 Development Management Instruments .......................................................... 42 6.1 Regulatory instruments ......................................................................................... 42 6.2 Fiscal instruments ................................................................................................. 45 6.3 Incentive-based instruments .................................................................................. 46 6.4 Funding and Grants ............................................................................................... 48 6.5 State Owned Land ................................................................................................ 48

7 IDP’s: Content Guidance from the COGTA 2012 Guidelines ................................ 49 7.1 Project prioritization ............................................................................................. 49 7.2 Alignment ............................................................................................................ 50 7.3 Review ................................................................................................................. 51 7.4 Format and Structure ............................................................................................ 51

8 Way forward: Revising the 2001 regulations and 2012 guidelines on IDPs............ 52 8.1 General ................................................................................................................ 52 8.2 Service Delivery and Infrastructure ......................................................................... 53 8.3 Land .................................................................................................................... 54 8.4 Process Issues, Capacity and Engagement .............................................................. 54 8.5 Participation ........................................................................................................ 55



8.6 Governance and Financial Issues ............................................................................ 56 8.7 Compliance Focus ................................................................................................. 56 8.8 Adherence to Municipal Plans ................................................................................ 57 8.9 Lack of Plan Alignment ......................................................................................... 58 8.10 Strategic vs Comprehensive ................................................................................... 59 8.11 Spatial Transformation ......................................................................................... 60 8.12 Inflexible and Restrictive ....................................................................................... 61

9 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 62



1 Introduction

“Urban areas are the productive heart of the economy, but the majority of the urban population

live in appalling conditions far from their places of work.” Nelson Mandela 1996 1

This discussion document is part of an initiative by COGTA to look at how the range of

planning instruments for municipalities can be improved in order to support the

implementation of the Integrated Urban Development Framework (IUDF). Overall, this

project aims to achieve the following:

Review the original intentions of the IDPs and assess whether these need to be

reconsidered.

Identify and articulate problems that have been identified with IDPs and propose

solutions to address these.

Research who the different ‘users’ of IDPs are and how their needs could or should be

reflected in a redesigned IDP.

Identify the actions outlined in the IUDF and develop proposals on how these could

and should be reflected in IDPs and other development management mechanisms.

Identify other planning mechanisms that municipalities can use to implement the

IUDF

Identify the current status of how the IUDF has been integrated into IDPs and

development management instruments and review how successful this has been.

Develop a set of IDP guidelines to facilitate the incorporation of the IUDF principles

and strategic objectives into IDPs.

Develop guidelines for how national and provincial departments and entities can

input and engage with municipal IDPs as well as provide guidance to provincial

COGTA’s on how they should assess IDPs.

Currently, the formally legislated planning instruments that are used by municipalities to

plan both spatially and operationally include Integrated Development Plans (IDPs), Spatial

Development Frameworks (SDFs), Service Delivery and Budget Implementation Plans

(SDBIPs) and, in the case of Category A municipalities, Built Environment Performance Plans

(BEPPs). Of course, there are a wide variety of planning schemes in operation at lower levels

in municipalities. There are also a range of development management tools which can be

used, including financial incentives, urban containment and zoning mechanisms.

This discussion document introduces the analysis and has as its major aim, the review of the

existing legislative framework for the variety of macro municipal planning processes in place,

1 Urban Development Strategy, Pretoria: Ministry in the Office of the President.



as well as other sectoral legislation that guides a municipality’s planning. A secondary aim is

placed on the tools or mechanisms that can be used by municipalities to guide the location,

shape and form of public and private sector development at a local level in order to ensure

implementation of the IUDF.

The discussion document is divided into a number of sections:

1. A summary situational analysis

2. A review of the IUDF

3. The IDP and development management issues

4. A review of legislation guiding the municipal planning environment

5. A similar review of relevant sectoral legislation

6. Various development management instruments

7. The way forward in revising the 2001 regulations

Overall, then, it is hoped that through this review of some of the advantages and

disadvantages of each of the planning instruments, some initial conclusions and issues will

be identified and taken forward in suggesting amendments to the IDP regulations, which will

be finalised in the next phase of this research.

2 Situational Analysis

Section 25 of the Municipal Systems Act requires all municipalities to produce a “single,

inclusive and strategic plan” or Integrated Development Plan (IDP). The Act specifies that

the IDP must do the following:

Link, coordinate and integrate plans

Align resources and capacity

Form the policy and budgeting framework for the municipality

Comply with national and provincial development plans (Section 25)

There is however a recognition that IDPs have not been very effective in achieving these aims

and have had limited success in addressing the range of spatial, economic, social and other

challenges facing municipalities.

Some of the critiques of municipal IDPs have been:

They have become overly compliance focused and have not provided strategic

direction to municipalities;



Their 5 year focus has not provided a long term vision for municipal development;

Despite their name, they have not provided the horizontal and vertical integration

required.

They have generally not been backed by budgets – budgets have been developed

separately and often do not reflect IDP goals – and have not linked spatial and

infrastructure planning. They have also not integrated sectoral budgets.

They have not achieved significant success in reversing apartheid’s spatial legacy.

There are two other statutory municipal plans: The municipal Spatial Development

Frameworks (SDF) which are required by both the Municipal Systems Act and the Spatial

Planning and Land Use Management Act, and the Built Environment Performance Plan

(BEPP) which is required from metropolitan municipalities by the Division of Revenue Act,

since 2014.

In addition to these statutory plans, many municipalities have developed other strategic and

long term plans and visions.

Unfortunately, even though the Municipal Systems Act makes it clear that the IDP should be

the integrated plan containing long- and short-term spatial and sectoral plans, including also

the overall capital investments required, the plans have become fragmented, with SDFs and

sectoral plans often not properly integrated into IDPs.

The result has been that in spite of their legislated role, IDPs have become ineffective and

have not achieved their original goals. The BEPPs attempted to deal with some of these

problems but only in the metro municipalities, and have often been seen as planning

frameworks somewhat independent of the IDPs.

Overall, the key problems which have emerged over the past ten years are that:

IDPs have become documents which are not focusing on contributing to the long

term vision, as intended in the legislation. This is evident when one finds very little

in IDPs that take forward situational analyses, to establish clearly the strategic

priorities which have to be addressed. Most situational analyses are backward

looking and rarely define future scenarios towards which the IDPs are focused.

IDPs very rarely act as integrating instruments: they have simply become

documents which assemble sectoral and spatial plans with no attempt at integration,

prioritisation and assessment of how sectoral and spatial plans will unfold over time.

IDPs must be implementable planning instruments: Plans are not enough, they are

only of use if they can be implemented. Plans must be linked to long- and short-term

budgets and must include the plans of other spheres and ideally also plans of the

private sector.



Plethora of planning guidelines exist, some of which require different guidelines.

For example, planning legislation such as SPLUMA provides slightly different

requirements for SDFs and this needs to be addressed.

o For Category A municipalities, BEPPs emerged to deal with some of this

confusion, but in reality have created another competing layer as

municipalities focus on BEPPs as they are seen as a source/requirement of

funding. A key benefit of BEPPs is their linkage to DORA, and therefore

funding. However, this has diluted the strategic value of the IDP’s, which

should be the main planning tool performing this function.

o BEPP mandates and guidelines are annually revised, and are therefore more

nimble and easier to adapt to changing circumstances. However, this creates

confusion over the short- to long-term, planning requirements.

Involvement of sectoral departments in assisting with the development of IDPs is often

poor. This confusion is compounded nationally, with urban spatial planning falling under

DRDLR, whilst COGTA takes responsibility for monitoring and reviewing IDPs. The lack of

coherent, adopted and funded, NSDFs and PSDFs compound the situation.

Infrastructure investment planning is confusing – the MSA requires a capital investment

framework; the MFMA stipulates that the SDBIP must have a capital investment plan (by

ward); DORA’s BEPP which requires projects and funding; SPLUMA requires municipalities

to identify location requirements for infrastructure and have a capital expenditure

framework. These different processes, different timeframes and different reporting

requirements all add confusion.

Different grants, with different conditions: There are many examples where grants

promote spatial fragmentation and fail to promote integrated development. For example,

because housing and transport provide major sources of urban investment, municipalities

often have separate plans for these sectors, instead of pulling these together in a single

municipal-led process.

Spatial plans – need a stronger link between strategic spatial plans and land use

management.

Clearly, whilst the MSA specifies a single integrated coordinated plan - the IDP, this has not

happened. There is therefore a need to at least:

Rationalise the overlapping and confusing planning requirements;

Bring together strategy, institutional, investment and spatial aspects;

Link planning more strongly to implementation;

Ensure that national and provincial plans are incorporated into local level plans;

Guide local level planning with clear, relevant (and differentiated) norms and

standards; and ideally

Ensure that DORA becomes an integrating financial vehicle for all capital investments

occurring in municipalities.



Problems in the IDPs must be addressed and solutions brought in, such as those provided by

the BEPPs, in order to ensure a revised municipal planning system.

3 The Integrated Urban Development Framework (IUDF)

3.1 Introduction

Internationally, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and New Urban Agenda (NUA)

have brought into prominence the need to properly implement the IUDF in South Africa. The

IUDF proposes a number of areas in which our urban areas need to change if they are to

perform better and provide a better place in which to live.

The IUDF has the following four strategic goals:

Spatial integration: new spatial forms in settlement, transport, social and economic

areas.

Inclusion and access - ensuring people have access to social and economic services,

opportunities and choices.

Growth - harnessing urban dynamism for inclusive, sustainable economic growth and

development.

Governance - enhancing the capacity of the state and its citizens to work together to

achieve spatial and social integration.

It aims to achieve these through a series of policy levers outlined below.

3.2 IUDF Policy Levers

Policy lever 1: Integrated urban planning and management. Integrated urban planning is

essential for coherent development. It stimulates a more rational organisation and use of

urban spaces, guides investments and encourages prudent use of land and natural resources

to build sustainable communities

Policy lever 2: Integrated transport and mobility. Integrated transport and mobility is a

vital component of South Africa’s economic infrastructure investment. It contributes to a

denser and more efficient urban form, supports economic and social development, and is

crucial for strengthening rural-urban linkages.

Policy lever 3: Integrated sustainable human settlements. Integrated and sustainable

human settlements are key to redressing the prevailing apartheid geography, restructuring

cities, shifting ownership profiles and choices, and creating more humane (and environment-

friendly) and safe living and working conditions.

Policy lever 4: Integrated urban infrastructure. An integrated urban infrastructure, which

is resource efficient and provides for both universal access and more inclusive economic



growth, needs to be extensive and strong enough to meet industrial, commercial and

household needs. It should also be planned in a way that supports the development of an

efficient and equitable urban form and facilitates access to social and economic

opportunities.

Policy lever 5: Efficient land governance and management. Municipalities and private

investors both have a vested interest in land value remaining stable and increasing. At the

same time, property values reflect apartheid patterns of segregation and mono-functional

use, which need to be addressed to promote spatial transformation. Efficient land

governance and management will contribute to the growth of inclusive and multi-functional

urban spaces.

Policy lever 6: Inclusive economic development. The New Growth Path (NGP), which is the

backbone of our national economic policy, emphasises the importance of creating

employment nationally through specific drivers. These include seizing the potential of new

economies through technological innovation, investing in social capital and public services,

and focusing on spatial development. Inclusive economic development is essential to

creating jobs, generating higher incomes and creating viable communities.

Policy lever 7: Empowered active communities. Cities cannot succeed without the energy

and investment of their citizens. In fact, the very power of cities stems from their unique

capacity to bring together a critical mass of social and cultural diversity. This conception of

democratic citizenship, at the core of the ‘active citizenship’ agenda advocated by the NDP,

empowers communities to shape and contribute to the development of spaces and will

transform the quality of urban life.

Policy lever 8: Effective urban governance. The complexities of urban governance include

managing the intergovernmental dynamics within the city and relations with the province

and neighbouring municipalities. City governments need to manage multiple scale political

and accountability tensions in order to fulfil their developmental and growth mandates.

Policy lever 9: Sustainable finances - Cities work within an intergovernmental framework

and are affected by the decisions and actions taken by provincial and national government.

Furthermore, with well-managed revenue and expenditure, cities are able to expand their

resources and gain access to capital markets, allowing them to meet expenditure demands

and achieve greater scale and efficiency when investing in infrastructure.

The nine policy levers are supported by and must be read in conjunction with the following

cross- cutting issues:

Rural-urban interdependency – Need for comprehensive, integrated approach to

urban development that responds to both the urban and the rural environments.

Urban resilience – or disaster risk reduction and mitigation interventions in the

planning and management of urban areas.

Urban safety, particularly in public spaces.



3.3 Implementing the IUDF through IDP’s and other Development

Management mechanisms

Whilst the above goals, policy levers and cross cutting issues require the input and concerted

action of all spheres of government, private

sector and civil society, this report focusses

on the actions that can be undertaken at a

municipal level, particularly in the use of

formal plans (spatial and non-spatial) to

achieve these. It looks at both of the OECD2

defined planning policy instruments in

order to investigate how they may be used

to further the implementation of the IUDF.

The first instrument is development plans

which integrate social, economic and

environmental issues into land use

allocation and activity distribution decisions. The

second type of instrument, namely development

management instruments, include mechanisms

such as zoning policies, incentives and financial

incentives which are used to control, regulate or

stimulate desired developmental outcomes.

How then, should our planning instruments be

‘sharpened’ to implement the IUDF? Whilst

section four reviews the legislative context within

which municipalities plan and manage land use

and the built environment, it is first necessary to

understand what the goal of our planning tools

should be. The next section reviews the planning

related actions of each of the IUDF levers,

highlighting where issues can or should be

reflected in IDP’s or where there are issues that should guide the process of how the IDP is

developed.

2 Silva, E. and R. Acheampong (2015), “Developing an Inventory and Typology of Land-Use Planning Systems and Policy Instruments in OECD Countries”, OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 94, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jrp6wgxp09s-en

“Planning and fiscal instruments were developed

including IDPs (with spatial development

frameworks); the housing subsidy; and

infrastructure funding mechanisms. These

mechanisms have worked to varying degrees but

there is a need to sharpen the instruments. Bolder

measures are needed to reconfigure towns and

cities towards efficient and equitable urban

forms”. (NDP)



3.4 IUDF Goals and Actions to be taken up in IDP’s or Development

Management tools

Approximately 64 of the IUDF’s identified actions, grouped under its nine policy levers could,

depending on the type of municipality and its urban nature, be reflected in the municipal IDP

or in development management processes. Some of these are issues of a content nature,

whilst others are aimed at guiding the process of IDP development.

The sub-sections below provide an indication of what the IUDF requires from municipalities

with regard to planning and development management issues.

3.4.1 Lever 1: Integrated urban planning and management

Integrated urban planning and management is essential for coherent development that

redresses apartheid geographies and facilitates spatial integration. In this regard, some of

the relevant actions are:

Development of long term plans: municipalities should develop long-term plans,

which are aligned to the NDP and provincial strategies. Long-term plans must

identify spatial restructuring zones; nodes for stimulating economic growth,

connecting various parts of the city and protecting/restoring the natural

environment; and areas for housing and services that support integrated human

settlements. Sectoral plans and capital investments should be informed by strategic

plans, such as the Spatial Development Frameworks (SDFs), local area plans, precinct

plans, etc. At a local level, these should all be expressed within the IDPs, which should

be seen not as municipal plans, but rather as an expression of all of government and

its partners in a local space.

o This either requires the development of long term planning tools, or IDPs and

SDFs must ensure they have long-term time horizons.

o Content should include: spatial restructuring zones, economic growth nodes,

connecting corridors, environmental protection areas and areas for integrated

housing settlements.

Include spatial resilience and identify disaster risks in plans: Disaster risk

information should also be used in land-use planning to identify areas that are at high

risk from impacts of hazards.



o Identify vulnerability parameters in SDFs, and develop integrated risk maps.

Develop land use plans around this in order to minimise or prevent exposure to

natural hazards.

o IDPs and SDFs must be informed by disaster risk data, and areas of risk

identified.

Intergovernmental planning: In order for municipal plans to guide other

government and non-governmental partners, frameworks for multi-jurisdictional

collaboration should be developed.

o Existing IGR forums should ensure they have as standing items on their agendas

the monitoring of IDPs (nationally, provincially and municipality-wide)

Use of Transit Oriented Development (TOD) principles: Human settlements and

transport planning must be aligned. New urban development and infrastructure

investments (both brownfield and greenfield) should be focused around mass transit

corridors and existing/emerging economic nodes.

o The Integration of Capital Investment Frameworks for basic network services

(energy, water, sanitation, roads) and public transport should, for example, be

reported on and recommended to National Treasury through, for example, the

PCC.

o Focussing developing in and around identified nodes or corridors can be achieved

through spatial targeting mechanisms, such as UDZ’s, zoning schemes or the use

of incentives.

Urban management: Need to set norms and standards for each service and allocate

sufficient financial, human and operational resources. Norms and standards should

reflect the quality and efficiency of the service, be appropriate to the municipality’s

resources and capacities, and be widely communicated to citizens. Municipalities

should also strengthen the enforcement of bylaws and regulations (e.g. building

regulations, planning schemes, etc.) in order to create clean spaces and safe

neighbourhoods. The IDPs should indicate the resources available to monitor and

enforce bylaws.

o IDPs to indicate norms and standards for service delivery.

o IDPs to indicate what bylaw review and prioritisation process is underway.

Creating compact cities and connected cities: This is vital in ensuring better alignment of transport planning, housing and provision of urban infrastructure. This must also prioritise brownfield (as opposed to greenfield) developments.

o Identification of strategic areas and within these, acquire land/ property.



o Precinct level plans developed and urban design that creates integrated, safe

and inclusive spaces with the right densities, connecting infrastructure, quality

public spaces and inclusionary housing.

o SDFs: must identify urban growth boundaries.

o SDFs: Identify and protect environmentally sensitive land and prime

agricultural land for food security.

o Zoning schemes: encourage mixed developments and more intense land use.

o Parking requirements: review these and attempt where possible to require

lower standards.

o Density: in all areas consider increasing density regulations to encourage multi-

storey buildings.

Maximise use of existing IGR structures as a mechanism for coordinating planning: rather than just a focus on ‘coordination’ these must also become intergovernmental planning structures.

o Make use of spatial compacts, to negotiate spatial conflicts among spheres,

sectors or other actors.

Ensure greater involvement by Premiers and MECS – although not a local government role, increased involvement of provincial government is required to ensure that the plans of the different spheres are informed by and aligned to municipal long-term plans, SDFs and IDPs.

Expanded instruments for spatial intervention

o SDFs: These must be based on an analysis and understanding of urban

economies and socio-spatial trends, in order to guide public and private sector

investment, particularly in infrastructure.

3.4.2 Lever 2: Integrated transport and mobility

Integrated transport and mobility is a vital component of South Africa’s economic

infrastructure investment. It contributes to a denser and more efficient urban form, supports

economic and social development, and is crucial in strengthening rural-urban linkages. This

policy lever emphasises the use of tools and incentives to achieve dense, mixed land use, and

pedestrian and cycle-friendly precincts.

Strengthen and integrate public transport modes – develop IPTN plans which integrate all modes of transport.

o The Integrated Transport Plan (ITP) must be aligned to inform the SDF and other local plans and must include estimated costs for completing the networks and a synchronised project schedule.

Focus investment along core public transport nodes and corridors.



o SDFs: Identify core public transport nodes and corridors and reflect these in zoning schemes.

Urban design of public transport nodes in order to create safe and inclusive pedestrianised public spaces that provide economic and retail opportunities.

Creating pedestrian and cyclist friendly spaces: All road designs and other infrastructure/built environment plans should therefore consider including NMT infrastructure, improved maintenance, law enforcement.

Urban and architectural design must include universal access across the public transport system.

Prioritise access to social infrastructure (educational, recreational and health facilities, and government services) in the design of public transport routes.

Consider use of fuel efficient technologies and use of alternative fuels.

Consider use of congestion pricing and parking pricing to disincentivise use of individual motor vehicles.

3.4.3 Lever 3: Integrated sustainable human settlements

Integrated and sustainable human settlements are key to redressing the prevailing apartheid

geography, restructuring cities, shifting ownership profiles and choices, and creating more

living and working conditions that are humane, safe and environment-friendly. Housing is

just one of the interventions required to create urban environments that are liveable,

integrated and multi-functional. Also needed are mobility choices to improve access,

economic interventions to better people’s livelihoods and appropriate land use to facilitate

more integrated and inclusive neighbourhoods.

Upgrading of informal settlements must be prioritised and the NUSP should be accelerated.

o IDP: must prioritise informal settlement upgrading and budgets allocated.

o Identify suitable areas in which this can be done. This must include upgrading tenure, and providing basic services, social services, spaces for economic activities and alternative delivery models.

o Municipalities should work together with civil society and local inhabitants to identify and implement innovative and relevant solutions.

Inner city regeneration must be prioritised in bigger urban areas with a focus on providing affordable housing and better managed areas.

o In bigger urban areas, identify areas for regeneration.

o Proactively acquire properties in these areas.

o Develop programmes to protect poorer residents from displacement and exclusion.



Provide additional options for accessing urban opportunities by creating greater variety within housing stock.

o Identify land which can be used to accommodate expanding urban populations.

o Land use management systems must acknowledge and support different settlement typologies, including affordable rental options.

Promote densification, including support for backyarding.

o Backyard structures and additions must be allowed and supported. Similarly, second dwellings on single use erven must be encouraged.

o Develop mechanisms to provide basic services to backyarders.

o Encourage higher rise development, especially in well located areas with single residential units.

o In all dense and densifying areas develop urban management plans which include developing and maintaining accessible public open spaces.

Township redevelopment.

o Focus public investment in townships.

o Strengthen links between townships and areas of economic opportunities.

o Improve access to public health and education.

Identify and fast track land for human settlement interventions.

o Identify suitable land, taking into consideration environmental, locational and physical factors.

o Fast-track availability of these land parcels ensuring that consideration is given to providing space for public transport, open space, commercial activities and social facilities.

Urban design norms and standards

o These should include the provision of social, public and economic facilities and green infrastructure.

o Use spatial contracts to ensure that all social and economic infrastructure services are aligned to housing and transport provision.

o Transform public spaces into safe places of community life.

o Use Crime Prevention through Environmental Design principles.

o These spaces should also be barrier-free, to accommodate young children, the elderly, adults with babies and the disabled.

3.4.4 Lever 4: Integrated Urban Infrastructure



The planning, financing and operating of infrastructure is a powerful instrument for steering

the development of an efficient, equitable and resilient urban form and facilitating access to

social and economic opportunities. Current levels of capital finance are insufficient to match

projected infrastructure requirements.

Cities and towns are required to work on three fronts simultaneously:

To address new basic services demands and backlogs, particularly in townships and

informal settlements.

To invest in and maintain economic infrastructure, and to reliably deliver services to

underpin economic growth.

To prioritise infrastructure projects that can catalyse new economic growth.

Long-term municipal infrastructure plans intend to provide an overarching strategic framework for infrastructure planning and are used as a tool for coordinating sectoral plans.

All projects and major capital investments (national, provincial and local) need to be spatially targeted and aligned to these plans.

Longer term plans must include the following:

o Infrastructure investments for achieving broader social, equity and environmental objectives.

o Resources to be assigned through the PICC SIPs and related targeted infrastructure growth investment.

o Changing demand for resources (specifically water and energy) as migration and settlement patterns evolve and diversify.

o Environmental constraints.

o Financing of required infrastructure investments (capital and operating) over the life cycle.

o Institutional arrangements for providing, operating and maintaining infrastructure.

Wider sources of finance for urban infrastructure through increasing operating efficiencies and revenue collection, and through mechanisms such as development charges, to finance bulk and connector infrastructure related to property development.

Focus on developing transportation, communication and energy infrastructure, especially to link rural and urban areas and to increase connectivity.

Use integrated urban infrastructure to build resilience, through maintaining catchment areas in green open spaces and ensure infrastructure makes communities less vulnerable to disasters. This must also result in better maintenance of infrastructure.



3.4.5 Lever 5: Efficient land governance and management

Efficient land governance and management ensures stability and predictability in the land

market, and contributes to the growth of inclusive and multi-functional urban spaces. Many

post-1994, low-income developments are found on the outskirts of cities where land is cheap

but also poorly located, far from economic opportunities and social amenities.

o Strengthened land-use planning and management with a broader focus on all groups of society.

o Limit projects on the periphery of urban areas.

o Land tenure options such as an incremental approach to land tenure, including options such as the recognition of limited tenure, leading to legally secure tenure and later freehold tenure.

o Speed up the process of registering and transferring low-income houses.

o Develop mechanisms and instruments for local government to capture the accrued values of large-scale public investments.

o Access to land:

o Development of integrated strategic land plans linked to IDPs and SDFs, including identifying land owned by SOEs and other state departments. These must include a clear motivation of why and when the land is necessary for urban transformation purposes.

3.4.6 Lever 6: Inclusive Economic Development

Inclusive economic development is essential to creating jobs, generating higher incomes and

creating viable communities. The economic role of municipalities must be strengthened

through improved organisational capacity to do so, including the capacity for economic

literacy, networking, partnership-building and negotiation with wider interests, to ensure

job-creating investment.

Municipalities should consider appointing economists, project facilitators and people with appropriate business experience.

Internal administrative structures and systems should focus on enabling key land, infrastructure and administrative functions to support agreed economic development decisions.

Build and use economic intelligence to gain a better understanding of the local economy and its dynamics.



Economic development strategy must be based on a municipality’s distinctive strengths and weaknesses and position the city (in relation to key industries, occupations, markets and investment opportunities) relative to other cities and regions within South Africa and internationally.

Create the local conditions for supporting enterprise development and growth through removing barriers that stand in the way of enterprise development and through providing serviced land, essential physical and telecommunications infrastructure and the efficient administration of building and environmental regulations. Municipal development priorities must be reflected in the municipal IDP and SDF.

Urban safety must also be specifically addressed in order to create conducive local conditions and mobility for citizens’ engagement in economic activity.

Identify and target well located parts of the municipality and ensure that the infrastructure, physical environment and regulatory frameworks are conducive to accelerate development.

Use public employment programmes to support community-based initiatives particularly in townships and informal settlements.

Support and management of the informal economy aimed at enhancing the sectors economic potential.

o This requires revisiting planning, zoning and by-laws in order to support the sector.

o Informal trade and informality should also be considered in spatial planning policies.

o Municipal land-use policies should consider informal economic activities and find ways to accommodate sustainable livelihoods.

3.4.7 Lever 7: Empowered Active Communities

The majority of urban dwellers live in townships and informal settlements, which are

characterised by insecurity, inadequate and insufficient public infrastructure, and low-end

economic services, with minimal industrial activity. This locational disadvantage, coupled

with the lack of resources, prevents them from fully participating in civic, social, economic

and other decision-making processes.

Strengthen participatory governance through providing assistance in establishing community-created forums that bring together stakeholders to share, understand and learn from each other, thereby promoting social learning.

Special mechanisms should be developed to enable vulnerable groups to participate. Resources must be made available to facilitate these dialogues and to build the capacity of ordinary citizens and social facilitators.



Invest in people’s capabilities - In partnership with civil society and other role-players, explore models for equipping community members with the necessary skills to participate meaningfully.

Citizenship education and training (in planning, project management, and budget, institutional and spatial literacy) is needed to strengthen community organisations. Community activists and workers in particular should be equipped with skills in community organisation, management and planning.

Build municipal institutional capacity to engage and develop and implement area-based management plans. This requires that capacity building within government should not be limited to the units/sections responsible for coordinating public participation/stakeholder engagement, but should be mainstreamed in all departments.

Improve access to quality public infrastructure and facilities that promotes the mixing of different groups.

Urban design to focus on providing safe and quality spaces.

Municipalities should develop policies and standards for public spaces that other spheres of government and developers adhere to.

Municipalities should develop partnerships with communities, civil society and the private sector for the planning and upkeep of quality public spaces.

Strengthen support to community organisations and the integration of migrants

3.4.8 Lever 8: Effective Urban Governance

With some exceptions, the IDP has lost much of its centrality as a lever for development, and

implementation is variable across municipalities. Collaboration and coordination with

sectors remains uneven, and so development is not coherent, while planning is not aligned

among metros, secondary cities and towns, especially across immediate boundaries.

Up-scale integrated intergovernmental development planning with an emphasis on collaboration and stakeholder involvement. Develop shared goals and mechanisms for vertical and horizontal integration to address disaster risk, sustainable development, environmental protection and climate action, and reflect these in IDPs.

Strengthen inter-municipal and intra-municipal coordination for planning and delivering services more efficiently.

Sectoral investments must be guided by a city’s long-term spatial plan to create compact cities and sustainable human settlements

Improve city leadership and administrative capabilities, manage conflicting interests and make trade-offs in support of long-term sustainable urbanisation. This requires



relevant expertise and capacity to plan, budget, implement and monitor projects not only at senior management level, but also at other levels.

Capacity is required for measuring and monitoring performance, and managing and analysing the data that is central to planning and policy implementation.

Use data on inequalities in the urban population to inform decision-making and reduce inequities in risk/exposure assessment, preparedness and early warning of multi-hazards.

Inform and empower citizens by providing better access to information and increased opportunities for citizens’ voices to be heard.

3.4.9 Lever 9: Sustainable Finances

Sustainable cities and towns are those that do the basics right (have good revenue

management and expenditure control) and find innovative ways to expand their resources.

Ensure closer alignment between planning and budgeting: Develop realistic and financed capital budgets (using life-cycle costing) that are based on municipal capacity to deliver and the revenue available.

Greater emphasis on refurbishing and renewing existing infrastructure.

Tariffs should enable the recovery of depreciation costs of existing infrastructure and funding of new infrastructure, within the context of ensuring customer affordability and protecting the poor.

Introduce innovative revenue enhancement measures to improve long-term fiscal sustainability and predictability for planning and capital investments.

Innovation in capital financing instruments to increase funding available through, for example, the use of tax increment financing or expanding the use of development charges by municipalities to finance bulk and connector infrastructure required to support property development.

Public-private partnerships should be explored as a way of accelerating the delivery of key infrastructure projects without incurring additional debt.

The next section provides an overview of the legislative context within which municipal planning and development management takes place.

4 Municipal planning – the legislative context



Whilst there is a fairly complex system of legislation3 through which the state plans for the

management of land and municipal operations, and controls development, this report

focuses on the legislation which guides the main planning systems currently used in local

government.

The table below provides an overview of some legislation which local government must

consider when developing plans.

Table 1: Overview of Key Local Government Legislation

Overarching legislation

Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Act 108 of 1996)

Bill of Human Rights 1996

Municipal Structures Act (Act 117 of 1998)

Municipal Systems Act (Act 32 of 2000)

Local Government: Municipal Demarcation Act (Act 27 of 1998)

Intergovernmental Relations Framework Act (Act 13 of 2005)

Municipal Finance

Municipal Finance Management Act (Act 56 of 2003)

Municipal Property Rates Act (Act 6 of 2004)

Spatial Planning

Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act of 2013 (Act 16 of 2013)

SPLUMA Regulations (23 March 2015)

Housing, Building and Construction

National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act (Act 103 of 1977)

Housing Act of 1997 (Act 107 of 1997)

Infrastructure Development Act (Act 23 of 2014)

Geoscience Act (Act 100 of 1993)

National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act (Act 103 of 1977)

Housing Consumers Protection Measure Act (Act 95 0f 1998)

Occupational Health and Safety Act (Act 85 of 1993)

Construction Industry Development Board Act (Act 38 of 2000)

Mineral Resources Development Act (Act 28 of 2002)

3 SLF



Transport

National Land Transport Act (Act 5 of 2009)

Basic Services

Electricity Act (Act 4 of 2006)

National Energy Act (Act 34 of 2008)

Water Services Act (Act 108 of 1997)

Land, land rights and occupation

Restitution of Land Rights Act (Act 22 of 1993)

Prevention of Illegal Eviction from Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (Act 19 of 1998)

Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act (Act 70 of 1970)

Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Act (2014)

Draft Preservation and Development of Agricultural Land Framework Bill

Traditional leadership

Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act (Act 41 of 2003)

Environmental

Environmental Conservation Act (Act 73 of 1989)

National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998)

National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999)

National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (Act 15 of 2003)

National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act 10 of 2004)

National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act (Act 24 of

2008)

National Environmental Management: Waste Act of 2008 (Act 59 of 2008)

Disaster Management

Disaster Management Act, 2002 (Act 57 of 2002)

4.1 Planning Powers and Functions

The case of planning provides an important example of the complexity of powers and

functions across the three spheres. In terms of planning powers, Section 40(1) of the

Constitution provides that government is constituted as national, provincial and local

spheres of government. They are distinct from each other and yet interdependent and



interrelated. The spheres of government and all organs of state within each sphere must

respect the constitutional status, institutions, powers and functions of government in the

other spheres; and must “not assume any power or function except those conferred on

them in terms of the Constitution”.4

The courts have played a very important role in defining clearly the powers of particularly

municipal governance in a number of cases, such as Liquor5, Housing6 and Planning7, the

latter having a variety of judgements which have clarified the planning powers and functions

of municipalities in various contexts.8 Overall, these judgements confirmed that the basis for

all land development and land-use planning in South Africa was the municipal planning

process. SPLUMA lays out that basis very clearly, introducing national, provincial and

municipal (district and local) SDFs that represent the integration and trade-off of all relevant

sector policies and plans.

The functional arrangement of planning is more complex. The practice of municipal planning

takes into account not only the Constitution and SPLUMA, but also national legislation,

planning acts and ordinances of the provinces9 and national sectoral legislation. In addition,

a whole host of policies, procedures and tools are used in the exercise of municipal planning

as they build Land Use Management Systems (LUMS), Town Planning Schemes,

enforcement processes, urban edges, and many other aspects of the overall municipal

planning process:

Tools found within a Scheme include: Land Use zoning, Permitted Land Uses, Floor

Area Ratio, Coverage, Height, Density, Building Lines, Side Spaces and Rear Spaces,

Parking Standards, Control Overlays, Layout Requirements, Advertisements, etc.

Township Layouts include: Standards for Erven, Standards for Roads, Geotechnical

and Physical Constraints, Environment Constraints, Flooding Constraints,

Stormwater Management, Services, etc.

Environmental Planning

4 Section 41(1)(e) and (f) of the Constitution

5 Ex Parte President of the Republic of South Africa: In Re Constitutionality of the Liquor Bill 2000

6 Western Cape Provincial Government and Others In Re: DVB Behuising (Pty) Limited v North West Provincial Government and Another 2001 (1) SA 500 (CC)

7 Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Gauteng Development Tribunal and Others 2010 (2) SA 554 (SCA)

8 Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Gauteng Development Tribunal and Others 2010 (6) SA 182 (CC); Maccsand v City of Cape Town 2011 (6) SA 663 (SCA); lntercape Ferreira Mainliner (Pty) Ltd and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others 2010 (5) SA 367 0f (CC); Shelfplett 47 (Pty) Ltd v MEC for Environmental Affairs and Development Planning 2012 (3) SA 441 (CC); Lagoonbay Lifestyle Estate (Pty) Ltd v Minister for Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning of the Western Cape and Others (320/12); Minister of Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning of the Western Cape v Lagoonbay Lifestyle Estate (Pty) Ltd and Others (CCT 41/13) [2013) ZACC

9 Eg: Eastern Cape - Cape Land Use Planning Ordinance No 15 of 1985, Free State – Townships Ordinance No 9 of 1969, Gauteng – Transvaal Town Planning and Townships Ordinance No 15 of 1986.



Agricultural Planning, such as the quandary whereby the Minister of Agriculture also

may dictate land use

Building Plan Approvals, in terms of the National Building Regulations and Standards

Act, No 103 of 1977 and its regulations

Transport Planning

Human Settlement Planning

Economic and industrial area planning

Application Approval Process

Appeals, etc.

While this outlines the situation for planning powers and functions, it also illustrates clearly

the distinctiveness, interrelatedness and interdependence of all spheres of government in

the execution of powers and functions.

Some of the key legislation guiding municipal planning is outlined below.

4.2 Municipal Systems Act No 32 of 2000

The Municipal Systems Act establishes a simple and enabling framework for the core

processes of local government’s planning, performance management, resource mobilisation

and organisational change.

Chapter 5 of the Act, (Section 23 to 37), collectively deals with integrated development

planning.

A municipality is required in terms of the Act to undertake developmentally-oriented

planning so as to ensure that it strives to achieve the objects of local government set out in

Section 152 of the Constitution.

4.2.1 Integrated Development Plans

The Municipal Systems Act states the following about Integrated Development Plans:

“Each municipal council must, within a prescribed period after the start of its elected

term, adopt a single, inclusive and strategic plan for the development of the municipality

which-

(a) links, integrates and co-ordinates plans and takes into account proposals for the

development of the municipality;



(b) aligns the resources and capacity of the municipality with the implementation of the

plan;

(c) forms the policy framework and general basis on which annual budgets must be

based; …”

Section 26(a) states that the IDP must reflect “the municipal council's vision for the long term

development of the municipality with special emphasis on the municipality's most critical

development and internal transformation needs”. The IDP is thus envisaged as a strategic plan

that gives an overall framework for development. It aims to co-ordinate the work of local and

other spheres of government in a coherent plan to improve the quality of life for all the

people living in an area. In this regard, the White Paper on Local Government states:

“Integrated development planning is a process through which a municipality can establish a

development plan for the short, medium and long-term.”10

IDPs should take into account the existing conditions, problems and resources available for

development. The plan should look at economic and social development for the area as a

whole. It must set a framework for how land should be used, what infrastructure and services

are needed and how the environment should be protected. An integrated development plan

for a municipality guides municipal decisions and budgets as well as the development

programmes of SoEs and the private sector.

IDPs were envisaged as the planning and strategic frameworks to help municipalities fulfil

their developmental mandate11 including:

Aligning financial and institutional resources behind policy priorities.

Acting as a tool to integrate local government activities with other spheres of

government by serving as a basis for communication and interaction.

Providing a system for prioritising action around urgent needs “while maintaining the

overall economic, municipal and social infrastructure already in place.”

The White Paper emphasises that IDPs should be strategic: “Integrated development plans

should empower municipalities to prioritise and strategically focus their activities and resources.

An attempt to plan too comprehensively may result in unrealistic plans that lack the human and

financial resources for implementation.“

The Act ensures that IDPs are binding12 and are “the principal strategic planning instrument

which guides and informs all planning and development, and all decisions with regard to

planning, management and development, in the municipality.”

10 Local Government White Paper (p29)

11 Local Government White Paper

12 S35



Section 26 of the Act states that the IDP must include the following content13:

An integrated development plan must reflect-

(a) the municipal council's vision for the long term development of the municipality with special emphasis on the municipality's most critical development and internal transformation needs;

(b) an assessment of the existing level of development in the municipality, which must include an identification of communities which do not have access to basic municipal services;

(c) the council's development priorities and objectives for its elected term, including its local economic development aims and its internal transformation needs;

(d) the council's development strategies which must be aligned with any national or provincial sectoral plans and planning requirements binding on the municipality in terms of legislation;

(e) a spatial development framework which must include the provision of basic guidelines for a land use management system for the municipality;

(f) the council's operational strategies;

(g) applicable disaster management plans;

(h) a financial plan, which must include a budget projection for at least the next three years; and

(i) the key performance indicators and performance targets determined in terms of section 41.

Thus the Act requires the IDP to be strategic with a focus on under-served areas. It requires

LED aspects and operational strategies to be included, but not necessarily as stand alone

chapters or plans. Disaster management and financial plans must also be reflected. It also

states that a spatial development framework must be included as part of the IDP reflecting

“basic guidelines for a land use management system for the municipality”.

The 2001 Municipal Planning and Performance Management regulations by COGTA provide

the following content guidance in Chapter 2 which amplifies slightly what is contained in the

MSA itself:

An IDP must identify:

(1) A municipality's integrated development plan must at least identify-

(a) the institutional framework, which must include an organogram, required

for-

(i) the implementation of the integrated development plan; and

13 S26



(ii) addressing the municipality's internal transformation needs, as

informed by the strategies and programmes set out in the integrated

development plan;

(b) any investment initiatives in the municipality;

(c) any development initiatives in the municipality, including infrastructure,

physical, social, economic and institutional development;

(d) all known projects, plans and programs to be implemented ' within the

municipality by any organ of state; and

(e) the key performance indicators set by the municipality.

(2) An integrated development plan may-

(a) have attached to it maps, statistics and other appropriate documents; or

(b) refer to maps, statistics and other appropriate documents that are not

attached, provided they are open for public inspection at the offices of the

municipality in question.

(3) A financial plan reflected in a municipality's integrated development plan must at

least-

(a) include the budget projection required by section 26 (h) of the Act;

(b) indicate the financial resources that are available for capital project

developments and operational expenditure; and

(c) include a financial strategy that defines sound financial management and

expenditure control, as well as ways and means of increasing revenues and

external funding for the municipality and its development priorities and

objectives, which strategy may address the following:

(i) Revenue raising strategies;

(ii) asset management strategies;

(iii) financial management strategies;

(iv) capital financing strategies;

(v) operational financing strategies; and

(vi) strategies that would enhance cost-effectiveness.

4.2.2 Spatial Development Frameworks

The Spatial Development Framework is meant to be a tool used to achieve a desired spatial

form for a municipality and to guide the overall spatial distribution of current and desirable

land use, in order to give effect to the vision, goals and objectives of a municipal IDP, with

the aim of:

Promoting sustainable, functional and integrated human settlements,

Maximising resource efficiency, and

Enhancing regional identity and the unique character of a place.



The 2001 Municipal Planning and Performance Management regulations note that an SDF

must (amongst other issues):

b. “set out objectives that reflect the desired spatial form of the municipality;

c. contain strategies and policies regarding the manner in which to achieve the objectives

referred to in paragraph (b), which strategies and policies must-

(i) indicate desired patterns of land use within the municipality;

(ii) address the spatial reconstruction of the municipality; and

(iii) provide strategic guidance in respect of the location and nature of

development within the municipality;

d. set out basic guidelines for a land use management system in the municipality;

e. set out a capital investment framework for the municipality’s development programs;

f. contain a strategic assessment of the environmental impact of the spatial development

framework

g. identify programs and projects for the development of land within the municipality;

h. be aligned with the spatial development frameworks reflected in the integrated

development plans of neighbouring municipalities; and

(i) provide a visual representation of the desired spatial form of the

municipality, which representation –

(ii) must indicate where public and private land development and infrastructure

investment should take place;

(iii) must indicate desired or undesired utilisation of space in a particular area;

(iv) may delineate the urban edge;

(v) must identify areas where strategic intervention is required; and must

indicate areas where priority spending is required.”

These specifications for an SDF are largely similar, with a few differences, to those outlined

for SDF’s in SPLUMA.

Importantly, though, SDFs must be seen as integral parts of the IDPs, as the spatial responses

to the strategies and action plans of IDPs. This is critical in that too many SDFs are developed

separately from IDPs and it becomes difficult to draw a connection between the IDPs and

SDFs. The development of IDPs and SDFs must be a single process, ideally produced by the

same internal team. There should not be different visions, missions, goals and objectives,

but the SDFs must be clearly a spatial implementation of the IDP, and which responds

directly to the NDP (and NSDF) and IUDF key objectives and levers.

4.3 Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act (SPLUMA)

SPLUMA provides a framework for spatial planning and land use management in South

Africa.



The SPLUMA principles provide the goals within which land use should be shaped, and calls

on all three spheres of government to redress spatial imbalances and improve access to land.

It introduces the principles also outlined in the NDP of spatial justice, spatial sustainability,

spatial resilience, and efficient and good administration to guide land use governance.

On municipal planning, it provides clarity and specificity on the relationship between spatial

planning and the land use management system and other kinds of planning, and aims to

create inclusive, developmental, equitable and efficient spatial planning within different

spheres of government.

The SPLUMA legislation responds to a number of issues, including: “parts of our urban and

rural areas currently do not have any applicable spatial planning and land use management

legislation and are therefore excluded from the benefits of spatial development planning and

land use management systems.”14

SPLUMA is therefore an important legislative component in the implementation of the IUDF.

The Act elaborates on the provisions of the Municipal Systems Act in its stipulations about

spatial plans, noting that municipalities may not take decisions that are inconsistent with

their SDF. In addition, it states that other organs of state cannot make decisions that are not

consistent with municipal SDFs.

SPLUMA envisages that municipal spatial development frameworks must include both

statements that demonstrate the short term (5 year) plan for the spatial form of a

municipality as well as more strategically show a longer-term vision statement for the

desired spatial growth and development pattern of the municipality for the next 10 to 20

years.

In terms of spatial focus, SPLUMA calls for municipalities to identify restructuring elements

of the municipal spatial form, where investments can be prioritised, where infrastructure

should be developed, where housing should be located and capital spent. It also allows for

areas to be designated within which land development procedures can be fast tracked. The

relevant sections are detailed below:

“current and future significant structuring and restructuring elements of the spatial form

of the municipality, including development corridors, activity spines and economic nodes

where public and private investment will be prioritised and facilitated.” (Section 21d)

“Identify, quantify and provide location requirements of engineering infrastructure and

services provision for existing and future development needs for the next five years.”

(Section 21h)

“Identify the designated areas where a national or provincial inclusionary housing policy

may be applicable.”

14 SPLUMA introduction



“Determine a capital expenditure framework for the municipality’s development

programmes, depicted spatially”

“Identify the designation of areas in which—

(i) more detailed local plans must be developed; and (ii) shortened land use development

procedures may be applicable and land use schemes may be so amended.“ Section 21l

SDF’s are a vital tool for the implementation of the IUDF, specifically in addressing issues

such as spatial integration and creating new spatial forms. Their longer term horizons allow

for long term spatial restructuring plans to be developed.

In section 8, some of the key issues that should be included in SDF’s in order to further the

implementation of the IUDF are listed.

4.4 Municipal Finance Management Act - SDBIPs

The Municipal Finance Management Act outlines the need for municipalities to annually

produce Service Delivery and Budget Implementation Plans (SDBIP). The SDBIP is a one-

year plan, with a three-year budget view.

Section 1 of the MFMA defines the SDBIP as follows:

“a detailed plan approved by the mayor of a municipality in terms of Section 53(1)(c)(ii) for

implementing the municipality’s delivery of services and the execution of its annual budget.”

The MFMA Circular (No. 13) provides more details in this regard:

“SDBIPs must include:

1. Monthly projections of revenue to be collected for each source

2. Monthly projections of expenditure (operating and capital) and revenue for each vote

3. Quarterly projections of service delivery targets and performance indicators for each

vote

4. Ward information for expenditure and service delivery

5. Detailed capital works plan broken down by ward over three years”

The SDBIP serves as a ‘contract’ with quantifiable outcomes specifying the work that the

municipal administration will undertake over the next year and thus becomes a useful

management tool to monitor the work of a municipality. The framework for reporting on

SDBIPs should be outlined in the IDP, and where it is necessary to amend that framework in

the annual review processes it should be done. Including the SDBIP framework for reporting

in the IDPs is important as it allows a clear alignment in the IDP of the long-term (over 5

years), the five year programmatic focus and the annual delivery plans contained in the



strategic framework of the IDPs. Having a strategic SDBIP framework contained in the IDP

is very useful in that it could articulate how, for each of the annual SDBIPs over the five years,

the key strategic plans may change.

This could be contained in a table which indicates for each of the major operational and

capital expenditure groupings (such as water, sanitation, energy, etc.) the budgets are likely

to change in percentage terms in order to address the IDP’s strategic priorities.

4.5 Division of Revenue Act - BEPPs

National Treasury has argued that “large urban municipalities need to be established as the

centre of planning and service delivery coordination. In particular, this requires greater

responsibilities for cities in land use management, the development of human settlements

and the provision of public transport services.”15

In order to strengthen the link between municipal planning and budgets, National Treasury

have since 2011/12 required Built Environment Performance Plans (BEPPs) to be produced

by the metropolitan municipalities – initially to be eligible to access the Urban Settlements

Development Grant (USDG) and more recently from 2014/15 to access the Integrated City

Development Grant (ICDG)16. These aimed to address some of the outcomes that had

initially been anticipated from IDPs – stronger links between budgets and activities and

increased integration between the infrastructure for different sectors.17 National Treasury’s

City Support Programme (CSP) note that the purpose of the BEPP is “to provide a single

overview of a municipality’s built environment as informed by the medium term capital

investment strategy, plans, programmes and projects in relation to the associated longer

term (to 2030) plans, outputs and outcomes.” 18

BEPPs were not intended as an alternative to IDPs and other municipal plans, but instead

were to complement them in order to enhance inter-governmental relations to improve the

performance of metropolitan built environment,19 and give National Treasury a better return

on grant funds given.20

15 2011 LG budgets and Expenditure review Treasury

16 2014 BEPP Guidelines

17 Reforming the regulatory environment for urban planning: taking stock and moving forward. A discussion document for the City Budget Forum’s Planning Alignment Task Team, by Stephen Berrisford for PREFE, for the Cities Support Programme, 26 July 2016

18 2014 BEPP Guidelines

19 2011 LG budgets and Expenditure review Treasury




The CSP note that the BEPP fits between a municipality’s SDF and IDP, “with an explicit focus

on the social and economic infrastructure components of the built environment as it manifests

in space.”

In distinguishing between the BEPP and the SDFs Capital Investment Framework (CIF) the

CSP note the following differences:

“The CIF indicates the high-level development projects that the municipality should implement to give effect to the spatial development concept, and it should influence the operational plans of different departments in the metro as well as the financial plan and budget.

The BEPP deals with the key components of the budget with a specific focus on the capital budget in respect of Infrastructure grants, not just in terms of the quantum of the grants against metro priorities, but in terms of explicitly driving grant alignment and addressing related policy and regulatory matters. The BEPP approach is based on spatial targeting at a sub-metro scale which requires prioritisation within the CIF to trigger spatial integration for the longer term. The BEPP process institutionalises inter-governmental co-ordination and planning for better outcomes and impact.“21

BEPPs have a very specific spatial focus and rationale: they promote an Urban Network

Strategy approach, which includes a central role for transit oriented development.22 23 Four

key concepts are critical to this approach: (i) outcomes-led planning; (ii) the Built

Environment Value Chain; (iii) Prioritisation and Preparation; and (iv) Progression’24.

Since 2010 the legal requirement for BEPPs have been specified in the Division of Revenue

Act: as a condition for the release of various infrastructure grants. Because the DORA is

submitted annually, the requirement for BEPPs is prescribed annually, with guidelines

updated annually. For example, in 2016/17 BEPPs were intended to refine and consolidate

previous work. As a result, the main focus areas in that financial year were25:

(a) Spatial Planning and Project Prioritisation

i. Spatial Targeting - Prioritisation of Integration Zones, marginalised areas and

growth nodes;

ii. Local Area Planning - Developing a strategy for the prioritised Integration Zone(s),

Marginalised Areas and Growth Nodes and undertaking precinct planning within

Integration Zones in consultation with provincial and national spheres as well as

SOEs;

21 2014 CSP BEPP Guidelines

22 CSP’s 2016/17 BEPP guideline


24 CSP 2016/17 BEPP guidelines

25 CSP 2016/17 BEPP guidelines



iii. Project preparation for selected key catalytic urban development projects;

iv. Intergovernmental Planning and sector alignment;

v. Developing a strategy for the Prioritised Integration Zone.

(b) Intergovernmental Project Pipeline and Capital Funding. Improving

intergovernmental funding alignment via the project pipeline. Effecting

transformation in targeted spaces requires changes in funding approaches by the

provincial and national spheres, as well as State Owned Enterprises;

(c) Implementation of the metropolitan pipeline of urban development projects; and

(d) Urban management to protect and sustain public, private and household

investment.

4.6 Intergovernmental Relations Framework Act

Having established the three spheres of government and allowing for the consolidation of

the system, in 2005 the Intergovernmental Relations Framework Act was promulgated,

detailing processes and mechanisms to ensure all three spheres of government are bound by

the following principles:

A common loyalty to the Republic as a whole.

The distinctiveness of the spheres should be respected.

The various spheres of government must take concrete steps to realise cooperative government.

The IGRFA is relevant to a discussion on municipal planning in that it provides:

For a Premier’s intergovernmental forum, which amongst other matters will coordinate on provincial and municipal development planning to facilitate coherent planning within a province.26

District Intergovernmental Forums that similarly are required to inter alia ensure coherent planning and development in the district.27

The Act also introduces “Implementation Protocols” as mechanisms to guide and coordinate

how different organs of state relate to one another in implementing tasks which require the

participation of different organs of state.

35. (1) Where the implementation of a policy, the exercise of a statutory power, the performance

of a statutory function or the provision of a service depends on the participation of organs of

state in different governments, those organs of state must co-ordinate their actions in such a

26 Section 18 a vii

27 Section 18 f



manner as may be appropriate or required in the circumstances, and may do so by entering into

an implementation protocol.

These, the Act notes can be considered by any organ of state when, it will “materially assist

the organs of state participating in the provision of a service in a specific area to co-ordinate

their actions in that area.”28

The Act then specifies that Implementation Protocols must describe the roles and

responsibilities of each organ of state; provide for oversight mechanisms; determine the

required and available resources to implement the protocol; and the resources to be

contributed by each organ of state.29

Implementation protocols are therefore possible solutions to the requirement for spatial

contracts as outlined in the NDP30 and IUDF that are binding across national, provincial and

local government.

4.7 Draft Intergovernmental Planning Framework – August 2015 31

An Intergovernmental Planning Framework (IGPF) draft was developed by COGTA in 2015.

This aims to guide intergovernmental planning processes in order to ensure greater

alignment and integration. It addresses the following issues:

Poor alignment of strategic plans of the spheres of government;

No spatial dimension to provincial strategic plans;

Provincial growth strategies are not aligned to municipal IDPs;

National policy initiated without assessing impact on local government;

Planning is sectoral rather than integrated; and

IDPs are still not influencing planning by the other spheres.

The framework outlines the different areas in which intergovernmental planning takes place:

strategic planning, spatial planning, sectoral planning and financial planning. The following

diagram indicates the framework for intergovernmental planning which depends on the four

following process steps being developed:

Development and alignment of inter-sphere long term plans – this requires a cascading of plans, from the NDP and NSDF to services sector master plans. From these, provincial and then municipal plans should be developed.

28 S35, 2,c

29 Section 35, 3

30 NDP, P 286

31 COGTA, Draft Intergovernmental Planning Framework 2015



Development and alignment of medium-term plans – the national MTSF should inform provincial MTSF’s. There needs to be greater alignment between the planning timeframes, in order to take into account different electoral terms. This is proposed through a series of alignment points, as indicated in the diagram below.

Alignment of medium term planning is proposed through provincial participation in the MTSF development. This is augmented by municipal participation in the development of the provincial MTSF and strategic plans. Finally, it is emphasized that sector departments must participate in the municipal planning processes.

Conducting of mid-term reviews – these will allow adjustments on the MTSF to feed into the IDP’s and vice versa. This will aid in dealing with the different time-frames for national, provincial and local government.

Alignment of inter-sphere implementation processes – this requires municipalities to receive information on the national and provincial plans and budgets, before their own planning is finalized.

The framework notes that all of the above relies on a few critical preconditions, firstly, IGR

structures must be functional and should have the technical and political ability to undertake



their responsibilities. Secondly there must be a recognition by all of government that the

IDP is the plan which integrates all of government planning. There must also be acceptance

on the need for an IGR planning framework and a champion to further its cause.

The intergovernmental framework is currently under discussion.

5 Sectoral Legislation

Although not the main focus of this paper, it is useful to also review some of the primary

sectoral legislation in order to evaluate the powers that legislation gives to municipalities in

developing or shaping local level plans. Some of this sectoral legislation is briefly outlined

below.



5.1 Environment

The production of clean air, water and food are vital for the fulfilment of the Constitutional

objectives of local government.

The National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) (No 107 of 1998) is the overarching

environmental legislation for the country. The objective of this legislation is “To provide for

co-operative environmental governance by establishing principles for decision making on

matters affecting the environment, institutions that will promote co-operative governance and

procedures for coordinating environmental functions exercised by organs of state; to provide for

certain aspects of the administration and enforcement of other environmental management

laws; and to provide for matters connected therewith”.

In addition, there is there a wide variety of other legislation to address environmental issues,

all of which impact on municipal powers and functions.32 These Acts (mostly under the

umbrella of NEMA) all seek to protect certain focused aspects of the environment, and have

an important influence on planning and service delivery. The legal requirement for

environmental authorisations in terms of development are outlined by Section 24 of NEMA

which states that “the potential consequences for or impacts on the environment of listed

activities or specified activities must be considered, investigated, assessed and reported on to

the competent authority or the Minister of Minerals and Energy, as the case may be, except in

respect of those activities that may commence without having to obtain an environmental

authorisation in terms of this Act”. It should be noted that some of these Acts have

accompanying regulations. In this regard NEMA’s most recent regulations from December

2014 (R982 to R985), collectively list various types and scales of activities and locations that

require different types of environment authorisation.

Section 15 of NEMA requires the preparation of Environmental Implementation Plans (EIPs)

and or Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) every four years.

The IUDF’s goal of creating compact cities for instance may require municipalities to play a

role in ensuring that the impacts of development on agricultural land do not impact on food

security. In addition, under Lever 8 the IUDF notes the need for better decision making in

order to enhance resilience, climate change, mitigation and resource efficiency. In this

regard, municipalities should demarcate areas for protection in their SDF’s and ensure that

32 Environmental Conservation Act No 73 of 1989; National Environmental Management Act No 107 of 1998 and its regulations (NEMA); National Environmental Management Act: Air Quality Act No 39 of 2004; National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act No 10 of 2004; National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act No 24 of 2008; National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act No 57 of 2003; National Environmental Management: Waste Act No 59 of 2008; National Forestry Act No. 84 of 1998; National Heritage Resources Act No 25 of 1999; National Water Act No 36 of 1998



other sphere’s of government adhere to this. Protection of natural resource areas is a vital

component in creating natural buffers to reduce the risk of severe weather events.

5.2 Water and Sanitation

Water and sanitation is one area where national legislation has clearly articulated the role of

local government in the delivery process. In the Water Services Act (Act 108 of 1997), a

service authority is defined as any municipality, including a district or rural council as defined

in the Local Government Transition Act (Act 209 of 1993), responsible for ensuring access to

water services. It goes on to clearly define in Section 11(1) that every water services authority

has a duty to all consumers or potential consumers in its area of jurisdiction to progressively

ensure efficient, affordable, economical and sustainable access to water services.

These duties are dependent on the availability of resources and a number of policy and

contextual considerations, but will play an important part in implementing the infrastructural

and service delivery related aspects of the IUDF.

Clause 12 of the Water Services Act, requires that every water services authority must

prepare and submit both a draft water services development plan and a summary of that

plan. The Act requires that the water services authority must take "reasonable steps" to

bring the draft water services development plan to the notice of consumers and invite public

comment.

The IUDF notes that municipalities should set clear norms and standards for how water and

sanitation services will be provided. It also notes that where municipalities do not have

sufficient capacity to provide services, they should work closely with water boards.

5.3 Waste

All spheres of government are responsible for waste management in terms of the National

Environmental Management: Waste Act, 2008 (Act No. 59 of 2008). Chapter 3, section 11

of the Act requires all spheres of government to develop Integrated Waste Management

Plans (IWMPs). The Act also sets out the contents and reporting mechanisms for the

IWMP’s.

Section 11 (4) (a) (ii) of the Act requires municipalities to incorporate the approved IWMP in

their IDP's, thus aiming to align waste management planning with other municipal plans.

5.4 Energy and the reticulation of Electricity

Lever 1 of the IUDF notes that municipalities should focus on getting the basics right and

improving urban management. Lever 4 states that energy development is fundamental to



the growth of South Africa’s economy and society, and electricity supply should be used to

bridge the gap between urban and rural areas.

Whilst bulk electricity and its distribution is primarily a function of national government, the

reticulation of energy is a local government matter. However, increasingly municipalities are

looking at ways to address the energy question, from the continuous redevelopment and

expansion of the existing electricity grid to alternative energy projects and the green

economy. Energy is therefore another example of the interrelated, yet distinctive, character

of municipal powers and functions.

Constitutionally, municipalities are responsible for electricity and gas reticulation. In cases

where ESKOM or another agency is involved in such, one would expect the necessary service

level agreements (SLA) to be in place. The Electricity Act (Act 4 of 2006) and the National

Energy Act (Act 34 of 2008) do not, however, outline clearly the roles and responsibilities of

local government in the reticulation process.

5.5 Housing

“Cities and towns that are liveable, integrated and multi-functional, in which all settlements are

well connected to essential and social services, as well as to areas of work opportunities.” (IUDF

Lever 3, p9)

Housing is not a constitutionally-granted municipal function, but it provides a case where

national legislation (the Housing Act 107 of 1997) has articulated the roles and responsibilities

of all three spheres. The role of municipalities is generally subordinate to that of national

and provincial government, even though, and interestingly, the Act says that municipalities

should ensure that:

The inhabitants of its area of jurisdiction have access to adequate housing on a

progressive basis;

Conditions not conducive to the health and safety of the inhabitants of its area of

jurisdiction are prevented or removed;

Services in respect of water, sanitation, electricity, roads, stormwater drainage and

transport are provided in a manner which is economically efficient;

The Act expects municipalities to:

(b) Set housing delivery goals in respect of its area of jurisdiction;

(c) Identify and designate land for housing development;

(d) Create and maintain a public environment conducive to housing development

which is financially and socially viable;

(e) Promote the resolution of conflicts arising in the housing development process;



(f) Initiate plan, co-ordinate, facilitate, promote and enable appropriate housing

development in its area of jurisdiction;

(g) Provide bulk engineering services, and revenue generating services in so far as

such services are not provided by specialist utility suppliers; and

(h) Plan and manage land use and development.

This allows municipalities to play a critical role in implementing Lever 1 of the IUDF, ensuring

spatial integration, sustainable human settlements and aligning settlement planning and

transport planning. Key to this is that municipalities play the central role in identifying the

location and type of settlements within the municipal boundary.

5.6 Transport

Section 11(1)(c) of the National Land Transport Act (Act 5 of 2009) articulates the

responsibilities of municipalities in transport provision as follows:33

(i) developing land transport policy and strategy within its area …

(iii) ensuring co-ordination between departments and agencies in the municipal sphere with

responsibilities that impact on transport and land use planning issues, and bringing together the

relevant officials;

(iv) in its capacity as planning authority, preparing transport plans for its area…

(v) financial planning with regard to land transport within or affecting its area

(vi) managing the movement of persons and goods on land within its area by coordinating such

movement;

(vii) encouraging and promoting the optimal use of the available travel modes to enhance the

effectiveness of the transport system and reduce travelling time and costs;

(viii) developing, implementing and monitoring a strategy to prevent, minimise or reduce any

adverse impacts of the land transport system on the environment in its area;

(xiii) promoting safety and security in public transport;

(xiv) ensuring there is provision for the needs of special categories of passengers in planning and

providing public transport infrastructure

(xviii) the planning, implementation and management of modally integrated public transport

networks and travel corridors for transport within the municipal area and liaising in that regard

with neighbouring municipalities;

33 The items below provide a selection of the parts of Section 11 which are relevant to the IUDF



(xix) in relation to the planning functions contemplated in paragraph (iv) include service level

planning for passenger rail on a corridor network basis in consultation with the South African

Rail Commuter Corporation;

(xx) introducing, establishing or assisting in or encouraging and facilitating the establishment of

integrated ticketing systems

(xxvii) developing and managing intelligent transport systems for their areas in the prescribed

manner; and

Almost all of these responsibilities allow municipalities to play a critical role in creating

compact and accessible cities, with many of the IUDF levers being dependent on integrated

and strategic transport planning and implementation. Lever 3, in particular, requires

municipalities to take up the responsibilities of transport planning and ensuring strong

alignment between human settlements and transport planning.

Section 36 of the Act requires municipalities who are planning authorities to develop five

year integrated transport plans. These must be done in accordance with the manner and

form prescribed by the Minister.

5.7 Disaster Management

The IUDF requires municipalities to use disaster risk information in planning, invest in

disaster risk reduction and build resilience. Disaster Management is a function that was not

envisaged in the Constitution, but which created roles and responsibilities for municipalities

with the promulgation of the Disaster Management Act (Act 57 of 2002).

A municipal disaster management framework needs to be developed (by either Category A

or Category C municipalities) to ensure an integrated and uniform approach to disaster

management within the municipal area. The Municipal Systems Act also specifies that this

should be one of the components of an IDP.

5.8 Agriculture

Whilst agriculture is not a municipal function, actions taken by local governments can impact

on food security through affecting agriculture, providing another instance in which

interrelatedness may be seen. Therefore, the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act (Act 70 of

1970) and the Draft Preservation and Development of Agricultural Land Framework Bill both

aim to protect food security.



The IUDF emphasises the need to protect agricultural land for food security, through for

example setting urban growth boundaries. There may however be instances where prime

agricultural land is also deemed to be well located land for human settlements. In these

instances municipalities must engage with national departments to understand how these

priorities can be balanced.

5.9 Mineral Resources

Municipalities are often faced with mining-related matters which directly affect service

delivery. One such example is the case of sand mining which, whilst needed for construction,

often impacts on the environment. Acts such as the Mineral Resources Development Act (Act

28 of 2002) need to be taken into account when developing local strategies and action plans

for development.

5.10 Economic Development and Trade and Industry

The NDP recognises the need for much needed economic and infrastructure development in

South Africa. The Infrastructure Development Act (Act 23 of 2014) provides for the fast

tracking of Strategic Integrated Projects (SIP) following the designation of a project as such

by the Presidential Infrastructure Coordinating Commission (PICC), if it is deemed of

significant economic or social importance to the country or a region thereof and is in line with

the national infrastructure plan. This Act therefore has the potential to significantly affect

land (and use), spatial planning and economic development outcomes across the economy,

all spheres of government and the Southern African region in the future.

A further research project is being undertaken by COGTA to assess how SIP projects can be

used to further the implementation of the IUDF.

5.11 Concluding comments

The success of IDPs is, to a fairly large extent, dependent on the degree to which there are

clear and funded short- to long-term sectoral plans. National and provincial sectoral

departments must be brought more directly into the IDP development and review process

and ways be found for both COGTA and National Treasury in particular to monitor this

involvement and, where necessary, report in to the PICC on sectoral departments that do not

respond to the IDP process.



6 Development Management Instruments

This section considers the types of development

management instruments which municipalities can use

control, regulate or stimulate the pace and pattern of

development within an urban area. This includes

regulatory instruments, such as zoning and urban edges;

fiscal instruments; incentives; funding; and finally the use of

state owned land.

6.1 Regulatory instruments

Regulatory instruments act by imposing restrictions on the

type or location of development that is allowed. They

include imposing boundaries, such as identifying urban

edges, urban growth boundaries or greenbelts. They can also be in the form of zoning

policies and development moratoria.

6.1.1 Urban Containment

Municipalities can impose boundaries which delineate the outer area for urban development.

Beyond the urban edge, development will not be supported. Polycentric urban areas may

have a few different urban edges.

Urban edges may also take the form of an urban growth boundaries or urban service

boundaries, which delimit areas which will be provided with services and those that will not.

Urban edges may need to be changed over time and may need to evolve and be re-evaluated.

To manage the pace of development so that service infrastructure can sustainably be

provided, some countries use development moratoria or growth phasing regulations.

Essentially this means that development approvals are limited or phased in order to allow for

infrastructure to be developed.34

A critique of urban edges arises out of their effective limiting on the supply of land, and

therefore increasing the costs of land. This is a factor to be considered, but some authors

have noted that the extent to which this occurs is closely related to the style in which the

policy is implemented, the overall characteristics of local housing markets and land

34 Bengston et al., 2004



ownership patterns, and it is noted that the demand side aspects of the housing market are

a stronger determinant of prices than urban containment policies.35

In this regard, the IUDF notes that compact development must not be limited to simply urban

containment but that it should be achieved through a variety of measures:

“Compact growth can be achieved through managed expansion and/or urban retro-

fitting that encourages higher densities, the development of functionally and socially

mixed neighbourhoods, walkable and human-scale local urban environments, the

redevelopment of existing brown eld34 sites, and the provision of green spaces. For cities

and towns with existing sprawl, it is about applying re-densification and transit policies

that can increase economic efficiency and reduce environmental and social impacts.

Addressing urban growth should, therefore, not be limited only to ‘what’ should be

provided, but, more importantly, ‘where and how’ it should be provided.”36

In reviewing urban containment’s impact in South Africa, Geyer et al note that as a

mechanism to achieve greater degrees of urban concentration and increased inner city

development, there has been limited success. This is mainly due to the push factors that

discourage inner city dwelling which include poor living environments, congestion and crime.

The authors also suggest that once sprawled development has taken place, it is very difficult

to reverse it, due to the reluctance of outer urban dwellers to move back into the city. This

is particularly relevant in the case of low density tribal land.37

6.1.2 Land Use Zoning

Land use zoning systems can be used to specify the type of land use permitted on a piece of

land. Zoning can be utilised to change the nature of an urban area, create mixed use areas

and increase density.

The IUDF notes that zoning can be used to ensure that new urban growth happens along

transport corridors. But it also notes that zoning systems should be reviewed to ensure that

they do not contribute towards more mono-use suburbs and do not discriminate against the

poor and the informal sector.

Some of the types of zoning which can be used to reach IUDF goals of integration, inclusion

and access include:

Up-zoning involves the rezoning of areas of previously lower density uses to allow for

higher density uses. Many of the low-density former white suburbs in South African

35 Urban containment policies and housing prices: an international comparison with implications for future research, Casey J. Dawkins, Arthur C. Nelson, Land Use Policy 19 (2002) 1–12

36 IUDF, p38

37 Differential Urbanisation trends in South Africa—Regional and local equivalents, Hermanus S Geyer Jr, Hermanus S Geyer, Danie J du Plessis, Amanda van Eeden, Environment and Planning A, 2012, volume 44, pages 2940 – 2956



cities are currently zoned for single residential use. This means that the land can only

be used for residential purposes and only one single family dwelling is permitted on

the property. Some minor businesses activities may be allowed, including bed and

breakfasts and child care facilities. Up-zoning of these areas could allow for a higher

density of residential usage through allowing additional dwelling units on the

property or by increasing the zoning type from single residential 1 to residential 3 or

4 which permit townhouses or blocks of flats. Similarly, additional Air Rights may be

granted to existing buildings to allow them to increase their height.

Mixed-use zoning creates a blend of various types of land use as opposed to

traditional exclusionary zoning schemes. Currently South African urban areas are

characterised by exclusionary zoning, which separates business and residential land

uses. Using a residential property for business use requires special permission from

the municipality and is limited to specific business types.

The SLF note that “mixed land use should be permitted without a menagerie of

preconditions. Zoning schemes should not impede individuals or households from the

pursuit of an economic livelihood, except where the activities pose a demonstrable and

serious risk to the health and safety of the area and measures cannot be instituted to reduce

these risks.”38

Form based zoning focusses on the physical characteristics of development that can

occur in an area, rather than on the type of land use. Form based zoning regulates

how a building relates to its urban environment and are focused on specific places,

rather than a general zoning code which is applied across a city.

Minimum density zoning specifies the minimum allowable development density or

floor area ratio, rather than the more conventional maximum density controls. This

encourages more compact development. This is similar to intensity zoning which

sets land use and intensity restrictions.

Incentive zoning identifies areas in which financial incentives for development can

be gained. For instance, along a TOD corridor, financial incentives, through a zoning

scheme could be offered to developers who comply with mixed use, higher density

development provisions.

In rural areas, down-zoning and minimum size zoning can be used to achieve lower

densities. Alternatively, cluster zoning has been used in rural areas to ensure that

residential areas are clustered, leaving the remaining area as open space.

38 SLF P3



6.2 Fiscal instruments

Financial incentives are used to encourage actions by private land owners that shape urban

areas in the way in which the IUDF envisages. Generally, these instruments capture the

positive externalities resulting from public investments or by mitigating the negative

externalities.

The NDP states that municipalities should consider how financial incentives can be used to

achieve spatial objectives as well as land-value capture instruments to ensure that the

increased costs of land and housing associated with increased densities do not burden the

poor.39 Value-capture instruments, notes the NDP, “would extract a portion of the additional

value that accrues to a property as a result of investment by the state, for the public benefit.”

Currently, municipalities raise revenue from property taxes, which are levied on the value of

the real estate (combining land and improvements).

Value capture instruments that could be used in urban areas include special assessment

taxes which can be imposed on properties that derive a unique benefit from a public

investment – for instance where roads are upgraded or paved. Similarly, windfall or land

value capture instruments can be levied where land zoning is changed and adds value to a

piece of property.

Development contributions (also called development exactions, impact fees, or linkage

fees) require developers to dedicate land or pay for at least a portion of the costs of the

capital improvements needed for public facilities or new infrastructure. In the USA, linkage

fees are used to collect money from large scale developments to provide for affordable

housing, job creation, or child care facilities.40 Developer contributions are provided for in

South African planning legislation but have generally not been used to achieve spatial

objectives.41 In addition, they have been implemented in a fairly ad hoc manner and many

of the technical aspects of their implementation still need to be clarified.

Development contributions are an important mechanism for sharing the costs of

development with the private sector, given the public sector’s inability to fully finance all the

required development.42 National Treasury have undertaken work to clarify and structure

how and when development charges can be used, providing the following principles for

development charges:

39 NDP

40 Evans-Cowley, 2006

41 Spatial Considerations in the Development of Urban Policy in South Africa: A Research Paper as Input into the preparation of Integrated Urban Development Framework (IUDF), Philip Harrison & Alison Todes

42 CSP: National Development Charges Policy Framework, March 2016



“Equity and Fairness - Development charges should be reasonable, balanced and

practical so as to be equitable to all stakeholders.

Predictability - Development charges should be a predictable, legally certain and

reliable source of revenue to the municipality for providing the necessary infrastructure.

Spatial and economic neutrality - A primary role of a system of development charges

is to ensure the timely, sustainable financing of required urban infrastructure. They

should be determined on identifiable and measurable costs.

Administrative ease and uniformity - The determination, calculation and operation of

development charges should be administratively simple and transparent.”

National Treasury note that development charges are charged to a developer as a condition

of getting the land development application approved and are indicated in the following

areas: water, sewerage, electricity, roads (and related infrastructure) and solid waste

disposal (including landfills and transit stations). Charges can be made either by a monetary

contribution 0r an in-kind payment where the developer builds the infrastructure on behalf

of the municipality. 43

Other financial mechanisms include benefits for impacted communities where local

communities or property owners are compensated through ring-fenced taxes for the

inconvenience of a nearby development. 44

Use value taxes can be used to levy specific charges on open land in order to encourage

development on it. Use value tax assessments provides land owners an incentive to change

their land use through imposing lower or higher taxes.

6.3 Incentive-based instruments

“Existing planning tools and incentives can lead to improved transport, land use and human

settlements.” 45

In many countries, instruments may be used to stimulate development and to shape the type

of activity happening in different areas. They are generally aimed at reducing costs for

developers to encourage specific types of development projects. For example, brownfield

development incentives encourage developers to build or renovate in inner city areas and are

aimed at lessening the impact of higher land costs and higher development costs in inner city

environments.

43 CSP: National Development Charges Policy Framework, March 2016

44 Evans-Cowley, 2006

45 IUDF, p53



“Special incentives and subsidies should be designed to make affordable, large-scale high-

density housing possible in inner cities, on well- located land parcels, taking into account

property markets.” 46

“Ensuring that private housing developments are incentivised to include a proportion of

affordable housing.”47

The IUDF notes that there is a need for a greater level in capital financing instruments:

“Innovation in capital financing instruments should be supported, especially those that interface

with land and housing markets, for example, the use of tax increment financing or expanding

the use of development charges by municipalities to finance bulk and connector infrastructure

required to support property development.”

The following are some of the areas in which incentive-based instruments can be used to

reach the goals of the IUDF:

Use-value taxes (outlined in the section above) can be used to incentivise certain

types of land use. This could be along transport corridors, or TOD nodes, where

mixed residential accommodation is incentivised.

Split- rate property tax is used to encourage redevelopment of vacant or obsolete

buildings in order to encourage regeneration in well located areas by putting more

emphasis on land value than on structures. This makes it more expensive for

developers to hold onto vacant or under used centrally located sites.

Tax increment financing is used as a public financing method to provide subsidies

for redevelopment.

Transfer of development rights – are used to reduce development in certain areas

by granting alternative rights to developers in an alternative area where development

is wanted.

Area based incentives - South Africa’s Urban Development Zones allow for a tax

rebate for certain types of development which happen in designated zones in the

inner cities of major cities. Tshwane’s area-based rating policy allows for spatially

targeted land taxes. A report by Demacon in 2013 reviewing the UDZ’s in SA shows

that whilst the presence of a UDZ in a city is not a guarantee of urban renewal,

benefits can be achieved where a combination of synchronized interventions were

implemented. The study concludes that the UDZ incentive would have value in areas

with deteriorating CBDs including urban and rural small towns.48

46 NPD p285

47 NDP P287

48 UDZ Impact Assessment, Market Research Findings & Recommendations, Executive Report, April 2013



6.4 Funding and Grants

Funding or grants can be targeted to achieve spatial outcomes. An example of this is the

Neighbourhood Development Partnership Grant and the National Upgrading Support

Programme (NUSP). However, these can create fragmentation in funding streams and are

“generally not a viable instrument to achieve integrated spatial development” (Harrison and

Todes). 49 The NDP also notes that “disparate funding streams … complicate integrated

development.” 50 Harrison and Todes note that progress on informal settlement upgrading

has generally been slow, primarily due to attitudes towards informal settlements and the

lack of capacities and instruments to address issues relating to informal sector upgrading. 51

6.5 State Owned Land

There are significant land parcels of state owned land available throughout the country –

many of which are in well located urban areas. The Housing Development Agency (HDA) is

tasked with identifying and developing mechanisms to transfer this land for housing

purposes. However, this process seems to have been fairly slow and it is not clear whether

the HDA is able to meet the full requirements of this challenge. What is clear is that policies

are needed for all spheres of government (including SOE’s) outlining how their land assets

can be used and the terms under which this is done. Part of this should be a policy on land

swops which outline how different parcels of land can be interchanged in order to achieve

desired results.

The section below provides an overview of the content provided by the COGTA 2012 Revised

IDP Framework.


50 NDP, P275




7 IDP’s: Content Guidance from the COGTA 2012 Guidelines

Guidance on the content of IDP’s comes from a number of sources, including the Municipal

Systems Act and its 2001 regulations (outlined under the legislative section above). In 2012

COGTA produced a framework guide for municipalities outside of the Metro’s and secondary

cities. This has not been updated since then.

The IDP framework was developed in response to what were seen as the following challenges

with IDP’s at the time: the lack of guidelines for project prioritization, the poor integration of

various sector plans in the IDPs, poor planning, budgeting, implementation, monitoring and

reporting processes; and finally the problem of un-user friendly formats for IDP’s.

These concerns are also noted in the IUDF, which highlights the problem of weak planning

and coordination, insufficient use of IGR structures and weak long term planning.

Some of the key aspects of the guidelines are outlined below:

7.1 Project prioritization

The guideline provides some advice on how municipalities can prioritise issues in their IDP,

noting that “One of the key challenges faced by municipalities as they prepare to produce

credible IDPs is the determination of priority services and prioritisation of projects.”52 The

prioritization is proposed on the following basis:

Services that address national, provincial and local priorities and the Millennium Development Goals (MDG’s)

Services that achieve the SDF vision and LGTAS priorities

Services that achieve social cohesion, safe and secured environments and economic viability.

It also notes that projects should be spatially prioritized to ensure access to areas without

services, that there should be a balance between technical consideration and community

priority and high impact projects that contribute to the local economy.

On the issue of prioritization, the IUDF note that municipalities should, in the initial term of

implementing the IUDF, prioritise existing plans and programs that are already underway,

including SIPS, BEPP’s, urban networks and transformation plans. Other priorities in the

IUDF implementation plan are as follows:

Strengthen urban and rural networks

Controlling urban sprawl

52 2012 IDP Guidelines, p 14



Upgrading informal settlements

Creating safe and liveable human settlements

Various activities to create jobs and create a conducive environment for business to flourish and

Strengthen platforms for public participation.

7.2 Alignment

The guideline notes that whilst the MSA specifies that the SDF, LED, disaster management,

institutional and financial plans must form part of the IDP, these have become attachments

to the IDP as opposed to integral components of the IDP. Similarly the sectoral plans which

are required, by the sectoral departments have not been integrated into the IDP.

To address this lack of alignment, the framework proposes the following:

“Sector plans should not be developed in isolation of one another, but there must be a

sequential way of developing them. The development of these plans requires

cooperation among various units in the municipality so that linkages are identified to

ensure that service-specific plans contribute to the long-term vision of the municipality”

It aims to achieve this through creating a layering process, where at the base, or first level is

the SDF which is a long term vision for the development of the municipality. This aims to

break away from municipalities seeing the IDP as an add on, as opposed to the core strategy.

The second level of plans were those which outlined the social, economic and environmental

vision for the municipality, providing information on the human settlements, LED and

environmental aspects. These should flow out of the SDF

The third level of plans are the service oriented plans, such as water, waste, transport,

energy, sports and recreation, which should be developed to support those outlined in the

second level.

The fourth level plans are the strategy support plans which support implementation of the

level 2 and 3 plans, including the disaster management and infrastructure plans.

Finally, level five provides the implementation support plans which includes the institutional

plan and financial management plan.



7.3 Review

The framework acknowledges that many municipalities have already developed and

adopted SDF’s and other plans and proposes that in order to ensure integration

municipalities should review and revisit these plans through an annual IDP review.

7.4 Format and Structure

The framework provides the following proposed structure for an IDP

1. Executive summary

2. Status Quo Analysis: A detailed (deep and rigorous) status quo analysis of the

municipal area according to ive key performance areas..

3. Development Strategies, Programmes and Projects: Strategic Objectives and

strategies structured into five KPAs.

4. High Level Sector Plans, providing an overview of the sector plans and

demonstrating how they relate to the status quo analysis, how they contribute to the

achievement of strategic objectives, and demonstrating a relationship among sector

plan, programmes and projects of a municipality.

5. Annual Operational Plan (Draft Service Delivery and Budget Implementation Plan)

A one-year detailed Operational Plan that speaks to SDF.

6. Financial Strategy (Financial Plan) with a multi-year budget with a three-year

commitment and strategy for municipal revenue generation



7. Organisational and Individual Performance Management System with key

Performance Indicators linked to each objective and Annual Performance Report of

previous year.

The extent to which municipalities have adopted this guidance is currently being assessed.

The above 2012 IDP framework provides significant process and institutional guidance, but

does not provide significant substantive advice on how municipalities can manage specific

urban problems within their municipal boundaries and does not provide guidance to

municipalities with regard to the four strategic goals and nine levers.

The final section below provides an overview of the issues which need to be addressed in new

regulations or guidelines for IDP’s.

8 Way forward: Revising the 2001 regulations and 2012

guidelines on IDPs.

When introduced, IDPs were widely praised for being inclusive, participatory and strategic,

and a good break from the blueprint planning past. Indeed, they provide significant benefits

to past planning practices, yet in their implementation over the past years, a number of

shortfalls and limitations have been identified. Fuo (2013) notes “Despite its potential, the

design and implementation of IDPs is constrained by the limitation of financial resources,

corruption, mismanagement and the severe shortage of skilled personnel in most municipalities

in the country”.

Since 2001 IDPs have moved along a pathway which has led to significant deviation from its

core path of being an integrated, strategic, focused spatial and sectoral plan outlining the

short-term (5 years) and longer-term trajectory of a municipality’s development, indicating

also what human and financial resources are needed to ensure that path is adhered to.

It is therefore suggested that the 2001 IDP regulations and the 2012 guidelines be amended

taking into consideration the issues raised in the previous sections, but also to ensure that

the framework addresses broader issues such as those outlined below.

8.1 General

IDP’s have a key role to play in implementing the IUDF and the following general issues on

the role of IDP’s in implementing the IUDF need to be brought into IDP guidelines:

(i) IDPs must include a strategic and longer-term perspective in their focus: They

should provide a basis for understanding how demands are predicted to change

and in particular the changing demand for resources (specifically water and



energy) with changing migration and settlement patterns. They have also not

been strategic in how they have prioritised particular focus areas for a

municipality.

(ii) IDPs require a section which shows the links between the long-term (20 and more

years), medium-term (5 years) and annual changes, both spatially and sectorally:

Despite the intent, IDP’s have very rarely functioned as integrating instruments

which integrate short term and long-term plans as well as sectoral plans. There is

therefore a need to rationalise the overlapping and confusing planning

requirements and bring together strategy, institutional, investment and spatial

aspects. These must be more firmly linked to implementation.

(iii) IDPs must contain clear strategies and action plans from provincial and national

government in at least their IDPs: This would respond to the fact that IDPs have

not sufficiently incorporated national and provincial plans into local level plans.

8.2 Service Delivery and Infrastructure

The IDP guidelines need to :

(i) set norms and standards for the delivery of services. These norms and standards

should reflect the quality and efficiency of the service and be appropriate to the

municipality’s resources and capacities. The Institutional arrangements for

providing, operating and maintaining infrastructure must be part of infrastructure

provision plans.

(ii) Require specific detail on major plans/projects of other spheres of government

(such as SIPs) indicating how the municipality will respond to these and take

advantage of them.

(iii) include or refer to infrastructure maintenance plans and must place greater

emphasis on refurbishing and renewing existing infrastructure, particularly

focussed on .Finally, the IUDF notes that municipalities must invest in and

maintain infrastructure that which catalyses economic growth

(iv) Provide specific details on how, in townships, IDP’s must identify how backyard

dwellers will receive improved services and must focus on township regeneration

– including improved services, economic opportunities, social services. SDF’s

must ensure that there is access to social infrastructure (educational, recreational

and health facilities, and government services) in the design of public transport

routes.

.



8.3 Land

The IDP guidelines need to ensure a stronger link between strategic spatial plans and land

use management systems through:

(i) Identify strategic land which is required for public investment. This would

respond to the IUDF noting that both IDP’s and SDF’s must identify land owned

by SOEs and other state departments within their urban core areas and should

provide a clear motivation of why and when the land is necessary for urban

transformation purposes.

(ii) Include disaster risk data and environmental constraints posed by different land

areas, including key risk areas within an urban areas. These could be included in

SDF guidelines which Identify vulnerability parameters, and develop integrated

risk maps. Land use plans must be developed around this in order to minimise or

prevent exposure to natural hazards. Plans must also identify and protect

environmentally sensitive land and prime agricultural land for food security.

8.4 Process Issues, Capacity and Engagement

The IDP guidelines need to:

(i) Assess developmental capability constraints and indicate how best such

constraints will be addressed in the short- to medium-term: Such a review

responds to the NDP speaking of the need to “revitalise the municipal integrated

development planning processes and transform it into a practical instrument to

guide municipal investment.” (p272) However, the NDP notes that capacity within

municipalities to do so is highly varied and in many cases, lacking. This means that

whilst some municipalities have gone beyond IDPs and have undertaken other

planning processes, such as City Development Strategies, many have not. A

common response to this lack of capacity has been for municipalities to use the

services of consultants to develop their plans. However, whilst this may appear

to increase the quality of plans produced, it further disempowers municipal

planning capacity and reduces the commitment of municipal political principals

and staff to the plan53. “First, the IDP process needs to be led by the municipality

and not outsourced to consultants.”54 “…ensure the production of IDPs is led by local

government staff.” 55 It was never the intention to require plans which

necessitated the use of consultants, and could not be developed in house by a

municipality. The Local Government White Paper’s states: “Integrated

53 NDP

54 NDP

55 NDP



development planning is a normal and required municipal function - integrated

development plans are not "add-ons" and should not be "farmed out" to consultants.

The development of integrated development plans should be managed within

municipalities, and provide a way of enhancing the strategic planning capacity of

the administration, building organisational partnerships between management and

labour, and enhancing synergy between line functions.”56

(ii) Allow for a differentiated approach to IDPs: For smaller municipalities, IDPs have

become significantly onerous and complicated, not just in their development, but

in their implementation too. Many IDPs fail to take into consideration the lack of

municipal capacity to implement them. Tshishonga & Mafema57 cited by R.K.

Manyaka & T.S. Madzivhandila argue that “poor implementation of policies,

programmes and plans in government occur because there is a tendency to put more

emphasis on policy input strategies with little or no regard to capacity of institutions

to impact on the positive outcomes and outputs”.58

8.5 Participation

Although participatory processes are mandatory in IDP development processes, in reality

this participation is limited. Research by the World Bank showed that only 17% of residents

had even heard of IDPs. Participation is also done as a compliance requirement, rather than

genuinely wanting citizen or civil society input. An example by Friedman (2006) is given of a

participatory process where citizens were asked for comment on issues that had already

been decided at an administrator level.

The IDP guidelines:

Must specify multi-stakeholder forums which would bring together various

stakeholders, with mechanisms to enable vulnerable groups to participate. In this

regard, resources must be made available to facilitate these dialogues and to build

the capacity of ordinary citizens and social facilitators

Should indicate, where it is feasible in higher capacity municipalities, how

municipalities should provide citizenship education and training (in planning, project

management, and budget, institutional and spatial literacy) to strengthen

community organisations. Community activists and workers in particular should be

equipped with skills in community organisation, management and planning.

56 White Paper page 30

57 Tshishonga & Mafema 2010: 572

58 page 181



Should require municipalities to report on how capacity building is not confined to to

the units/sections responsible for coordinating public participation/stakeholder

engagement, but sis being mainstreamed in all departments in a municipality.

8.6 Governance and Financial Issues

The success of IDPs depends on solid municipal governance and good financial

management. This includes strengthening by-laws and ensuring that enforcement is

prioritized.

The IDP guidelines should therefore require municipalities to indicate how there will be

Closer alignment between planning and budgeting: Develop realistic and financed capital budgets (using life-cycle costing) that are based on municipal capacity to deliver and the revenue available. And ensure that the financing of of required infrastructure investments (capital and operating) are done to cover the entire life cycle.

Tariffs enabling the recovery of depreciation costs of existing infrastructure and funding of new infrastructure, within the context of ensuring customer affordability and protecting the poor.

Innovative revenue enhancement measures to improve long-term fiscal sustainability and predictability for planning and capital investments.

Innovation in capital financing instruments to increase funding available through, for example, the use of tax increment financing or expanding the use of development charges by municipalities to finance bulk and connector infrastructure required to support property development.

Improved coordination between public and private programmes and plans to accelerate the delivery of key infrastructure projects without incurring additional debt.

8.7 Compliance Focus

Authors such as Ingle59 note that there is significant emphasis on the production of the end

product, rather than on the process in its development. The tightly regulated system and

the approach by many provincial COGTAs in requiring checkbox compliance encourage a

one-size fits all approach. These also “restrict the ability of municipalities to take personal

initiative and place a heavy burden on municipalities with limited resources.”60

59 Politeia, Volume 26, Issue 1, Jan 2007, p. 5 - 17

60 ON Fuo, A critical investigation of the relevance and potential of IDP’s as a local governance instrument for pursuing social justice in South Africa, http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/pelj.v16i5.5 2013 VOLUME 16 No 5



Faludi (1986) notes that two conditions are important for a strategic plan to be effective, one

necessary and one sufficient: “The necessary condition is that operational decision makers

must know the plan. The sufficient condition is that decision makers must accept the plan as

part of the definition of their decision situations.” The complexity of the current IDP

framework means that, quite often, municipal staff and political principles do not “know the

plan” and the emphasis on compliance above process means that many do not accept the

plan as defining their decision situations.

IDP Guidelines should

(i) include mechanisms to ensure continual referral to the IDP in all Council processes

and decisions, ensuring that specific provisions in the IDP (which would reference

NDP and IUDF aims and objectives) may be a means through which improved

alignment and integration may be met. As one author notes, if the IDP is not

simplified so that it can be understood by managers, implementation will be

compromised61.

8.8 Adherence to Municipal Plans

The NDP notes: “One of the problems with IDPs at municipal level is there is no effective system

for them to gain the national and provincial support that they require to be meaningful.”

However, although both the Municipal Systems Act and SPLUMA require other spheres of

government to consider municipal plans, this is commonly not done. The flip side to this

problem is the lack of participation of national and provincial government in the

development of municipal IDPs. Maloka and Mashamaite (2013) note that “government

departments have not managed to participate in the integrated development planning in a

meaningful and sustainable manner.” 62

IDP Guidelines need to clearly indicate:

(i) Compliance processes through which national or provincial sector departments

or SOEs cannot implement projects which are not reflected in municipal plans and

where, in some cases, municipal infrastructure is unable to support them.

(ii) Sanctions for senior management in national, provincial sector departments or

SOEs who do not integrate their plans with IDPs. This would address the

challenge of provincial and national sectoral departments not contributing to

municipal IDPs. “The inconsistency of government department representatives

attending municipal IDP forums is also seen as a challenge in the IDP process.” 63

61 Institutional capacity for implementing an integrated Development plan (IDP): the case of the Emfuleni local municipality, I.P.N. MATHE, Masters Dissertation, North West University, 2010

62 Participation of government departments in the integrated development planning processes in Limpopo province’s local municipalities C.M. Maloka K.A. Mashamaite University of Limpopo. Page 195

63 Participation of government departments in the integrated development planning processes in Limpopo province’s local municipalities C.M. Maloka K.A. Mashamaite University of Limpopo



8.9 Lack of Plan Alignment

Within municipalities, there appears to be a lack of alignment between municipal IDPs and

SDFs, as well as other municipal sectoral plans. This is largely due to either or both of the

plans being developed by consultants, or separate municipal departments who do not liaise

with each other sufficiently.

IDP guidelines must include the following:

(i) IDPs and SDFs must be produced by the same teams and as one single process:

Whilst over the past decade, there has been an increasing pattern of

municipalities developing their own IDPs, this is not the case for SDFs, where even

many of the bigger metropolitan municipalities use consultants to develop their

spatial frameworks.

(ii) That IDPs should indicate how better alignment of plans would be made within

the municipality. This would include zoning schemes and other plans needing to

be closely aligned to other plans and ensure that where relevant mechanisms

such as parking requirements are relaxed or removed. Plans must also indicate

areas where mixed developments and more intense land use are encouraged and

ensure this is reflected in zoning schemes. The Integrated Transport Plan (ITP)

must be aligned to inform the SDF and other local plans and must include

estimated costs for completing the networks and a synchronised project

schedule.

(iii) That mechanisms be found to ensure improved alignment between municipal

IDPs and provincial development plans, and municipal and provincial SDFs. This

includes, that IDP’s are monitored as standing items on IGR forums and that

mechanisms for alignment be formally developed at a provincial level, including

dispute resolution procedures such as those in the IGRA.Despite the IGRFA

providing the legislative basis for intergovernmental contracts, there have been

very few instances where these have been developed and implemented. As

indicated by the CSP, the BEPPs act as a form of implementation protocol,

outlining the roles, responsibilities and commitments of all role-players within the

BEPP focus areas. However, whilst this acts as a commitment device for the

municipality, it is not clear as to the extent to which it binds other spheres of

government.



8.10 Strategic vs Comprehensive

Gilmore provides a list of comparisons of the pre-2001 planning system to the system

implemented after 200164. Although focussed on land use planning in Durban, this provides

a good indication of some of the problems that the IDPs aimed to address:

Pre 2001 land use schemes were often not linked to a broader municipal vision,

whereas IDPs were envisaged to have greater linkage to strategic vision through

vision statements and policies. IDPs placed an emphasis on strategic planning.

Pre 2001 schemes were applied to only the declared urban areas, whereas IDPs are

wall to wall.

IDPs were a departure from a development control approach and instead emphasised

development, performance and impact.

The IDP was aimed at addressing some of the problems identified with the planning system

before 2001. Whereas previous planning was seen as “restrictive and obstructive”65, post

2001 planning was aimed at creating a more balanced and facilitative approach.

IDPs were envisaged as a service delivery tool which could guide administrative decisions66,

but were also seen as strategic documents which needed to focus on the core municipal

priorities, and not the full range of municipal functions and actions. This in itself is a potential

contradiction, however it is clear that whilst IDPs and SDFs should be strategic, they must

give guidance to more detailed plans that can guide investment within municipalities.

As noted above, the White Paper emphasises the strategic aspect of IDPs, noting that if

overly comprehensive plans are required, many municipalities will not have sufficient human

and financial resources for their implementation. However, in the period since their

implementation, an increasing number of sector departments have added sectoral

requirements to the IDP. Berrisford for example notes that both the Transport and Human

Settlements Departments require integrated transport and housing chapters to be included

in IDPs.67 SDFs too have been given increasing scope, requiring chapters on a range of issues.

“The requirement to produce a plan for each of the topics addressed by the modules, rather than

simply asking for attention to these issues as appropriate compounds this problem.”68

The IDP guidelines must emphasise that

64 Gilmore, 2005

65 Gilmore, 2005

66 Manyaka and Madsivhandila


68 Todes



(i) IDPs are strategic guidelines which focus attention, as the NDP notes, on

engagement and participation of communities “on the core municipal

priorities”.69

8.11 Spatial Transformation

The IDP guidelines must ensure:

(i) as the NDP requires, that all municipalities to have explicit spatial restructuring

strategies, including around land reform 70 . This means IDP’s must include

mechanisms such as spatial restructuring zones, integrated human settlement

nodes, TOD principles and spatial compaction to achieve spatial transformation.

However, many authors have noted the failure of both IDPs and SDFs to be

instruments of transformation in the municipal landscape.71

In a review of how well SDFs have achieved spatial transformation, authors

Musvoto, Lincoln and Hansmann found that as planning tools, despite significant

infrastructure spend, they were unable to fundamentally address issues of

inequality. This is primarily around the process undertaken in their development,

their compliance focus and the lack of integrating stakeholder concerns. 72

The Sustainable Livelihoods Foundation notes that there is a need for municipal

plans to have a specific focus on land reform.

The IUDF principle of using spatial restructuring zones, designated growth nodes,

corridors and integration for human settlements must be included in both IDP’s

and SDF’s. It also notes that there is a need to focus development in and around

identified nodes or corridors using spatial targeting mechanisms, such as UDZ’s,

zoning schemes or the use of incentives. In this regard, IDP’s and SDF’s must

include the identification of strategic areas within a municipality for creating

compact development and should identify urban growth boundaries where

relevant.

SDF’s must indicate where precinct level plans are needed and provide guidance

for how and where urban design should create integrated, safe and inclusive

spaces with the right densities, connecting infrastructure, quality public spaces

69 NDP P442

70 NDP P286


72 Musvoto, G., Lincoln, G. & Hansmann, R. Urban Forum (2016) 27: 187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12132-015-9272-6



and inclusionary housing. In particular this must focus on public spaces, universal

access, public transport nodes, NMT and pedestrian friendly spaces.

In all plans there is a need for support and management of the informal economy

aimed at enhancing the sectors economic potential. This requires revisiting

planning, zoning and by-laws in order to support the sector. Informal trade and

informality should also be considered in spatial planning policies. Municipal land-

use policies should consider informal economic activities and find ways to

accommodate sustainable livelihoods

(ii) That municipalities explicitly indicate how they are addressing their urban design

norms and standards, such as through:

o Plans should include the provision of social, public and economic facilities and green infrastructure.

o Use spatial contracts to ensure that all social and economic infrastructure services are aligned to housing and transport provision.

o Transform public spaces into safe places of community life.

o Use Crime Prevention through Environmental Design principles.

o These spaces should also be barrier-free, to accommodate young children, the elderly, adults with babies and the disabled

o Improve access to quality public infrastructure and facilities that promotes the mixing of different groups.

o Urban design to focus on providing safe and quality spaces.

o Municipalities should develop policies and standards for public spaces that other spheres of government and developers adhere to.

8.12 Inflexible and Restrictive

IDP guidelines must

(i) Be strategic. Numerous authors have noted that many municipal IDPs and SDFs

do not provide strategic direction for a development pattern that will break

fundamentally with the past. Todes notes that the focus of municipal SDFs is

more to guide operational decisions than to provide strategic developmental

decisions. They are also seen to inhibit innovation and flexibility.



9 Conclusion

This discussion document is intended to elicit comment on both challenges facing the

existing municipal integrated planning process, as well as to assist in identifying key areas in

which the IDP Framework and Regulations could be revised. Comments on this analysis are

welcomed, particularly in terms of prioritising the key elements to guide that IDP revision

which will also ensure improved compliance with both the National Development Plan and

the IUDF.

The aim is to finalise a single set of IDP guidelines and/or regulations and a process through

which these guidelines are implemented. Comments in this regard are also welcomed.

In summary, the IDP and SDF have the basic underlying basics to provide for the

implementation of the IUDF. What is needed is the following:

1. Updated guidelines for both the IDP and SDF are needed to identify focus areas and

content required in each document required by the IUDF.

2. Process is needed to ensure that all sphere’s of government participate in the

development of the IDP and SDF and are guided by it in developing and

implementing their plans and projects. In this regard there is a need to clarify the

roles and responsibilities of the different role players and the process whereby they

should engage with each other.



10 References Aklilu, A. (2014) Towards Effective Planning and Implementation of the Local Development Initiatives in

Limpopo Province, South Africa, Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences Vol 5 No 20.

Berrisford, (2016), Reforming the regulatory environment for urban planning: taking stock and moving forward. A discussion document for the City Budget Forum’s Planning Alignment Task Team, Cities Support Programme, Pretoria.

COGTA, (2012) 2012 IDP Guidelines, Pretoria.

COGTA (2015) Draft Intergovernmental Planning Framework 2015, Pretoria.

Dawkins, C., Nelson, A. (2002) Urban containment policies and housing prices: an international comparison with implications for future research, Land Use Policy 19 (2002) 1–12

Demacon, (2013) UDZ Impact Assessment, Market Research Findings & Recommendations, Executive Report.

Evans-Cowley, J. (2006), Development exactions: process and planning issues. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Fuo, O (2013) A critical investigation of the relevance and potential of IDP’s as a local governance instrument for pursuing social justice in South Africa, http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/pelj.v16i5.5 2013 VOLUME 16 No 5

Geyer, S.,et al, (2012) Differential Urbanisation trends in South Africa—Regional and local equivalents, Environment and Planning A, volume 44, pages 2940 – 2956

Gilmore, P. (2005) An evaluation of the application of the Kwazulu-Natal Land Use Management System iun a Peri Urban/ Rural Setting. Masters Dissertation, University of KwaZulu Natal.

Harrison, P.,Todes, A., Spatial Considerations in the Development of Urban Policy in South Africa: A Research Paper as Input into the preparation of Integrated Urban Development Framework (IUDF).

Maloka, C.M, Mashamaite, K.A. (2013) Participation of government departments in the integrated development planning processes in Limpopo province’s local municipalities University of Limpopo. Page 195, in SAAPAM Conference Proceedings, 2013.

Mathe, I (2010) Institutional capacity for implementing an integrated Development plan (IDP): the case of the Emfuleni local municipality, Masters Dissertation, North West University.

Musvoto, G., Lincoln, G. & Hansmann, R. Urban Forum (2016) 27: 187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12132-015-9272-6

National Planning Commission, National Development Plan, Pretoria

National Treasury (2011), LG budgets and Expenditure review, Pretoria.

National Treasury (2014), BEPP Guidelines, Pretoria.

National Treasury (2016), 2016/17 BEPP Guidelines, Pretoria.

National Treasury, (2016) CSP: National Development Charges Policy Framework.

Nel, V. (2015) Spluma, Zoning and Effective Land Use Management in South Africa, Urban Forum.

Republic of South Africa, Ministry in the Office of the President (1996), Urban Development Strategy, Pretoria.

Silva, E. and R. Acheampong (2015), Developing an Inventory and Typology of Land-Use Planning Systems and Policy Instruments in OECD Countries, OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 94, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jrp6wgxp09s-en



Sustainable Livelihoods Foundation (2017), Post-Apartheid Spatial Inequality: Obstacles Of Land Use Management On Township Micro-Enterprise Formalisation. http://www.livelihoods.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/SLF_Post-Apartheid_Spatial_Inequality_-_lr_version.pdf

Todes, A., Karam, A., Klug, N. and Malaza, N., (2010) Beyond master planning? New approaches to spatial planning in Ekurhuleni, South Africa, in Habitat International, 34. 414 – 420.

Tshishonga, N. & Mafema, E.D., (2010) Policy development for service delivery through community development workers Programme in South Africa: Exploring the implications of placing a cart before the horse’, Journal of Public Administration 45(4), 561–583.

Documents

Sharpening the Planning Tools