Thursday, October 15th
12h30-14h00

ILMI-Brown bag meeting
The proposed new Urban and Regional Planning Bill
Comments by Pieter Genis
Department of Architecture and Spatial Planning (DASP)

Background

When arriving at the now Ministry of Urban and Regional
Development (MURD) twenty years ago, proclamation of
towns took place in a rather arbitrary manner and with
little consultation or environmental impact assessment.

There was the Regional Council Act in 1992 that regulated
planning and development in the regions, but in 1996
the Association of Regional Councils plead for a move to
decentralise the planning process.

During 1997-2000 the decentralisation and reform of
the planning legislation process started. During the
same time, some, structure plans (longer-term spatial
development frameworks) were put in place at. Particularly
the one of Rundu was a good document; however at that
time structure plans had no statutory requirement for
implementation.

The 2004 Namibian Association of Local Authority Officers
(NALAO) document on land delivery and management
policies for local authorities advised town councils to
become authorised planning authorities by introducing
the compilation of structure plans and hiring of planning
professionals to reduce the time of delivery.

Currently, to put an example, decisions on town
establishment, land subdivision and zoning in the City of
Windhoek can take up to two years.

The National Land Policy of 1998 already reflected the need
for legislative review and had a focus on reducing time of
planning, addressing the issues of land rights of the urban
poor, the environmental implications of urbanization, as
well as the issue of sprawl and density; it also opened the
possibility of flexibility in planning schemes.

The National Land Use Planning Policy of 2002 stopped
short of becoming the comprehensive document that would
give guidance to national spatial development, although it
promoted the principle of integration at regional land use
planning level.

The current proposed Land Use Planning Policy clearly
states that the Bill (once enacted), will provide for a
uniform, effective, efficient and integrated regulatory
framework for planning, land use and land use management
which promotes public interest this statement is also in
line with the Vision 2030 objectives of integrated urban and
rural development, improved access to land and inclusion of
livelihood activities in planned areas.

On the Bill

The Bill aimed at overriding old ordinances that dated
back to the 1950s and 60s. These ordinances provide for
two statutory planning bodies considering and advising
on matters of town and regional planning policy, town
establishment, town planning schemes, subdivision &
consolidation of land and objections & appeals on land
development matters. These ordinances, however, are
out-dated, difficult to administer and were contradictory,
resulting in planning objectives becoming secondary to
legal procedures.

The main objective of the Bill is that of decentralisation
(this implies improved decision-making, shorter processes
and poverty alleviation), and has three main points:

1. Establishment of authorized planning authorities
(APA), under the criteria of having approved structure plans
and requiring the services of a town planner involved in
the process these criteria, enable entities like Regional
Councils and Local Authorities to become APAs.

2. The Bill continues to deal with the above-mentioned
matters of the old ordinances (with the additional provision
for structure plans) and consolidates the current statutory
boards, namely the Townships Board and the Namibia
Planning Advisory Board (NAMPAB) into one Urban and
Regional Planning Board, but by doing so it grows the
number of members, therefore increasing the risk of not
reaching quorum for taking decisions.

3. It also envisions long term spatial development
frameworks by means of a structure plan at all levels:
national, regional, and urban.

The idea of decentralising functions was that it would
enable each APA to interpret Vision 2030 in spatial terms,
and act accordingly.

One of the challenges in the process was the coordination
between ministries, more specifically MURD and the
Ministry of Lands and Resettlement (MLR).

Some of the previous concerns were the overlaps with
existing plans (regional structure plans and integrated
regional land use plans), and the fact that the so-called
communal areas were excluded from the Bill. A task team
was appointed to address these concerns.

1/2015

ILMI Document No. 1/2015 Page 1 of 2

About ILMI
The Integrated Land Management Institute is a centre of the School of Natural Resources and
Spatial Sciences (SNRSS) at the Polytechnic of Namibia (PoN) committed to develop reputable and
multidisciplinary research and public outreach activities in the field of land, administration, property,
architecture and spatial planning.

Contact
13 Storch Str, Windhoek
Tel. +264-61-207-9111

ilmi@polytechnic.edu.na
ilmi.polytechnic.edu.na

This year, new amendments to the Bill will be re-submitted
after consideration of the main aspects still to be addressed
by the Bill: to incorporate rural planning aspects, address
the issue of informal settlements, and synchronize the Bill
with the new Flexible Land Tenure (FLT) bill.

Questions that remain are whether there is no duplication
and over-regulation with the inclusion of the existing Land
Boards, whether there was sufficient consultation, whether
the concept of Land Use Schemes means something
different than the currently-existing Structure Plans, and
the crucial fact that the term rural land is defined but the
term urban land is not.

The bill is currently with the legal drafters, and
implementation is expected soon thereafter.

Discussion

It is good that Universities take initiative in triggering such
discussions like the current one, but it would be relevant to
formulate a clear position on the matter and put it forward.

A lot of time has passed since this bill started to be
discussed, so it is pertinent to ask whether it is still relevant
after so much time. The cumbersome process of land titling
discourages investors. Decentralisation is a good objective,
but we need to ask whether there is political commitment
behind this.

The discussions on decentralisation started with the Land
Conference in 1992, which is a long time back. If the Bill is
also indeed about decentralisation, why does every plan
continue to be signed by the Minister (MURD)? (reply: not
all plans are approved by the Minister as was the case with
the ordinances)

It is important to ask whether this law allows for a broader
level to manoeuver at the local level; if it doesnt, then it
doesnt actually de-centralise. It is also worth asking what
happens if there are two different APAs that deal with the
same jurisdiction area? An example could be what happens
if a plan developed by a Regional Council conflicts with
one developed by a Municipal authority falling within
its boundaries. (Reply: jurisdiction is defined in other
legislation and provision is made in the Bill for plans to
conform to higher-level plans)

Planning has moved on towards mixed-use zoning, an
aspect that is neglected in the Bill. (Reply: the Bill provide
for zoning schemes, which are the planning tools to affect
mix-use development)

It is also relevant to mention that the term space is
taking a centre point in the general current development
framework.

If the Bill needszmore consultation but at the same time
it is being indicated that the discussions on the Bill took
too long, then there seems to be an impasse in the way
regulations are developed.

The process has taken longer than fifteen years, and
yet there is no value system reflected in the document.
There is no clarity on what the emphasis is: is it on
mobility, aesthetics, and inclusion? (Reply: the main
values are reflected in the title of the Bill ...in such a
way as will most effectively promote health, safety, order,
amenity, convenience and environmental and economic
sustainability in the process of development.

There seems to be a need for a more thorough reform on
urban and regional planning, we need to start imagining a
new spatial planning system for Namibia.

Its worth asking whether urban social movements like
Affirmative Repositioning might have given the processing
of this an increased sense of urgency.

The average citizen is largely not aware of planning, its
relevance, or its procedures. This will not only be solved
through consultation.

There is also the question on whether discussing the Bill
is only half of the story, while much is in fact depending
on implementation, where capacity can also be limited and
need to be addressed simultaneously.

The cooperation between entities, both at the Ministerial
level and between the institutions involved are still too
little, which causes fragmentation.

It is important to ask whether funding will also be
decentralised, not only the drafting of planning and drafting
documents.

It will be important to make sure that legal drafter of the
Bill is acquainted with the policy issues; otherwise there
will be gaps that will hinder implementation.

On the question of the way forward, action to be taken
(e.g. open letters and letters to the relevant actors) can be
discussed and acted upon by each organisation.

ILMI will explore the possibility of weaving positions and
eventually arriving to common efforts and discussions.

Pieter Genis can be reached at pgenis@polytechnic.edu.na

ILMI Document No. 2/2015 Page 2 of 2