Before 1994 spatial planning was based on racial segregation, which led to an inefficient and dislocated system. In 1995 the Development Facilitation Act (DFA) was put in place to address spatial planning. In 2001, the White Paper on Spatial Planning and Land Use Management was published, proposing a uniform set of procedures for land development approvals.
Parts of the DFA were found to be unconstitutional in 2010 by the Constitutional Court on the grounds that they infringed on the exclusive powers of municipalities. The Spatial and Land Use Management Act (SPLUMA) replaced the DFA, and came into operation in July 2015. The aim is to promote investment in land development and establish sufficient certainty in the land market; to address the segregated and unequal spatial patterns inherited from apartheid; to balance socio-economic needs with those of environmental conservation, and to improve and support infrastructure and service delivery initiatives.
The objectives of the Act are to:
The principles contained in SPLUMA are not new and can be regarded as a more detailed exposition of the general normative direction contained in planning policy and legislation since 1994 such as the White Paper on Spatial Planning and the National Development Plan.
SPLUMA is strongly normative because it highlights social justice, equity, inclusion, community participation, transparent decision-making, and awareness of the role of property and housing and environmental management in creating functional, efficient and humane settlements. These goals are reflected in the development principles of spatial justice, spatial sustainability, spatial resilience, efficiency and good administration. Land use management is regarded as the implementation mechanism for spatial plans and policy and the application of the principles in practice.
SPLUMA requires all three spheres of government to produce SDFs. The focuses of the SDFs are different. The national SDF provides broad strategic direction, provinces focus on a coordination role, and municipalities develop detailed plans for the areas of their jurisdiction. A municipal SDF fits into a hierarchy of spatial plans, taking direction from the national and relevant provincial SDF
At national government level, the Department of Rural development and Land Reform (DRDLR) was initially assigned the primary responsibility to implement SPLUMA. It monitors, oversees the establishment of National Spatial development Framework (NSDF) and other SDF guidelines. It is responsible for guiding any land development in the national interest, and developing regulations, and frameworks for the applications of exemptions and for delegations in terms of the Act. Secondary responsibilities, such as Land Use Systems and Alignment of authorisation are assigned to the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (DCoGTA).
Provincial government supports monitors and strengthens municipalities (in terms of section 10 of SPLUMA). It is also responsible for the establishment of Provincial SDF, provincial laws and regulations and to provide technical support and dispute resolution.
Local government is responsible for the establishment of Municipal SDFs which are required to be consistent with provincial and national legislation. Municipalities may receive assistance from national and provincial governments when necessary. The municipal SDF, land use systems and by-laws should be reviewed five years.
Although the role of the various SDFs of the three spheres of government is conceptually clear, the alignment of these plans and its implications will have to be tested in practice. The constitutional objection to the DFA is to be met by Section 22 of the Act:
S.22 (3) “where a provincial spatial development framework is inconsistent with a municipal spatial development framework, the Premier must, in accordance with the Intergovernmental Relations Framework Act, take the necessary steps, including the provision of technical assistance, to support the revision of those spatial development frameworks in order to ensure consistency between the two.”
This has already been controversial given the requirement by the national government that municipal spatial planning must be aligned with Strategic Infrastructure Projects (SIPs) and Built Environment Performance Plan (BEPPS).
An agreement was reached in 2015 between the ministers in the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (DRDLR), the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (DCoGTA), and Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME) to reallocate the functions of national planning and land use management. The decision taken was that the DPME will monitor the national SDF and provincial SDFs, national interest projects, regulations, exemptions and delegations. DCoGTA will oversee land use schemes, alignment of authorisation, Municipal Planning Tribunals and appeals. DRDLR will retain the planning and information function with a specific focus on rural development and land reform programmes. Further functions are still to be divided among the various departments. The system will be managed by the Presidency to coordinate the work of national departments.
In each department, task teams have been established and they are expected to resume their functions once the president has signed the proclamation regarding the reallocation of functions among the various departments. The submission was prepared by the DPME and submitted to the presidency for signature. The ministers of the three departments were then advised by the legal unit in the presidency to sign the proclamation before the president signs it. The minister of PME has signed the proclamation in April 2017 and then sent to the minister of CoGTA who will then send it to the minister of RDLR. Once all ministers have signed, the document will then be sent to the presidency for final signature[1].
Spatial planning is a complicated process and the main implementation challenges have been:
Spatial planning and land use management are most important and most complex in metropolitan municipalities. The table below indicates the progress made so far.
SPLUMA Implementation Requirements of Metropolitan Municipalities |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Municipal by-laws |
Municipal planning |
Delegations |
Spatial development |
|
Buffalo City |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
Nelson Mandela Bay |
Drafted |
Drafted |
Drafted |
|
Mangaung |
Drafted |
Drafted |
Drafted |
Drafted |
Johannesburg |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
Tshwane |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
Ekhuruleni |
Drafted |
Drafted |
Drafted |
Drafted |
Ethekwini |
Drafted |
Drafted |
Drafted |
Drafted |
Cape Town |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
So far, all municipalities in Mpumalanga, Western Cape and Northern Cape have published their by-laws. More than 75% of municipalities in Gauteng, North West, Eastern Cape, Free State and Kwa-Zulu Natal have done so. But slow progress has been made in Limpopo.
All municipalities in Northern Cape and Mpumalanga have established MPTs. Over 65% of municipalities in the Free State, Limpopo and Western Cape have established MPTs. Slow progress is observed in Eastern Cape, Gauteng, Kwa-Zulu Natal and North-West.
The principal challenges to better spatial planning and land use management are:
The SPLUMA framework is better than the fragmented and unconstitutional systems which preceded it. However, it will take years for it to bed down and its effective implementation will require competence and determination, particularly at the municipal level. Planners will need to be well informed about, and responsive to, demographic, economic and social change in their jurisdictions.
Agathe Fonkam
Researcher
agathe@hsf.org.za
[1] This information is taken from a DRDLR presentation to the parliamentary committee on 24 May 2017