On Thursday 24 April the DA in Tshwane made a proposal about public participation in the Tshwane Council with regards the Tshwane Integrated Development Plan (IDP). The DA had serious concerns about the fact that the public participation on the IDP was poorly executed and that the document was nor freely available.
During the debate DA leader in the Tshwane Council, Fred Nel, spoke in support of an extension of the the public participation period for the IDP. He reiterated that the document was not made freely available and that is was also not put on the agenda during public participation meetings.
Cllr Elmarie Linde from the DA then proposed an amendment to the report suggesting a further extension for the public participation on the Tshwa IDP. The ANC in the council agreed with the DA amendment and the period for public participation was extended to 15 May 2008.
Below are some of the speeches delivered during the debate by DA councillors.
COUNCIL 2008-04-24 ITEM 1 THE DRAFT TSHWANE INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2006-2011
CLR C J NAPIER
Mr Speaker
We have had six years of compiling IDPs and we are still not getting it right. The only real differences between the first draft document we received in 2002 and the one before us is that the present one is a little thinner and also this one still does not focus on the real issues. The present one contains many tables of what we have in terms of water and toilets and so on. My ward 57 committee has over the years made many reasonable inputs to the IDP. In the document before us I see very little of relevance to my ward which I must add is probably one of the most rapidly developing in the Tshwane municipal area. It seems that the ward 57 inputs simply disappear into the big pot. My ward committee would feel happy if they got some sort of feedback in response to the inputs made. All they want are reasons as to why their inputs can or cannot be accommodated.
Mr Speaker – I have had to ask a question in this council as to whether the ward 57 inputs are being considered. After a long wait I received some replies and others I am still waiting for to this day. This is not how the process should work. My ward committee is becoming very dissolutioned. The Municipality calls for people to become involved – for public participation. If people are to become involved and stay involved they must get some feedback otherwise they will simply drift away and distance themselves from political processes. Integrated Development Planning will simply return to what it was – a highly bureaucratic and centralised process – and this is something we do not want. I believe it is time to rethink the whole IDP process.
I thank you.
CLR C J NAPIER
Mr Speaker
We have had six years of compiling IDPs and we are still not getting it right. The only real differences between the first draft document we received in 2002 and the one before us is that the present one is a little thinner and also this one still does not focus on the real issues. The present one contains many tables of what we have in terms of water and toilets and so on. My ward 57 committee has over the years made many reasonable inputs to the IDP. In the document before us I see very little of relevance to my ward which I must add is probably one of the most rapidly developing in the Tshwane municipal area. It seems that the ward 57 inputs simply disappear into the big pot. My ward committee would feel happy if they got some sort of feedback in response to the inputs made. All they want are reasons as to why their inputs can or cannot be accommodated.
Mr Speaker – I have had to ask a question in this council as to whether the ward 57 inputs are being considered. After a long wait I received some replies and others I am still waiting for to this day. This is not how the process should work. My ward committee is becoming very dissolutioned. The Municipality calls for people to become involved – for public participation. If people are to become involved and stay involved they must get some feedback otherwise they will simply drift away and distance themselves from political processes. Integrated Development Planning will simply return to what it was – a highly bureaucratic and centralised process – and this is something we do not want. I believe it is time to rethink the whole IDP process.
I thank you.
Honourable Mr Speaker
I comment on the Draft IDP for Tshwane. It is also known as the UDP.
The Unintegrated Development Plan for Tshwane.
An integrated plan is an integrated holistic picture. It is a plan in which the various sections compliment each other, after interaction with each other.
BUT:
There is a lack of interaction of the various departments of the TMMC in the compilation and implementation of this Development Plan. Much more participatory governance and acknowledgement of participation from the local community is necessary to become successful.
What comments have been received from the various mechanisms of the municipality e.g. Ward Committees and have been accommodated in the TIDP tabled today.
The Unintegrated compilation of inputs from the various Departments will once again result in future integrated chaos on our roads and with service delivery. Departments function as islands distantly separated from each other. There is no indication that Land usage, City development and Roads and Storm water interact on the Integrated Development Plan. It is an Unintegrated mismanaged form of governance.
The fact that land use intensification has been allowed to taken place without matching infrastructure development (roads and public transport infrastructure, storm water, sewage disposal, electricity etc) is a major cause for concern for residents.
Over the past few decades money and the interests of property developers have dictated the nature, pace and direction of development in the city. Successive municipal councils have allowed this to happen without providing the infrastructure and services required to support this development. We are concerned that this pattern will continue with this TIDP.
Governance must consolidate the needs of the various departments, wards, developers and communities in an integrated way. Governance should not follow the one sided inputs of developers in an Unintegrated and unplanned way.
Do we hear the tune of: “Money, money, money” instead of “Planning, planning, planning” in the TIDP.
The DA supports the Ward Committees and residents request that:
o The growth problems are correctly analysed in the document so that the correct remedy can be applied: namely to clearly state that infrastructure provision has lagged behind market lead densification and land use intensification.
o The TIDP clearly outlines the principle that land use intensification and infrastructure development should go hand in hand.
o The TIDP gives substance to this principle by proposing a framework on how the various service delivery and planning departments in the CTMM will work together to ensure that spatial development and service delivery is properly coordinated and linked to time frames and budgets
o The TIDP outlines the need for infrastructure expansion to cater for density increases.
Further consultation must take place before the TIDP is approved or, alternatively the TIDP should state that the detailed selection of activity spines and “mixed use” area along these spines should be dealt with as part of the “local precinct plans” provided for in the RSDF. Detail for specific locations should be discussed with local stakeholders and dealt with as part of the precinct plans.
These needs should either be rectified in the TIDP document or be acknowledged in the document with a recommendation on how these shortcomings will be addressed.
I thank you Mr Speaker
Councillor Doulien VdM Snyman
Ward Councillor – Ward 42
I comment on the Draft IDP for Tshwane. It is also known as the UDP.
The Unintegrated Development Plan for Tshwane.
An integrated plan is an integrated holistic picture. It is a plan in which the various sections compliment each other, after interaction with each other.
BUT:
There is a lack of interaction of the various departments of the TMMC in the compilation and implementation of this Development Plan. Much more participatory governance and acknowledgement of participation from the local community is necessary to become successful.
What comments have been received from the various mechanisms of the municipality e.g. Ward Committees and have been accommodated in the TIDP tabled today.
The Unintegrated compilation of inputs from the various Departments will once again result in future integrated chaos on our roads and with service delivery. Departments function as islands distantly separated from each other. There is no indication that Land usage, City development and Roads and Storm water interact on the Integrated Development Plan. It is an Unintegrated mismanaged form of governance.
The fact that land use intensification has been allowed to taken place without matching infrastructure development (roads and public transport infrastructure, storm water, sewage disposal, electricity etc) is a major cause for concern for residents.
Over the past few decades money and the interests of property developers have dictated the nature, pace and direction of development in the city. Successive municipal councils have allowed this to happen without providing the infrastructure and services required to support this development. We are concerned that this pattern will continue with this TIDP.
Governance must consolidate the needs of the various departments, wards, developers and communities in an integrated way. Governance should not follow the one sided inputs of developers in an Unintegrated and unplanned way.
Do we hear the tune of: “Money, money, money” instead of “Planning, planning, planning” in the TIDP.
The DA supports the Ward Committees and residents request that:
o The growth problems are correctly analysed in the document so that the correct remedy can be applied: namely to clearly state that infrastructure provision has lagged behind market lead densification and land use intensification.
o The TIDP clearly outlines the principle that land use intensification and infrastructure development should go hand in hand.
o The TIDP gives substance to this principle by proposing a framework on how the various service delivery and planning departments in the CTMM will work together to ensure that spatial development and service delivery is properly coordinated and linked to time frames and budgets
o The TIDP outlines the need for infrastructure expansion to cater for density increases.
Further consultation must take place before the TIDP is approved or, alternatively the TIDP should state that the detailed selection of activity spines and “mixed use” area along these spines should be dealt with as part of the “local precinct plans” provided for in the RSDF. Detail for specific locations should be discussed with local stakeholders and dealt with as part of the precinct plans.
These needs should either be rectified in the TIDP document or be acknowledged in the document with a recommendation on how these shortcomings will be addressed.
I thank you Mr Speaker
Councillor Doulien VdM Snyman
Ward Councillor – Ward 42
No comments:
Post a Comment