The professional planning part of the civil engineering industry is becoming increasingly reactive in terms of preplanning, instead of its primary, and preferred, focus of being proactive, says multidisciplinary engineering consulting firm GIBB.

For the past 20 years, professional planners, or statutory planners, in the civil engineering industry have been ‘rubber-stamping’ infrastructure projects, which are often implemented without planning and environmental principles being adhered to, says GIBB urban and rural planning manager Charlotte van der Merwe.

She previously owned and operated a professional planning practice in Limpopo before accepting a position at GIBB on July 1.

She adds that the planning profession is being forced to become reactive, owing to numerous, but not too complex, issues.

Van der Merwe tells Engineering News that the planning profession should be held accountable. “Professional planners should be true to their ‘strategic’ nature by ensuring that decision-makers – government – respect their strategic plans for land development and embark on coaching landowners and developers to understand, engage in and respect the spatial development framework’s (SDF’s) vision for the development and protection of the environment.”

Further, politicians should also be accountable to their voters. She states that it is unfair to the social and natural environment, local economic dynamics and communities’ health and welfare, if legislation – which is supposed to protect each individual’s and community’s welfare – is not adhered to.
Van der Merwe adds that the reasons for this nonadherence might be a lack of political enthusiasm, as well as subsequent poor management and incompetence, which, in turn, result in rushed expenditure of budgets.
South Africa’s “exquisite” pieces of legislation are “idealistic”, she notes, adding that, without the political will and budget to enforce legislation, effective monitoring and reporting processes and, most of all, accountability, the legislation is meaningless.
Moreover, planning-related professions also need to be accountable. “South Africa’s current unfortunate culture of expecting professionals to be reactive and not proactive is particularly noticeable in professions working closely with decision-makers, such as civil and electrical engineers, architects, land surveyors and environmental practitioners, who are responsible for the implementation of infrastructure budgets,” says Van der Merwe.

She explains that a current trend in most instances is, for example, that applications for environmental authorisation and land use rights are submitted only after a pipeline or building has been designed and budget expenditure is ready. The processing and approval of these authorisations are then usually sought in haste and are ill prepared.

Examples of outcomes of hastily obtained authorisations, owing to reactive processes, include schools without decent access routes, houses without water, clinics without electricity, expensive roads that do not lead to any destination and malls without customers.

Consequences of Unaccountability
Van der Merwe says that if a city management team takes its own SDF seriously, a city, such as Polokwane, in Limpopo, will not run out of bulk water and sewerage capacity.

“Polokwane is a sad example of a city not adhering to advice from its own professional planning team – which is to continuously ensure future capacity by designing cities and towns according to the future requirements of expansion,” she says.

The severity of the water and sewerage capacity issues came to the fore in May 2013, when the City of Polokwane placed a moratorium on applications for development.

“A city without a future can become desolate within a surprisingly short period of time, as developers and businesses will go elsewhere,” says Van der Merwe, adding that, if there is no expansion, there can subsequently be no work opportunities. “Without work, there is no expendable income, and vacant areas in malls are continuous disappointing reminders of management without vision.”

Rural Planning versus Urban Planning
The most common means through which a municipality manages planning is the implementation of a town planning scheme or a land use management scheme (Lums).

However, it is unfortunate that more local authorities are adhering to the call of ‘wall-to-wall’ land use management schemes, she notes. Such a scheme entails town planning on a small scale that does not take into account the broader spectrum of future regional development, which often leads to bulk services being compromised, owing to insufficient infrastructure.

“It is impossible for land use rights management in a rural communal system, under a tribal authority, to fall under the same rules and regulations as land use rights management under free-hold in an urban society.”

Urban areas require a Lums for security of investment and payment of taxes to the local authority – a capital system orientation – while rural communal areas require the tribal system to operate under communal circumstances – a socialistic system orientation.

However, more often than not, a Lums is forced onto a tribal community, says Van der Merwe, adding that, although it is noble to have a register of land use rights, it has no purpose without the community first buying into the strategic principles of guiding growth and development in their village.

She adds that, for example, it would be unfair to expect a rural community to use a multimillion-rand pedestrian crossing over a national or provincial road without giving the communities that have been separated by the road an opportunity to provide input.

Communities’ input could be used in the planning of land use, taking into account the benefits of visibility and access from a major road, and thereby ensuring community members’ livelihood and sustainable movement patterns. “Only then will safe pedestrian crossings be supported,” says Van der Merwe.