54
D. L. Magembe-Mushi and A. Namangaya
to engage directly in decisions on the use of land rather the process relies on council
experts and political representatives.
Most of the small towns have 90% of informal development. On the other hand,
there is potential that is not taped in small towns due to the integrative nature of
actors that are living together in small towns. They can make face-to-face contact
and achieve social cohesion, which is more difficult in larger towns. For example,
utility agencies are operating independently while utility committees like water and
environmental are operating under the same governance of the District Executive
Director (DED) or Town Executive Officer (TEO). Not realizing the importance of
this integration has led most small towns to not plan interventions. Another impact
is that sometimes less vibrant centres are selected as district administrative centres
which then is a dis-service to the growing centres. Lack of planning in these areas
makes it impossible for the provision of social services and to have location addresses
for traceability of the affected individuals due to the absence of an address system and
property location data in informal space and economy. The informality of economic
activities cannot facilitate lockdown or less interactions between centres, centre-toregion and centres to other countries.
4 Key Policy Recommendations
As there is a preference to finance and implement the detailed plans rather than general
planning schemes, it is recommended that institutional structure of planning should
focus on instruments that directly impact on property boundaries, ownership and
uses that will facilitate better housing condition in communities, i.e. detailed planning
schemes that will take into consideration the provision of services, planning standards
and regulations to facilitate healthy living in urban areas rather than emphasizing on
the development of general planning schemes.
Communicative planning platforms are needed to positively influence planning
process. Stakeholders with tangible and critical interests on land, i.e. landowners,
property developers, utility providers and land-related investors in health centres,
schools, markets should be engaged directly in planning process rather than being
politically represented through councillors, street chairpersons or local government experts. These stakeholders will facilitate and speed up the implementation
of detailed plans.
Involvement of private firms along with grassroot institutions influenced urban
planning and resource mobilization for plan-making and implementation. When there
are mutual beneficial interactions among private sectors, politicians and grassroot
institutions, the community is willing to contribute financial resources to prepare
planning schemes and even make sure its adherence during the actual implementation.
In that case, there is a potential of private firms to mobilize resources for planning
process in small towns with rapid growth, at early stages.
The institutional structure that allows overlap of mandates and subordination under DED or TEO, utility providers and planning actors in small towns
D. L. Magembe-Mushi and A. Namangaya
to engage directly in decisions on the use of land rather the process relies on council
experts and political representatives.
Most of the small towns have 90% of informal development. On the other hand,
there is potential that is not taped in small towns due to the integrative nature of
actors that are living together in small towns. They can make face-to-face contact
and achieve social cohesion, which is more difficult in larger towns. For example,
utility agencies are operating independently while utility committees like water and
environmental are operating under the same governance of the District Executive
Director (DED) or Town Executive Officer (TEO). Not realizing the importance of
this integration has led most small towns to not plan interventions. Another impact
is that sometimes less vibrant centres are selected as district administrative centres
which then is a dis-service to the growing centres. Lack of planning in these areas
makes it impossible for the provision of social services and to have location addresses
for traceability of the affected individuals due to the absence of an address system and
property location data in informal space and economy. The informality of economic
activities cannot facilitate lockdown or less interactions between centres, centre-toregion and centres to other countries.
4 Key Policy Recommendations
As there is a preference to finance and implement the detailed plans rather than general
planning schemes, it is recommended that institutional structure of planning should
focus on instruments that directly impact on property boundaries, ownership and
uses that will facilitate better housing condition in communities, i.e. detailed planning
schemes that will take into consideration the provision of services, planning standards
and regulations to facilitate healthy living in urban areas rather than emphasizing on
the development of general planning schemes.
Communicative planning platforms are needed to positively influence planning
process. Stakeholders with tangible and critical interests on land, i.e. landowners,
property developers, utility providers and land-related investors in health centres,
schools, markets should be engaged directly in planning process rather than being
politically represented through councillors, street chairpersons or local government experts. These stakeholders will facilitate and speed up the implementation
of detailed plans.
Involvement of private firms along with grassroot institutions influenced urban
planning and resource mobilization for plan-making and implementation. When there
are mutual beneficial interactions among private sectors, politicians and grassroot
institutions, the community is willing to contribute financial resources to prepare
planning schemes and even make sure its adherence during the actual implementation.
In that case, there is a potential of private firms to mobilize resources for planning
process in small towns with rapid growth, at early stages.
The institutional structure that allows overlap of mandates and subordination under DED or TEO, utility providers and planning actors in small towns