legal and institutional perplexities hampering the implementation of urban development plans in...
TRANSCRIPT
Cities 29 (2012) 271–277
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Cities
journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /c i t ies
Viewpoint
Legal and institutional perplexities hampering the implementation of urbandevelopment plans in Pakistan
Niaz Ahmad a,⇑, Ghulam Abbas Anjum b,1
a Institute of Geography and Urban Regional Planning, University of Peshawar, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 25125, Pakistanb Department of City and Regional Planning, UET Lahore, Pakistan
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history:Received 30 September 2010Received in revised form 17 June 2011Accepted 26 July 2011Available online 11 October 2011
Keywords:Physical planningIncapacitated institutionsLegal frameworkDevelopment planInstitutional perplexity
0264-2751/$ - see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Ltd. Adoi:10.1016/j.cities.2011.07.006
⇑ Corresponding author. Mobile: +92 333 9112512.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (N. Ahma
(G.A. Anjum).1 Mobile: +92 3008474905.
The effective implementation of development plans requires functioning institutions with well definedlegal support and good plans. This article explains how legal and regulatory frameworks as well as theinstitutional capacities of local planning agencies (LPAs), including Cantonment Boards (CBs), City DistrictGovernments (CDGs), Town Municipal Administration (TMAs) and Development Authorities (DA), inPakistan confound and affect the implementation of development plans. A comparative review of existingActs, Ordinances and urban planning frameworks in place at various levels was conducted, and inconsis-tencies and gaps that impart perplexities amongst the aforementioned institutions and regulatory frame-works were identified. The overlapping powers and functions of the institutions which have legal backingmust be eliminated to ensure effective implementation of urban development plans.
� 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction (TCPA) of 1947. The act required all developments to obtain plan-
Unplanned urbanization is a challenge for local planning agen-cies in Pakistan. Development plans were prepared for Pakistan’smajor cities starting in the early 1960s; however, these plans failedto produce any results (Hameed & Nadeem, 2006). Therefore,urban growth has occurred through a process of spontaneous landconversion and use. The continuous failure of development planshas made it imperative to assess the actual causes of such problem.Legal support, institutional frameworks and effective developmentplan policies are the major contributors to the planned urbaniza-tion process (GoP and ADB, 2000). Policies pertaining to urbanand city development must be continuously assessed andreviewed to meet the challenges associated with increasingpopulations.
The literature shows that policies related to the governing ofcity regions in developed countries have undergone considerablechanges to successfully implement development plans. In the early20th century, the haphazard growth of European cities promptedthe need for proactive steps to provide order to urban forms. Thisimplied the establishment of institutions that developed uniformrules and regulations to curb laissez-faire pattern of urban growth(Eisner, 1994). Local planning agencies were empowered in Britainfor the first time through the Town and Country Planning Act
ll rights reserved.
ning permission in relation to comprehensive development plans(Cullingworth & Vincent, 2002). However, the institutions wereinitially incapable of practicing development planning, and theeffective management of cities was impeded (Wakely, 1996). Thisinduced premature depreciation and prompted vigilant and effec-tive organizational efforts to exercise some sort of control on thespatial structure of cities (Davoudi, Healey, Vigar, & Majale,2009). Gilbert (1997) stated that an institution’s strengths, powersand functions fundamentally obstruct effective city-wide develop-ment efforts. Efforts to train urban managers to responsively man-age cities were insufficient, without appropriate changes ininstitutional and development plan practices (Mehta, 1998; Wak-ely, 1996). Therefore, institutional structures, powers and func-tions changed over time to promote good governance and theimplementation of land policies in cities (Enemark, 2006).
In Pakistan neither institutional frameworks nor legal and reg-ulatory supports are considered in the management of cities (Shah,Afridi, & Minallah, 2007). A multiplicity of institutions overseesdevelopment at the local level and has overlapping functions,whereas the national and regional levels are completely ignored.The 2nd 5 year plan (1960–1965) envisaged a process of planneddevelopment at the national, regional and local levels that wouldestablish a system of hierarchical development in the country,but only local level plans were prepared (GoP, 1960). These plansfailed to establish order to urban forms, and the reasons for thisfailure are complex and have not been properly assessed untilnow. This research attempted to investigate the actual causes forthe failure of development plan practices in Pakistan.
272 N. Ahmad, G.A. Anjum / Cities 29 (2012) 271–277
The objective of this study was to review and evaluate the insti-tutional powers and functions imparted through existing legal andregulatory frameworks at the National, Provincial and Local levelsto highlight loopholes and gaps within the system. The various actsand ordinances that empower institutions such as the CantonmentBoard (CBs), Development Authorities (DAs), City District Govern-ment (CDGs) and Town Municipal Administrations (TMAs) to exe-cute planned developments within Pakistani cities were assessed.The institutional capacities of these organizations were examinedin terms of the physical planning functions. Both primary and sec-ondary data were used.
Analysis and discussion
The British-inherited legal and institutional structure such asMunicipalities, Cantonments and Improvement Trusts continuedto function up until the 1960s in Pakistan. These institutions wereincapable of executing physical planning functions. The govern-ment of Pakistan, Planning Commission report in 1965, articulatedthat only three out of more than a hundred Trusts and Municipal-ities had qualified staff for physical planning and housing opera-tions. The rest of the institutions had neither proper staff forphysical planning nor for other professions such as surveying, engi-neering and accountancy (GoP, 1965). The legal framework ofthese institutions overlapped various functions, introducing a sub-stantial amount of perplexity. The situations were more complex inmajor cities in which a number of development organizations workin parallel. A lack of coordination and a common vision amongthese institutions hampered the development process.
Improvement Trusts (ITs) were replaced by DevelopmentAuthorities (DAs) through an administrative order in the citiesact (1976). ITs and DAs were supposed to support the Municipali-ties for carrying out major development in cities. However, it isevident that they have been loath to the idea of handing over con-trol of development projects particularly housing schemes (Alam,2008). Municipalities extend no services to the localities that fallwithin the jurisdiction of DA in the same city.
Although a number of physical planning acts, ordinances, rulesand regulations have been introduced in Pakistan, no uniform andconsistent planning and development frameworks have beendeveloped at the national, regional or local levels. Parallel institu-tions perform similar activities within cities. Examples includethe Cantonments Boards, DAs, CDGs and TMAs, which are foundin all the major cities of Pakistan. Each of these organizations hassimilar functions, including the production, implementation, mon-itoring and reviewing of development plans. However, no laws orregulations direct their coordination or professional capacities. Asa result, these institutions operate at the federal, provincial and lo-cal levels in their respective domains without addressing the rootcauses of problems. This muddled and unclear power and functionstructure hampers the holistic and integrated planning efforts re-quired to address the challenges associated with increasing popu-lations. Unlike other developing countries with good practices suchas the Philippine, Malaysia, and China (NRPB, 2011), Pakistan hasno comprehensive town planning laws or national and regionalplanning organizations. Only local level institutions exist, but theydo not coordinate with one another. National and regional levelinstitutions for physical planning are also completely absent inPakistan. The legal and regulatory supports of local level physicalplanning organizations are analyzed in the following sections.
Cantonment Act 1924 and the Cantonment Ordinance 2002
The Cantonment act, promulgated on 16 February 1924, consol-idates and amends the administrative functions of Cantonments in
Pakistan. The Act states that, ‘‘Building Control within the limits ofthe Cantonment Board concerned would be regulated under theprovisions of this act and that the Provincial Law on the subjectwould not be applicable to the buildings erected or intended tobe constructed on a plot situated within the territorial limits ofthe Cantonment Board concerned’’ (Government of India, 1924).The act also enabled Cantonments to make their own bye-lawsfor governing local matters that require particular treatments.Clause (viii) of the act defined the scope and powers of MilitaryAuthorities and gave them the final say in matters such as the erec-tion or re-erection of buildings.
Based on the urgency of the Cantonments to address emergingissues within their limits, and on the spatial expansion of militarycolonies, the government of Pakistan passed the OrdinanceCXXXVII in 2002. Various sections and subsections pertaining tothe planning, development and management of Cantonment areasare as follows.
– Section (16) of the Cantonment Ordinance explains that theCantonment administration shall ‘‘prepare spatial/ master plansfor its local areas in collaboration with union administrationincluding plans for land-use and zoning. It shall execute andmanage the plan after the cantonment board gives approval. . .’’
– Section 15(2c) explains that Cantonment officers (Planning)shall be responsible for ‘‘spatial planning and land use control,building control and implementation of development plans’’(GoP, 2002).
These regulations explicitly declare that Cantonment adminis-trations shall prepare and execute development plans for theirrespective areas and shall exercise control over zoning, landsubdivision, land-use, building and land development. Canton-ment Boards work directly under the Federal Defense Ministryand are not responsible for following the plans of LPAs. Canton-ments, which are parts of cities, have development plans and by-laws to control development within their jurisdictions. The lawempowers Cantonment administrations to exercise the followingfunctions:
– ‘‘Cantonment Board to approve annual development plans,approve [Sic] land-use zoning and master plan developmentand maintenance programs. . .’’ Section (26(vii)).
– Sections (181 and 182) illustrate that ‘‘the Cantonment admin-istration should discourage Illegal erection and re-erection ofbuildings and that no building shall be use [Sic] other thanthe approved use specified according to the Cantonment devel-opment plan. . .’’
– Section (187) deals with the removal of encroachment, and Sec-tions (197 and 198) discuss the maintenance of open spaceswithin Cantonments. The Cantonment administration shallmake adequate arrangements for the removal of refuse frompublic roads and streets. Section (127) as well as Section(138) states that ‘‘the Cantonment administration may prepareand implement schemes for prevention of air, noise, water andland pollution from different sources in their controlledareas. . .’’
The monitoring and management of all municipal services is tobe performed by the Cantonment administration. The Canton-ment board is empowered by Section (16 and 244) to generatefunds for implementing development plans within its jurisdiction.The Presidential Cantonment Order of 1979 empowered Canton-ments to collect immovable property tax and an entertainmentduty in their respective jurisdictions (Shah et al., 2007). It ‘‘shalleffect, notwithstanding anything contained in the constitutionor any other law for the time being in force’’ changes in the
N. Ahmad, G.A. Anjum / Cities 29 (2012) 271–277 273
way Cantonment Boards across the country collect property tax(Alam, 2009). Alam (2009) maintained that unlike local govern-ments, which receive their share of property taxes after they havebeen levied and collected by the province and subjected to a 15percent retention fee, Cantonment Boards have the power to col-lect property taxes and remit 15% to the government of the prov-ince in which they are situated. The way in which variousinfrastructure systems and amenities are managed clearly illus-trates that Cantonments boards are only responsible for breachesin the Cantonment area.
– ‘‘Cantonment officer (Infrastructure and services) shall beresponsible for water, sewerage, sanitation, roads other thangovernment and private roads, streets and streets lighting, firefighting and park services. . .’’ Section (15(2b)).
– The Cantonment administration ‘‘shall prevent encroachment,regulate sign boards and advertisements. Provide, managemunicipal infrastructure services including, water, sewerage,sanitation, roads traffic planning, street lights etc.. . .’’ Section(16).
– The Union administration is to ‘‘improve and maintain publicgardens and play grounds with prior approval of the Canton-ment Administration. . .’’ Section (32(J)).
– The Union administration shall ‘‘promote plantation of trees,landscaping and beatification if public places in the union underthe directions of the Cantonment Administration’’ Section(32(m)).
– The Union council shall ‘‘mobilize the community involvementin maintenance of public ways, public streets, culverts, bridges,and public buildings etc.. . .’’ Section (42(e)).
– The ordinance provides public safety by ‘‘prohibiting the carry-ing on of dangerous and offensive trades, prevention of fire, san-itation, environmental pollution. . .’’ Sections (109–169).
The assignment of powers and functions to organizations with-in cities creates confusion and mismanagement in the remainingcity enclaves. Cantonments generate social and environmentalproblems, particularly traffic and sewerage problems for their par-ent cities, however, the relevant laws do not address solutions tothese problems in the rest of the cities. The cantonment law isapplicable only to development associated with the Directorateof Military Land and Cantonment (MLC). Agencies working underthe military headquarters, such as the Defense Housing Authority(DHA), can develop land for the benefit of the armed forces butare not directly controlled by any specific development law. ThisPhenomenon greatly hampers the implementation of Master orStructure plans prepared by DAs. This clearly suggests that a citywithin a city exists with no common vision and coordination inPakistan.
Defense Housing Authority (DHA) Islamabad Ordinance, 2007
DHAs exist in almost all major cities of Pakistan and have sep-arate laws for development projects in their respective areas. Sec-tion 24 of the DHA ordinance provides indemnity to the authority:‘‘No suit or legal proceedings shall lie against the Authority, theGoverning Body, the Executive Board, the Administrator, or anyof their members, or employees of the Authority for anything doneor purported to have been done by them in good faith under theOrdinance, the rules or the regulations made there under’’ (GoP,2007). Utilizing this power, PHAs have the liberty to do any sortof development plan that exist with the LPA. This is an urban plan-ning dilemma for LPA planners to deal with the affairs of theseinstitutions in the cities’ development plans or land use/zoningplans.
Local Government Ordinance (LGO) 2001
In 2001, a devolution plan was introduced in Pakistan, due towhich many institutions were amalgamated into a three tier sys-tem, comprising City District Governments (CDGs), Town Munici-pal Administrations (TMAs) and Union Councils (UCs). However,DAs, CBs and DHAs also exist besides these institutions. Therefore,overlapping functions and disputed jurisdictions culminate intoconfusion among these organizations (Shah et al., 2007). The onewho loses out has always been either the common man or the cityenvironment.
Since the promulgation of devolution plan in Pakistan, a newform of local government system has been introduced throughLGO 2001. Section 40 of LGO 2001 elucidates that the CDGs, inaddition to providing overall vision, policy and guidelines for thedistrict, shall perform the following functions (Government ofNWFP, 2005):
(i) ‘‘Approve Master Plans, Zoning, land use plan including clas-sification and reclassification of land. . .’’
(ii) ‘‘Review implementation of rules and bylaws governing landuse. . .’’
Section 54-A describes the following job description for theTMAs.
(i) ‘‘Prepare Spatial plans for the towns in collaboration withthe district and union councils including land use plansand zoning. . .’’
(ii) ‘‘Exercise control over land use, land subdivision, land devel-opment and zoning by the public and private sectors for anypurpose. . .’’
Under LGO 2001, there is no distinction between rural and ur-ban areas, and this creates confusion. The entirety of a district isconsidered to be a City District Government; however, things havenot changed in practice. Functions of TMAs, such as the regulationof buildings and the extension of urban services, are no longeravailable in rural part of the districts. In rural parts, land ownershave the right to occupy and use the land however they choose.However, the laws and regulations related to land-use planningare only applicable in urban parts of the district.
Schedule six, Section 24 of the LGO 2001 introduced perplexityby further relaxing the system of building and development con-trols, stating that ‘‘the local government may with the approval ofthe concerned local council exempt any union or part thereof fromapplication of any specific provision of the building bye-laws or anymatter provided in paragraph 25 to 34’’. This enabled suburbanlandowners to override the administration through their unioncouncil’s Nazim. This has hampered development plan practices.
Development of Cities Act 1976
Uncertainty prevailed as the powers awarded to local governmentinstitutions had already been vested in the DAs by the Developmentof Cities Act (1976) in Punjab and urban planning legislation in therest of the provinces too. Section 4 of the Act allows the Governmentto establish Development Authorities for cities to which the Actapplied. Regarding the powers and functions of the Authority, theAct explains in Section 7 clause 2 subsections (i), (ii) and (v) thatsubject to the provisions of the Act and any rules framed there under,the Authority may do the following (Government of Punjab, 1976):
(i) ‘‘Initiate and maintain a continuous process of comprehen-sive development planning for the area with the objectiveof preparing a development plan.’’
274 N. Ahmad, G.A. Anjum / Cities 29 (2012) 271–277
(ii) ‘‘Periodically update such a development plan and coordi-nate its implementation by the Authority or Governmentagencies within the area...’’
(iii) ‘‘Establish, maintain and periodically revise as necessary,planning controls and building regulations for the area to:
(a) provide appropriate urban design and protect publicsafety; and(b) ensure compliance with the development plan after its
preparation.’’
The existence of TMAs and DAs within the same city boundariescauses confusion. It is unclear who the actual custodian of develop-ment plans is and who is responsible for their implementation.This perplexity is more complex in large cities, because many orga-nizations are responsible for the provision of urban services. Forexample, in Lahore, nine different organizations manage the citygrowth under the following laws and regulation: Punjab LGO2001, Development of Cities Act 1976, Lahore DevelopmentAuthority (LDA) Act 1975, Punjab Housing and Transport AuthorityPHATA ordinance 2002, Cantonment Act 1924 and 2002 ordinance,Defense Housing Authority (DHA) order 2002 and Model-townSociety Order.
Similarly, in Karachi, the development planning and municipalfunctions are dispersed among roughly twenty federal, provincialand local agencies with overlapping powers and functions butthere exists no coordination. These agencies include six Canton-ment Boards, Port Qasim Authority, Karachi Port Trust, DefenseHousing Authority, Pakistan Steel, Pakistan Railways, Export Pro-cessing Zone, Sindh Industrial Trading Estate, Government of SindhBoard of Revenue, City District Government Karachi, Lyari Develop-ment Authority, Malir Development Authority, Cooperative hous-ing societies and private owners.
Despite laws and common sense, DAs co-exist, alongside localgovernment, muddling the lines that separate responsibilities,powers and functions (Alam, 2008). The spatial jurisdiction of TMAsand DAs confuse urban planning efforts and governance functions.In the wake of the devolution plan effective urban management hasbeen elusive and cumbersome for a variety of reasons (Shah et al.,2007). The LGO 2001 provided Local Government institutions withthe same functions of other agencies. The statutory functions ofDAs, such as the preparation of local bylaws, their approval, thepreparation of development plans, their execution as well as build-ing and development control practices, were awarded to TMAsthrough LGO 2001, Section 54, subsection (a, b, c and d) and Section67A, subsection (c, m and n). Therefore, the overlapping functionsand disputed jurisdictions have created confusion in the allocationand assessment of responsibilities. These perplexities and theabsence of any inclusive planning mechanism have caused thedysfunctional development visible in the Pakistani cities.
Institutional capacities assessment
Peshawar Cantonment Board (PCB)
Cantonments are British-inherited institutions that were estab-lished exclusively to serve the British military establishments inparticular areas within certain cities. After independence, theycontinued to functions in the same manner for the armed forcesof the country. The Cantonment Act of 1924, Section 13-A statesthat Cantonments with more than 100, 000 civilians are to be ClassI Cantonments, those with 50,000 to 100,000 civilian are to be ClassII Cantonments, and those Cantonments with less than 50,000 civ-ilians are to be Class III Cantonments. Cantonment Boards werethus established to run the Cantonment administration with theirown budgets and funding source. These boards are composedaccording to the given criteria of the Cantonment Act 1924.
(1) The Board for a Class I Cantonment shall consist of the fol-lowing members:
(a) ‘‘The Officer Commanding the station or, if the FederalGovernment so directs in respect of any cantonment[Sic], such other military officer as may be nominatedby the Competent Authority;’’
(b) ‘‘Twelve elected members;’’(c) ‘‘The Health Officer;’’(d) ‘‘The Maintenance Engineer;’’(e) ‘‘A Magistrate of the first class nominated by the District
Magistrate; and’’(f) ‘‘Nine civil or military officers nominated by the Officer
Commanding the station by order in writing.’’
(2) The Board for a Class II Cantonment shall consist of the fol-lowing members:
(a) ‘‘The Officer Commanding the station or, if the FederalGovernment so directs in respect of any Cantonment,such other military officer as may be nominated by theCompetent Authority;’’
(b) ‘‘Seven elected members;’’(c) ‘‘The Health Officer;’’(d) ‘‘The Maintenance Engineer;’’(e) ‘‘A Magistrate of the first class nominated by the District
Magistrate; and’’(f) ‘‘Four military officers nominated by the Officer Com-
manding the station by order in writing.’’
(3) The Board for a Class III Cantonment shall consist of the fol-lowing members:
(a) ‘‘The Officer Commanding the station or, if the FederalGovernment so directs in respect of any cantonment[Sic], such other military officer as may be nominatedby the Competent Authority;’’
(b) ‘‘Two elected members: Provided that the Federal Gov-ernment may, by notification in the official Gazette,increase the number of elected members to such extentnot exceeding five as it deems fit:’’
(c) ‘‘The Health Officer; and’’(d) ‘‘One military officer nominated by the Officer Com-
manding the station by order in writing: Provided that,if the number of elected members is increased underclause (b), the number of members so nominated beone less than the number of elected members soincreased.’’
The functioning of a CB can be illustrated with the case ofPeshawar. There is a Class II Cantonment in Peshawar, whichspreads over 13.64 sq. km. area and its location is mentioned onmap of administrative units of Peshawar. It has five wards andaccommodates roughly about 79,000 civilians beside military per-sonnel. Its PCB is comprised of fifteen members who help the Can-tonment administration with routine management tasks. Seven ofthese members are elected from civilian residents and seven areselected military personnel.
The engineering section conducts development according to theCantonment Development Plan. Therefore, Cantonment conductsits affairs through its respective plan and bylaws, which are framedby the Cantonment Act of 1924. The Cantonment master plan spe-cifically addresses issues pertaining to the Cantonment area anddoes not contain a broader perspective for the city.
The institutional capacity of an organization to perform its tasksdepends on its manpower, co-ordination, co-operation and com-munication within and outside the organization. Conversely, theinstitutional coordination of the Cantonment in Peshawar city ismore centrally controlled, having no link with departments carry-ing out urban development in the city. The professional strength ofPCB is more focused on subordinates’ staff, and is working without
Table 1Professional Strength of Cantonment (Peshawar). Source: PCB (2011).
Category Qualification Strength
Town planner City and Regional Planning 0Architect Architecture 0Cantonment chief engineer Civil Engineering 1Assistant cantonment
engineerDiploma in Civil Engineering 2
Assistant cantonmentengineer
Diploma in Electrical Engineering 2
Assistant cantonmentengineer
Diploma in MechanicalEngineering
2
Under the secretariat of the Federal Defense Ministry, Cantonment governsaccording to the following organizational structure (Fig. 1).
Table 2Professional Strength of PDA. Source: PDA (2011).
Category Directors Deputy directors Assistant directors Total
Town planners 2 2 4 8Architects 0 1 3 4Civil engineers 10 21 25 56Finance 1 3 8 12Miscellaneous – – 9 9Total 13 27 49 89
N. Ahmad, G.A. Anjum / Cities 29 (2012) 271–277 275
the services of professional town planners and Architects (Table 1).The engineering staffs are specifically employed to carry out devel-opment projects; i.e., water supply schemes, roads and buildingconstruction, etc.
Under the secretariat of the Federal Defense Ministry, Canton-ment governs according to the following organizational structure(Fig. 1).
Development Authorities (DAs)
The government dissolved Improvement Trusts and directedMunicipal Committees to take over all assets and liabilities of thoseTrusts and to execute their functions. The promulgation of citiesact 1976 in Punjab and Urban Planning Ordinance 1978 withinthe Khyber Pakhtunkhwa established Development Authorities tocontrol land use and to guide development. Similar to Improve-ment Trusts, these DAs were established to conduct major devel-opments within cities and eventually to transfer power to themunicipalities. Structure plans were prepared by DAs in violationof the then Local Government Act (1979), which empoweredMunicipalities with the same mandates in Section 76 (a, b and c).As a result, conflicts developed among these organizations (Gov-ernment of NWFP, 1979).
Cantonment Organiza
Sectary Defen Federal
DG ML&C Federal
Director ML Provincial
CEO
Addl. CE
Asst. Secta
Admin Revenue Engineering 71(Staff) 45 (Staff) 42 (Staff)
Fig. 1. Cantonment organizational structure. ML&C = Military Land and Cantonment, COffice. Source: PCB (2011).
With the promulgation of Urban Planning Ordinance in NWFP(1978), Provincial Urban Development Board (PUDB) and PeshawarDevelopment Authority (PDA) come into existence (Government ofNWFP, 1978). PDA was empowered to prepare a structure plan forthe city in 1986. The plan proposed that the Directorate of Planningand Development is required to be capacitated in order to effec-tively implement the plan. It also proposed that the Directorateof Urban Planning within the PDA consist of four Deputy Directorsfor development control, building control, structure and local plan-ning and transport planning. The hierarchy of Deputy DirectorStructure and Local Planning was further supported with fourAssistant Directors to effectively monitor the plan implementationand to execute its review. Conversely, the present structure of P&Ddirectorate contains only three urban planners (one director, onedeputy director, and one assistant director), while the other worksin Directorate of BCA and EM (Table 2).
The proposed structure was necessary to strengthen the capac-ities of the organization. The local plans suggested by the structureplan were required to further elaborate the policies for local devel-opment. Unfortunately, the aspect of capacity development for ur-ban planners was neglected. Therefore, a lack of professionalsbrought the plan to an end without any implementation. Eventu-ally, with the lapse of the planning period, the ‘‘Urban Planningand Development Management system for Peshawar 2020’’ be-came another attempt to guide city growth. A non-professional ap-proach was followed in the making of this plan. This will likely sinkthe spirit of planned developments, because the plan was not ap-proved by any authority and because it has no legal status forimplementation. It appears that a lack of legal and institutional
tional Structure
se
&C
O
ry
Sanitation Gardening Lands 263(Staff) 296 (Staff) 15 (Staff)
EO = Cantonment Executive Officer; Addl. CEO = Additional Cantonment Executive
Director General
Directorate of Admin.
Directorate of B&A
Directorate of P&D
Directorate of E.G.
Directorate of Engg. I
Directorate of Engg. II
Directorate of Engg. III
Directorate of Engg. IV
Directorate of Engg. V
Directorate of Engg. VI
Directorate of Engg.VII
Directorate of BCA
Directorate of E.M
Director Director Director Director Director Director Director Director Director Director Director Director Director 1 DD 3 DDs 2 DDs 1 DDs 2 DDs 4 DDs 2 DDs 4 DDs 2 DDs 2 DDs 2 DDs 1 DDs 1 DDs 5 ADs 4 ADs 1 ADs 6 ADs 4 ADs 4 ADs 4 ADs 4 ADs 2ADs 4 ADs 4 ADs 3 ADs 4 ADs Support Staff
Support Staff
Support Staff
Support Staff
Support Staff
Support Staff
Support Staff
Support Staff
Support Staff
Support Staff
Support Staff
Support Staff
Support Staff
Secretary PDA
Fig. 2. Organizational structure of the Peshawar Development Authority (PDA). Admin = Administration, B&A = Budget and Audit, P&D = Planning and Development,E.G. = Engineering General, Engg. = Engineering, BCA = Building Control Agency, E.M. = Estate, Management, DD = Deputy Director, ADs = Assistant Directors (Wakely, 1996).Source: PDA (2011).
276 N. Ahmad, G.A. Anjum / Cities 29 (2012) 271–277
powers along with inadequate professional strength spoiled gov-ernment efforts to discourage haphazard urban growth.
Presently, the DA has thirteen directors (see Fig. 2), each withfull complements of deputies and assistant directors. Ironically, se-ven of these thirteen directorates are specifically concerned withengineering, while core function of this organization is to practicetown planning and management. The directorate of planning anddevelopment has an ad hoc status. Presently, it has not been carry-ing out any work, because the development plan is abandoned dueto jurisdictional conflicts with TMAs. Therefore, PDA with presentorganizational structure has no function in city development ex-cept development works in the newly developed housing schemes(Regi Lalma and Hayatabad) only.
Town Municipal Administration (TMA) of Peshawar
District Peshawar is divided into four different jurisdictionalareas beside Cantonment, which are governed by TMAs. Theadministrative head of each TMA is Town Municipal Officer(TMO), whereas the responsibilities of various activities are mainlyspread among four officials given in Fig. 3.
The responsibilities of spatial planning and building control with-in TMAs rest with the TOP&C; its organizational strength are given inTable 3. All four TMAs of Peshawar conduct development work with-out the services of a qualified town planners or architects.
The number of Building Inspectors (BI) and Assistant BuildingInspectors (ABI) is insufficient to cover the entirety of all TMAsareas. One ABI in town 4 inspects 38,054 acres and has no logisticsupport, not even a bicycle. No draftsman is available to work outthe details of a plan even if submitted for approval to the BuildingControl Agency (BCA).
In addition to their insufficient numbers, staff members arerarely qualified for their job. BIs and ABIs rarely have basic knowl-edge of the maps and plans that are supposed to be checked bythem for violation during construction. They understand that theirjob is to check that construction plans have been approved by theBCA. Consequently, developers obtain approval for one map of abuilding and then construct another plan. As a result, my fieldsurvey indicates that due to such practices, nearly 80 percent of
Administrative Setup in Town Muni
Tehsil Municipal Of(TMO)
Tehsil Officer Revenue Tehsil Officer Finance (TOR)
Te (TOF)
Fig. 3. Administrative setup for TMAs given by
buildings are constructed in violation of the approved plans. Thestatistics reflected in Table 3 mentioning extreme weakness of gov-ernance procedures and institutional capacity in TMAs.
The lack of Town Planners and Architects is unprofessional.Interviews with the BCA staff members reveal that they areimproperly acquainted with PUDB building regulations and LGObuilding and land use control. The collected record of BCA in allTMAs shows that the process of building plan approval is dealtwith in an ad hoc and unprofessional manner. None of the buildingapproval committee members are acquainted with physical plan-ning and management techniques. The lack of qualified town plan-ners has made development cumbersome and impossible tocontrol. No land-use changes along the congested roads, plot-to-floor area ratio or parking provision and other technical aspectssuch as design aspects of buildings, light and ventilation or plinthlevel are appropriately made for approval of building plans. Mostoften, cases of upper floor projection towards the street or com-plete coverage of the street and staircases outside the premises re-sult in rejection.
The specified procedure for the commercial building approval isquite cumbersome. It has always paved the way for malpracticesamong the staff. In actual practice, each individual, when submit-ting a building plan for commercial purposes, first seeks out othermeans (political/bureaucratic means or even corruption) to get hisbuilding plan approved. BCA staff feels insecure about discouragingillegal construction and they always face personal humiliation andthreats from the violators.
Therefore, controlling the execution of plans is impossible due topolitical and bureaucratic intervention or lack of security for theemployers. In some cases, the violators themselves belong to suchgroups. Change of land use has now become a routine procedure,as many offices, hotels, guest houses, clinics, schools, hostels andeven universities are operating in residential areas throughout thecity. These practices are promoting corruption in the BCA staff aswell. During my field professional interview, many officers andworkers of the BCA personally proclaimed that ‘‘we are fully in-volved in corruption from the violators’’. They quoted examples ofmany cases, where they took stands to curb illegal constructionbut had to withdraw from their stands due to political intervention.
cipal Administration
ficer
Tehsil Officer Planning hsil Officer Infrastructure and Services (TOI&S) and Coordination (TOP&C)
LGO 2001. Source: CDG Peshawar (2010).
Table 3Professional capacity of TMA Peshawar for spatial planning. Source: Resource files ofTMAs (2010).
Category Town 1 Town 2 Town 3 Town 4 Total
Jurisdiction areain acres
6212.2 105592.0 43490.0 152215.3 307509.5
Town planner/architect
0 0 0 0 0
TOP (Civil Eng.) 1 1 1 1 4ATOP (Diploma in
Civil Eng.)1 1 1 1 4
Drafts man 1 1 1 0 3Building
inspector2 1 1 1 5
Assistant buildinginspector
7 4 6 4 21
N. Ahmad, G.A. Anjum / Cities 29 (2012) 271–277 277
Conclusion
The cities in Pakistan have been expanding to accommodate theincreasing demand for industrialization, commercialization andthe construction of high rise buildings. This phenomenon has re-sulted in harmful environmental impacts. The situation called foreffective town planning regulations, dynamic institutions andappropriate development plans by which control could have beenexercised over the use of land. However, incapacitated institutionsalong with vaguely defined powers and functions are causing mis-management and confusion. To certain extent, the process of devo-lution re-structured local government and formed three tiers ofinstitutions. This was a bold step towards the achievement of aneffective organizational strength and good governance for thedelivery and management of municipal services. Unfortunately,the great deal of effort that was needed to make the intuitionsfunction effectively has been missing. Due to this, the multiplicityof institutions with overlapping responsibilities further createdimpediments to development planning in Pakistan. This trendhas muddled the development plan practices and has caused fail-ure in their accomplishment. The crux of the matter is that to en-sure an effective planning and development within cities,perplexity needs to be eliminated through reassessment of institu-tional capacities, legal and regulatory support.
References
Alam, A. R. (2008). Local government Vs development authority (article published inthe Dawn on July 28, 2008).
Alam, A. R. (2009). Money to the cantonment (article published in the Dawn onOctober 23, 2009).
CDG Peshawar (2010). Interview with the Administrator CDG Peshawar (held on June15, 2010).
Cullingworth, B., Vincent, N. (2002). Town and country planning in the UK. 13th ed.Routlege London and New York.
Davoudi, S., Healey, P., Vigar, G., Majale, M. (2009). Institutional and regulatoryframework for planning. In Planning sustainable cities. UN-Habitat global reporton human settlement 2009. Earthscan Dunstan House 14a St. Cross St. London,EC1N 8XA, UK.
Eisner, S. (1994). The urban pattern. 485 Jain Bhawana, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara,Delhi-32 India: S.K. Jain CBS Publishers & Distributers.
Enemark, S. (2006). Land management and means of planning control. <http://vbn.aau.dk/ws/fbspretrieve/4662662/SESTMalo 2006.pdf> Accessed 26.04.09.
Gilbert, A. (Ed.) (1997). The mega city in Latin America. In Buehler, R. C. (Ed.), Urbandevelopment in mega cities in developing countries: Potentials of citizenparticipation in planning and managing urban development. Tokyo: UnitedNations University Press.
Government of Pakistan (GoP) (1960). Second five year plan (1960–1965). PlanningCommission Islamabad.
Government of Pakistan (GoP) (1965). A new conceptual approach to developmentplanning in Pakistan. Planning commission Pakistan in Khan, M.A. 1983.Evolution of local and regional planning in Pakistan. Pre independence, P-IIScience and Technology and Development.
Government of Pakistan (GoP) (2002). The cantonment ordinance 2002. Military Landand Cantonment laws in Pakistan.
Government of Pakistan (GoP) (2007). Defence housing authority Islamabadordinance, 2007. DHA Islamabad.
GoP and ADB (2000). Pakistan urban sector strategy study report. Ministry ofEnvironment, Local Government and Rural Development and AsianDevelopment Bank.
Government of India (1924). The Cantonment Act (II of 1924). Government of India(sub-continent), manual of military land and cantonment laws in Pakistan.Cantonment Board Malier.
Government of NWFP, 1978. Urban planning ordinance IV. Peshawar: Gazette ofNWFP.
Government of NWFP (1979). Local Government Act 1979. Peshawar: Gazette ofNWFP.
Government of NWFP (2005). Manual of local government. Peshawar: LocalGovernment and Rural Development Department.
Government of Punjab (1976). Development of Cities Act 1976. Lahore: Planning &Development Department Lahore Punjab.
Hameed, R., Nadeem, O. (2006). Challenges of implementing urban master plans.The Lahore experience. Journal of Transactions of Engineering, Computing andTechnology, 17.
Mehta, D. (1998). Urban governance: Lessons from best practices in Asia. UnitedNation urban management programme occasional paper no. 40. UMP Regionaloffice for Asia and Pacific Region.
National and Regional Planning Bureau (NRPB) Japan (2011). An overview of spatialpolicy in Asian and European countries. Japan: Ministry of Land, Infrastructure,Transport and Tourism (MLIT). <www.mlit.go.jp/kokudokeikaku/international/spw/index_e.html> Accessed 24.03.11.
PCB (2011). Interview with the Cantonment Executive Officer (CEO) (PCB held onJanuary 24, 2011).
PDA (2011). Interview with officials of the Directorate of Administration and SeniorAuditor (establishment) finance wing PDA Phase-V Hayatabad Peshawar.
Resource files of TMAs (2010). Scheduled interview carry out by the researcher withofficers of TMAs Peshawar during (10–15 June 2010).
Shah, S. M. A., Afridi, Minallah (2007). Assessment of institutional arrangement forurban land development and management in five large cities of Punjab. UrbanSector Policy and Management Unit Planning and Development DepartmentGovernment of Punjab Pakistan.
Wakely P. (1996). Capacity building for better cities. University College London GBDPUNEWS’ No. 34.