2. Over-Regulation and Over-Prescription (SALGA, Isandla Institute)

• Concerns have been raised that this chapter attempts to regulate too much detail; time frames are too onerous and only minimum requirements regarding Integrated Development Planning should be stated in the Bill.

Most of the organisations who raised these concerns have clearly not studied the latest draft of the Systems Bill. The major difference between the latest draft and earlier drafts is that details around timeframes (e.g. the time required to prepare an IDP) and the minimum content requirements of IDPs are deleted in the latest draft.

It is submitted that the minimum set of requirements regarding the planning process and the content of IDPs should be outlined in primary legislation. This is critical if the objective of establishing a common basis and approach to local government development planning is to be achieved throughout the country.

Moreover the provision for the Minister to phase in different parts of the (Bill) Act and make it applicable to different categories, types and kinds of municipalities is precisely aimed at addressing contextual differences between and within provinces.

3. Integrated Development Plans should be Mandatory (SALGA)

• The argument was made that the preparation of Integrated Development Plans should be mandatory.

Section 22(1) indicates that "each municipal council must" prepare an IDP.

4. Inconsistency with the draft White Paper on Spatial Planning (SALGA)

• It was contended that there may be inconsistency between some of the positions emanating from the draft White Paper on Spatial Planning (Department of Land Affairs) and what is contained in this chapter of the Bill.

The Department of Provincial and Local Government has followed the drafting of the draft White Paper on Spatial Planning very closely. The Department participated in meetings of the Development Planning Commission, which drafted the precursor to this draft White Paper. The critical difference and linkage between the draft White Paper and chapter 5 of the Systems Bill is that the latter focuses on municipal Integrated Development Planning while the former focuses on "spatial planning".

Both Departments agree that spatial planning is one critical component of integrated development planning. The Systems Bill recognises this and also goes further to stipulate that spatial development frameworks must include guidelines for a land-use management system. If there are any inconsistencies between the draft White Paper and the Systems Bill it is submitted that these are of a minor nature.

5. Responsibility for the Preparation of IDP Guidelines (SALGA, Western Cape Local Government Association)

• It was implied that the Minister of Provincial and Local Government together with SALGA should be responsible for the preparation of further guidelines and regulations for integrated development planning.
• It was submitted that the provision for the national Minister to regulate the details of the IDP is unconstitutional.

The primary responsibility for local government integrated development planning should be vested with the national Minister for Provincial and Local Government. The Minister is not precluded from consulting with key stakeholders such as other national Ministers, SALGA and/or provincial MECs for Local Government and Development Planning.

The constitutionality of the national Minister regulating the details of the municipal IDPs is defended in terms of the concurrent functions allocated to the national and provincial spheres of government. The legal opinion of the Department must also be studied on this same general question.

6. Alignment with Other National and Provincial Legislation (Auditor –General, KwaZulu Natal Provincial Department of Local Government and Development Planning)

• Questions were asked about the alignment of this chapter to other pieces of legislation addressing development planning, e.g. Development Facilitation Act 1996, Provincial Development Planning Legislation and Ordinances.

At a national level, there are some issues of refining the alignment between the Systems Bill and other pieces of legislation. Examples are the Development Facilitation Act-1996 and the Water Services Act-1997. Processes are underway to address any inconsistencies that may be existent. The assessment of the Department is that the apparent inconsistencies are resolvable.

The manner in which provincial and national legislation should be aligned must be informed by the primacy of national norms and standards regarding the core systems for local government nationally. Some provinces have proceeded to prepare development planning legislation, while others are waiting for the finalisation of the Systems Bill. Still other provinces do not seem to intend to draft development planning legislation.

The Systems Bill in its current form does not preclude or prohibit provinces from drafting provincial legislation or issuing regulations that is consistent or complimentary to the Bill.

• Clarity was sought on how often a new Integrated Development Plan should be prepared and whether this was necessary after every local government election.

The key issue is that municipal councils must be held accountable for their municipality’s IDP. It is for this reason that there is a strong direct link between the 5-year IDP and the political term of office of councillors.

If a new council chooses to adopt, wholly or partially, the IDP of a previous council it is not prohibited from doing so. Section 22(1) compels every council "within a prescribed period of its elected term" to adopt an IDP.

8. Public Participation and Consultation Process (Business South Africa, Urban Sector Network)

• A specific question was asked as to whether stakeholders could comment on the consultation process that was adopted by the municipal council.
• It was also enquired whether the IDP will be published for final comment before it is served before council.

The Bill does not make specific provision for stakeholders to comment on the consultation / participation process that has been adopted by the council, that will be utilised in the plan drafting process. An amendment can be made to make provision for this, however the final legislative and executive authority for the IDP process rests with the council.

A similar provision can be made to accommodate final comments from the public before the council adopts a local IDP. It must be noted that an elaborate consultation process would have been embarked upon before the final draft of the IDP is submitted to council.

• It was enquired what would happen if the MEC in a province does not provide a response to a municipality within the required period of 30 days.

The Systems Bill makes provision for the municipal council to adopt its IDP (Sections 27(1) and 29(1)). This adopted IDP is then submitted to the MEC for comment to assess its alignment and consistency with this Act and other development plans.

It is submitted that should a MEC fail to provide comments to a municipality in the stipulated period of 30 days, that IDP shall remain in force as originally adopted by the council.

10. Local Economic Development in the IDP (Durban Metro)

• Given the importance of economic development, it was argued that the Bill must make specific reference to this in the minimum content requirements of the IDP.

The temptation to make reference to "sectoral plans" in the IDP has been avoided. The identification of the core contents of the IDP has been kept to a minimum in the Bill. This has been done on the assumption that the regulations and guidelines will provide additional detail regarding what should be included in an IDP.

11. Gender Disaggregated Data in the IDP (Gender Commission, Gender Advocacy Programme)

• Recommendations were made for the IDP to include gender specific data.

This provision is an important one which should be catered for in the IDP. However, it is unclear whether this should be stipulated in the Systems Bill (Act) or whether this can be addressed in the regulations and guidelines.

12. Conservation Plans in the IDP (Botanical Society of SA)

• It was recommended that the IDP must make specific mention of the need to include Conservation Plans.

The importance of Conservation Plans should be recognised. However, it is submitted that this is more appropriately addressed in regulations and guidelines.

13. Human Resource Plans in the IDP (COSATU)

• It was recommended that the IDP must make specific mention of the need to include Human Resource Plans.

The importance of Human Resource Plans has already been recognised as a critical component of the IDP. This has been identified in the IDP Manual that was published in 1998. In terms of the current conceptualisation, Human Resource Plans are part of the operational strategies to be put in place by the council. Again it is submitted that this is better dealt with in regulations and guidelines.

14. Land Restitution and the IDP (Commission on the Restitution of Land Rights)

• Due to critical issues regarding land restitution, it was argued that this must included in the minimum set of requirements to be included in the Bill.

The Bill makes provision for a spatial development framework to be included in the IDP. The consensus reached with the Department of Land Affairs is that all matters pertaining to spatial / land-use planning and development should be addressed in legislation to be promulgated by that Department.

Again the importance of this issue is recognised, however the appropriateness of specifying this in this Bill is uncertain. It is submitted that all spatial development / planning matters should be addresses by the Department of Land Affairs. The Systems Bill simply needs to recognise this linkage.

15. Integrated Development "Plan" or "Strategy" (Isandla Institute)

• It was argued that the IDP should be seen more as a strategic instrument, rather than as a fixed robust plan.

The understanding of the Department has always been that the IDP is a high-level strategic management instrument for municipalities. The tension, which is evident, in the Bill is that the IDP must be firm and strong in its strategic direction, yet flexible enough to inform daily decisions and other contingency matters.

Any suggestions to prevent the IDP from being viewed as a static inflexible plan in the legislation will be welcomed. The reference (Section 20(2)) to the Development Facilitation Act acknowledges that the IDP must be driven by a range of normative objectives.

16. IDPs for Different Categories of Municipalities (Municipal Demarcation Board)

• A request was made that the Bill should make provision for IDPs to be prepared for different categories of municipalities.

This need for differentiation between different kinds of municipalities and staggered implementation has been acknowledged by the Bill (Sections 34 and 112). A process is already underway in the Department to prepare non-mandatory IDP guidelines for the three categories of municipalities. This matter could also be addressed in the regulations.

17. Non-Compliance with IDP Requirements (Municipal Demarcation Board)

• A question was asked as to how non-compliance with the IDP requirements will be addressed.

The issue of non-compliance with the IDP requirements is equally valid for non-compliance with other provisions in the Bill as a whole. No special provisions have been made to address non-compliance with the requirements set out in the IDP Chapter. The recourse that is open to national and provincial government addressing non-compliance with this chapter applies to the Bill as a whole.

19. Linkage Between local IDPs with District, Provincial and National Development Plans (Municipal Demarcation Board)

• Questions were asked about the linkage between local, district, provincial and national development planning.

The Municipal Structures Act (1998) makes provision for District Municipalities to prepare a district-wide IDP framework for all local councils. The Bill reinforces this provision (Section 23 (2)). However, the Bill is legally flexible to allow IDP preparation to commence either at the local or district level (Section 28 (3)). What is clear is that any municipal IDP must take into account,

• The development plans of adjacent or other affected municipalities (Section 21); and
• National and provincial development programmes.

Moreover, national and provincial organs of state are mandated to assist municipalities to comply with any planning requirements that emanate from these spheres.

• It was enquired what institutional mechanisms for participation in the IDP process is envisaged.

The experience of the Department in studying various IDP processes throughout the country suggests that there are many institutional options for securing public participation and consultation. It is submitted that these diverse institutional arrangements are better outlined in guidelines, manuals and maybe in regulations.