the gauteng spatial development framework - Gauteng Online

RESTRICTING URBAN SPRAWL AS A BASIC TENET OF THESUSTAINABLE CITYThe urban edge had been in use as a policy tool in the GCR since 2000 and proved to besomewhat controversial in that (a) it impeded low-intensity sprawl (particularly with developerswishing to assemble cheaper peri-urban or rural land for gated-community residentialestates); (b) it was alleged by some that it artificially drove up the value of land within theurban edge by virtue of urban land being made a scarce resource; (c) various provincial andlocal municipality agencies found it harder to find cheap, politically uncontested land forlow density public housing within the urban edge than in the semi-rural and rural periphery;and (d) various local councils believed they were being disadvantaged in not being able toextend their rates base beyond the edge. Clearly, there are associated impedances withany form of control mechanism: that is the nature of control and is, by definition, an aimin urban development control.There is a conviction at the core of restructuring the GCR through the GSDF that theadvantages of limiting urban sprawl far outweigh any possible disadvantages.LIMITING URBAN SPRAWL AS A POLICY TOOLThe definition of an urban edge (effectively, an 'urban cordon' drawn around the urbansystem defining the spatial limits of outward city growth) was recognised as an importanttool in curbing unstructured, unsustainable urban sprawl and steering the city region to acompact, complex urban form.It was initiated as a tool in Gauteng in 2001 (approved and implemented in 2002) but,despite this, the urban extent continued to grow over successive years, often at lowerdensities than manifested in the urban sprawl it was trying to curtail.The Urban Edge Policy as applied by Province has now been rescinded but this does notmean that the extension to limit unbridled urban sprawl is any less focused in the GSDF.It remains the intention to limit urban sprawl as a fundamental tenet of urban growthpolicy and to promote the intentions of intensification and densification, togetherwith a transformed urban structure that de-emphasises the need for the outwardexpansion of the urban system.The determination to follow the principles of sustainable urban development demands astrong stance on this issue and it is therefore necessary to state the existing extent of urbandevelopment as a basis for limiting the spatial extent of the GCR while directing growthwithin it.It must also be stated, however, that prior to the urban edge being rescinded, it was oftenabused in its intentions and had been fairly weakly administered. It was, of course, sensiblethat a policy such as an urban edge had to be reviewed on an annual basis to ensure thatits delineation was valid; that it was serving its purpose; that it was meeting the merits ofurban growth that may have been necessary beyond the edge by virtue of well-reasonedurban fundamentals; and ensuring that undue/ unforeseen disadvantages did not gounnoticed and, if necessary, being mitigated.Nevertheless, there is evidence to show that the urban edge as applied until recently hadbeen nothing much more than a temporary impedance and that successive reviews simplyhad the effect of adjusting the urban edge to incorporate earlier approved developmentsbeyond the urban edge. The reviews inevitably achieve little more than regularisingdevelopments that have been previously approved in spite of the policy. In the process, itis documented that the GCR had, year on year since the inception of the urban edge as apolicy device, simply continued to sprawl at densities that were even lower than thoseattributable to conventional suburban sprawl. This not only flies in the face of urbansustainability with the improper reliance on further infrastructure, inefficient pattern ofenergy consumption, and an inequitable cost structure born by the whole urban systemfor unplanned development on the fringes: it also means that poor communities continueto be relegated beyond the urban fringes in the least accessible relationships to urbanopportunity, reliance on further unsustainable, energy-inefficient subsidised transport andstill leaving these impoverished communities having to pay by far the highest ratios ofearnings to meet transport needs.The need to contain sprawl therefore, both in terms of sustainability and equitability, remains.It must also be noted that, although Provincial policy has been amended in respect of theANNEXURE B: POLICY POSITION PAPERSGAUTENG SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK 2011GAUTENG GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT AGENCY128