AN EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT OF PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MEASURES ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT IN ABUJA
ABSTRACT
This project is an evaluation of the impact of property development control measure on residential property development in Abuja with the aim to identify possible problem and find possible solution. In the course of carrying this research the primary data was collected through questionnaire and oral interview with the Federal Capital Development Authority (FCDA) and some real estate property developer in the FCT. 100 Questionnaire was administered which 80 was collected back upon which the data presentation and analysis depends on. The instrument used in analyzing the data was purposive and tabular form. The research shows that developer and the development control officials tend to accused each other of complicity in development of residential property process in Abuja. the researcher therefore recommend that there is urgent need for effective force and good communication skill and rapid awareness aiming at creating adequate effectiveness on physical environmental issues in Abuja, the Federal Capital Territory
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Property development control forms an integral part of the planning practice. It is the basic means by which the state intervenes to regulate the use and development of land in order to implement local and national planning policies. Most significantly it is the part of the planning process in which members of the public come into contact with local planning authorities.
Today, property development control comes under considerable criticism about the nature of decisions taken, and the ways in which they are taken. One hears complaints that sluggishness discourages development; that its complexity is excessively costly; And that its nature stifles initiative. (Amos, 1980). Development control is not appreciated by the general public mainly because of the restrictions it imposes on the aims and aspiration of the developers.
Originally, the rationale for the introduction of state control on private development was to achieve objectives of safety and better health in order to create an improved environment for the benefit of the community. However, as the role of the state expanded and the extent of its intervention increased the definition of the ‘environment’ subject to planning control has changed. From being wholly concerned with the physical form and content of development it now embraces the social and economic consequences of development. As a result, development control has been used to implement planning strategies for different purposes; for example to minimize the negative effect of urban growth, to check the menace of market forces and ensure social equity, as well as to support economic growth (Litchfield & Darin Drabkin, 1980).
Therefore, property development control is a tool, sometimes used to achieve its original objectives of safety and better health; Sometimes to implement planning strategies; and in some cases to do both. Although it continues to regulate the use of land, while planning strategies have widened in scope, development control has proved incapable of meeting additional demands. Since development control is used to implement planning policies, which are normally reflected in planning legislation, physical development plans and other associated planning documents, the failure to achieve development planning objectives may be due to the pursuit of inappropriate policies, to the application of inflexible standards and regulations, or both, which is why Koenigsberger (1975), Rivkin (1978) and McAuslan (1985) comment that development control practices are inappropriate, ineffective and inequitable in their operation in most Third World cities.
They argue that developing countries stand to benefit little from the transplanting of regulations that have evolved in different social soils with differing political and economic climates. Another criticism is that planning agencies in developing countries lack the power and resources to perform efficient and effective development control.
Property development control is seen as a mechanism to maintain standards. It is process laid down by legislation, which regulates the development of land and building. It is the professional activity carried out by town planners in order to ensure compliance with the approved master plan thereby ensuring orderliness.
In line with the above definition, development control actually regulates any building or rebuilding operations in, on and under the land. It also ensures an orderly growth of settlements by stipulating adequate standards for all aspects of land-use through the provision of adequate lighting, ventilation, open spaces and other socio-cultural facilities that make life worth living. The power to grant or refuse as well as attach conditions to permissions for development to take place gives the public agencies the big teeth.
Ogunsesan (2004) opined that development control is the “front line‟ of planning and the part, which affects the general public most. There is a direction in the exercise of development control on developers. The direction according to Ogunsesan (2004) is the objectives of development control, which include: the protection and enhancement of the built environment; the coordination of both public and private investments in land and property to ensure that land is efficiently used; and the control of pollution. In development control process, time is a very important factor. There are two types of time factors in the development control process as pointed out by Faludi (1973): “internal and external time lag”. The internal time lag as he explained is the time it takes to act upon information received, while the external time lag, he explains as the time it takes for the action to be effected.
Property development control is carried out by planning authorities that have legal powers conferred on them to ensure that development is secured. The authorities according to Faludi (1973) are empowered to: plan, promote and secure the physical development and environmental improvement by economic; as financial developers they can initiate planning schemes and develop the area wholly or partly‟. Kimaryo (1992) is of the view that „though the planning authorities are empowered legally to carry out their duties, it may still be restricted. Its effectiveness reduced by lack of political backing and support from the top echelon of government functionaries‟.
Furthermore, development control is seen as a powerful implementation weapon in the planning armory. Positive encouragement is given to developers to compel them to willingly develop their land with due respect to the requirement of the planning authorities. Public enlightenment is usually embarked upon which tend to encourage the public to want some sort of control over physical development. Communication is a vital tool necessary for development control to succeed. An effective and efficient communication ensures „control development with people and not for people‟; for if people are carried along in development control process, the authority will be able to guide development with ease and achieve their set objectives of a well planned built-up area with good road network, building set-backs, ventilation, lighting and pollution free environment. On the other hand, if the members of the public are not informed, they may not accept the idea of control, with feelings that since they owned the land, they can as well carry out development the way they want and at their own time without due consideration.
1.2 Statement of Research Problem
Rural- urban migration has caused congestion in the urban areas and left the towns and cities sprawling endlessly into the countryside with dire consequences for the provision of essential urban infrastructure. That is, the rate of expansion of each of old and newly emerging town led to the emergence of uncoordinated land-uses, winding road network, traffic congestion, uncoordinated provision and distribution of socio-physical infrastructure, uncollected waste and the like, amongst others with great impact on the socio-economic well being of the inhabitants. All these are resultant effects of uncontrolled development in both rural and urban settlements in Nigeria.
The rapid growth of our settlements, particularly urban areas need to be controlled to prevent chaotic and haphazard physical growth and development, which certainly takes place in the absence of any development control measure. However, some of the rationales for effective development control are the achievement of balanced, coordinated and good development of the environment; it ensures structural soundness and the adequate provision of necessary utilities, services and facilities for the proposed buildings; protection and the development of the environment so that the activities of men do not have adverse effects on it. This uncontrolled development has led to the environmental situation as presently witnessed in some squatter settlements of Abuja and other big town and cities in Nigeria. It is against this background that this study seek to evaluate the impact of property development control on residential property development in Abuja.
1.3 Aim and Objectives of the Study
The aim of this project is to evaluate the impact of property development control on residential property development in Abuja.
To achieve the aim above the following objectives were pursued
- To examine the effectiveness of property development control in Abuja
- To identify the functions of property development control
- To evaluate the impact of the property development control on residential property
- To identify the possible problems militating the effective and efficient property development control in the study area.
1.4 Research Questions
- How effective is property development control in Abuja?
- What are the functions of property development control?
- What impact has property development control made to residential property development in Abuja?
- What are the possible problems militating the effective and efficient property development control in the study area?
1.5 Hypothesis
Ho: There is no significant relationship between property development control and residential property development in Abuja.
1.6 Significance of the Study
This project will help to overcome the challenges thatare currently facing in development authority in Abuja by the time this project is completed as it will serve as an eye opener on relevance of property development control towards effective and efficient development of urban and rural areas in Nigeria.
The result of this study will enlighten property developers and investors on the need to comply with development control authority as development control generally impact positively on residential property development.
Students and other researchers will find this research useful as it will serve as reference to the department of estate management and valuation.
1.7 Scope and Limitations of the Study
There are different types of property development, this project mainly concern on the evaluation of the impact of property development control on residential property development in Abuja.
The following are the limitations of the study
- Lack of proper response from the developer’s point of view.
- The financial aspect was a bit difficult.
- There was no previous work available to reference with.
- And the absence of the group leader makes the data analysis slow.
1.8 DEFINITION & OPERATIONAL OF TERMS
- Development: used here means an event constituting a new stage in a changing situation i.e. process development or being developed.
- Control: implies the power to influence or checking direct result of a survey or experiment of an intelligence of organization.
- Impact: these means to have a strong effect on something either positive or negative.
- Residential: means involving living at the place where you are working, studying or being looked after.
- Property: a thing or things belonging to someone or possessions collectively i.e. an attribute, quality or characteristics of something.
1.9 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
The name “Abuja” was derived from Abu Ja, a brother to Muhammadu Makau, the last Hausa ruler of Zaria. Makau had left Zaria after being defeated by the Fulani and settled in the area now known as Abuja. In 1825 his brother Abu Ja succeeded him as the 62nd King of Zaria.
The full name of Abu Ja was Abubakar (shortened to “Abu”) and the name Ja was given to him because he was light in complexion (in Hausa “Ja” means red or fair). He became known as “Abu Ja”, “Abu the fair one” (other sources claim that the name “Ja” was derived from the last name of his father which was “Jatau”). Abu Ja then built a new capital for his Kingdom and called it “Abuja.”
Abuja was mainly built in the 1980s and it officially became Nigeria’s capital on December 12, 1991, replacing Lagos. The Abuja Federal Capital Territory, while smaller than other states within Nigeria, is two and half times the size of Lagos city, the former capital. This territory was formed with the express purpose of supporting Abuja city, encircling it within a womb of nature. Abuja has an Area size of 713km2
The site for the new capital was chosen because of its central location (viewed as neutral both ethnically and religiously, where culture and religion meet), easy accessibility, pleasant climate, low population density, and the availability of land for future expansion.
Not only was a city designed, but an entire environment. Part of the provisions of the Master Plan is the development of adequate recreational and Green areas within the city. Abuja is surrounded by abundant hills, highlands, savanna grassland, and tropical rain forests.
The master plan of Abuja ad the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) was developed by international planning associates (IPA), a consortium made up of three American firms: Planning Research Corporation; Wallace, Roberts and Todd; and Arch systems, a division of the Hughes Organization.
The master plan included a regional site selection ad master plan for the new and detailed design of the Central Area, which accommodates the national government center, cultural institutions, and the Central Business districts.
Outside The central Area, residential mini-cities with populations of 150,000 to 250,000 are organized around local business and the employment centers.
More detailed design of the central areas of the capital, particularly it monumental core, was accomplished by Kenzo Tange, a renowned Japanese architect, along with his team of city planners at Kenzo Tange and Urtec Company.
Places of Interest in Abuja
Abuja National Mosque: The national mosque of the country declared a national monument belonging to all Nigerians. Its outstanding golden dome and minarets dominate Abuja’s skyline.
National Christian Centre: The symbol of unity of Christendom in Nigeria. The centre’s magnificent edifice was designed by an Italian firm.
Millennium Park: Abuja’s most popular and largest green area is the Millennium Park. Designed by world renowned architect Manfredi Nicoletti, it was officially inaugurated by Queen Elizabeth II in 2003.
National Stadium: Built in 2003 and this ultra-modern complex has a seated capacity of 60,000. It is used by the Nigerian National Football Team.
The problems associated with the capital being in Lagos, such as population pressures, political and ethnic divisions, led to the search for a new capital in 1976. Abuja was selected from among 33 possible sites. Physically located in the centre of the country and viewed as neutral both ethnically and religiously, it is where culture and religion meet.
The criteria used for selection included: centrality, healthy, climate, land availability and use, water supply, multi-access possibilities, security, existence of resources, drainage, good soil, physical planning convenience and ethic accord.
The Emir of Abuja at the time, Alhaji Suleiman Barau, was asked to meet with his Emirate Council to approve contributing four of the five districts to Abuja to become the new capital. The council was divided as some districts considered it too much of a sacrifice; but at the end, they approved the request from the Federal Government.
Thus, the Abuja in Niger State contributed 80% of the land of the territory, Plateau State (now Nasarawa State) contributed 16% of the South east territory and Kwara State (Now Kogi State) contributed about 4% of the south-west territory.
Abuja Districts
According to the 1979 master plan, Abuja’s territory has to be developed in four phases on an area of about 250 square kilometers, and each phase has to be further sub-divided into districts.
The phase 1 development has almost been completed and includes the Central Business District (the three Arms Zone Presidency, National Assembly and Supreme Court), the Maitama, Wuse, Garki and Asokoro, residential and business districts.
There are also 5 districts in Phase 2, and some of them have works at various stages of completion. They are Kado, Durumi, Gudu, Utako (which infrastructural facilities have been completed) and Jabi. Phase 3 districts are Mabuchi, Katampe, Wuye and Gwarimpa. There are also 5 suburban districts, which are Nyanya, Karu, Gwagwalada, Kubwa, and Jikwoyi. Along the Airport Road there are clusters of satellite settlements, namely Lugbe, Chika, Kuchigworo and Pyakassa.
Other satellite settlements are Idu (the main industrial zone), Mpape, Karimu, Gwagwa, Dei-Dei (hosting the international Livestock market and also International Building materials market).
Construction service companies and enterprises continues at a fast pace in Abuja and new places open weekly, Phase 2, currently under development, involves the integration of the surrounding Katampe, Mabushi, Utako, Wuye, Durumi, Gudu, Jabbi, Duste and Gaduwa areas into the city. Phase 3 and 4 are also under development, however, there are works at various stages of implementation in Karmo, and Idu districts (Phase 3), and the Gwarimpa Districts, where many of the construction companies “Life Camps” are located, has already been developed.
No comments:
Post a Comment