Incompatible land uses

I went calling on a friend whose residence was in one of the high rise apartments. Just next to the stair case was a busy club. I noticed that there were some patrons and that the music was rather loud as I climbed up. So after basic courtesies with him I sought to know how he navigated the inconveniences downstairs. It is hell, he shared. “The greatest challenge is in our growing children. The things they see through the window at night, and the items left around their walk paths are no longer tolerable. I will be moving out soonest”, he firmly asserted. He soon did.

We all have had experiences with incompatible land uses. Religious houses or schools next to busy noisy pubs or restaurants, factories within estates or bungalows and maisonettes whose privacy or skyline have been violated by emerging high rise buildings are commonplace. Even the road reserves to our new highways and bypasses are slowly getting converted to informal business zones, usually obstructing the clarity of view for drivers and, in most cases, also grossly degrading the otherwise excellent aesthetics heralded by the new highways. And in the peri-urban zones for most cities and towns, unplanned developments are coming up by the day. It is so mixed and incompatible that otherwise excellent residential or business points soon find themselves marooned by unexpected land uses. This matter on inappropriate or unplanned land use has few winners.

High constitutional premium on land use regulation

This is why, much as many may not have realized, our constitution places a very high premium in land use planning and regulation. The constitution in particular places emphasis on the need to hold, use and manage land productively and sustainably, and requires that all land use must not offend public interests such as defence, health, safety, order and morality. For this reason, anyone who offends such public interests stands to face censure or penalty once the state intervenes, regardless of the title held. This is a bottom line that all land owners, users and professionals, must constantly beware.

So I was particularly happy to note that the state ministry of lands late last month launched the national technical committee established through the national land use policy which was launched earlier this year. The land use policy provides guidance on the use of our land and land based resources in the immediate and long term. It guides land use planning and regulation at national and county level. This technical committee, which is chaired by the director of the state department of physical planning, will provide technical guidance, while a national council under the head of the public service, will provide policy guidance to the implementation process.

Established land use implementation organs must move with speed

At county level, county technical committees chaired by governors will be responsible for implementation. Each of the national and county level implementation organs is expected to incorporate key state and non-state stakeholders. I would have wanted to discuss our land use policy a lot earlier. But I kept aware that readers are averse to reading about policies that are never or take rather long to implement. I am pleasantly surprised that this one is beginning to move within a year of its launch. As shared above, we all appreciate how fundamental land use planning and regulation is to this nation. Every time I take a drive to Mount Kenya, Kisumu, Namanga and Mombasa, I shrink at what I see. I remember once observing to a friend while driving past Naivasha that I feared the likelihood that several developments therein may have to be brought down in future; else the town will at some moment come to a stop. This applies to many other towns including Thika which is now experiencing a development explosion, most urban centres in Kajiado county, the rice town of Mwea, Karatina and Nairobi’s periphery to mention just a few for illustration. Soon as one gets to these centers, they begin to feel rather “caged and under pressure”. And it is all about planning order and aesthetics.

I further observed that perhaps most of ancient Europe underwent similar challenges before finally appreciating that towns and rural spaces must grow under some plan and order. And those that have watched the regeneration of towns in the developed countries are aware that whole sections of cities are occasionally pulled down for redevelopment. This is however done on some structured and pre-agreed relocation and/or compensation plan. I witnessed several such redevelopments in London City. So bringing down sections of cities or towns to create order and improve aesthetics is never a big deal in planning.

This is why the implementation of our land use policy is high priority. Most people would be happy to know ‘what is planned where’ in order to avoid possible future relocations. Much as one may get compensated, there is always a feeling of some intangible loss, largely sentimental, when they lose what they spent time and money constructing, if avoidable ab initio. The entrusted implementation organs may therefore wish to get down to serious business soonest.