See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257589251

The impact of land use regulations on residential land values in the Wa

municipality, Ghana

Article  in  Journal of Housing and the Built Environment · September 2012

DOI: 10.1007/s10901-012-9268-7

CITATIONS READS

8 5,432

3 authors, including:

Nicholas Addai Boamah Charles Gyimah

University University of Leeds
34 PUBLICATIONS   344 CITATIONS    2 PUBLICATIONS   88 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Urban Dynamics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Charles Gyimah on 22 January 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Habitat International 36 (2012) 136e142

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Habitat International
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/habitatint

Challenges to the enforcement of development controls in the Wa municipality

Nicholas Addai Boamah a, *, Charles Gyimah b, John Kwabena Bediako Nelson b
a
Department of Real Estate and Land Management, University for Development Studies, WA Campus, P.O. Box 115, WA, Ghana
b
Department of Planning and Management, University for Development Studies, WA Campus, WA, Ghana

a b s t r a c t
Keywords: The imposition and enforcement of a land-use regulation is extremely important if society is to reap the
Development control full benefits of its stock of land. Ghana has therefore enacted various statutes to regulate land devel-
Legal framework
opment throughout the country. This paper examines development controls in the Wa Municipality. It
Wa municipality
Ghana
finds out the challenges confronting the development control process in the municipality. The paper does
these through a review of the development control literature. It also reviews the legal framework for
development controls in Ghana. It used questionnaires to gather data from the officials of the Municipal
Building Inspectorate Division (MBID), Wa. It used questionnaires to solicit the opinion, knowledge,
experience and perception of land developers on the development control regime in the municipality. It
revealed that development controls are not adequately enforced in the Wa Municipality. It notes that
uncontrolled developments are a common sight in the municipality. It also established that socio-
cultural reasons, political interferences, limited public knowledge on the essence of development
controls, and an under-resourced building inspectorate division are responsible for this state of affairs. It
recommends that the Wa Municipal Assembly strictly enforce its land-use regulations to ensure that the
residents of the municipality fully benefit from the imposition of land-use regulations.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction germane in dealing with increasing land-use problems such as

Land is the single most important ingredient in human activi-
ties. Land is an important factor in all productive activities of man
(Ratcliff, 1976). Land is extremely essential for housing provision,
infrastructural services delivery and agricultural activities (Agbola,
Olatubara, & Olorunfemi, 2002). Land is also a form of financial
asset (Salazar, Brando, & Gershon, 1990). Efficient management of
land will provide security to individuals and facilitate the growth of
urban centres. Land is essential for the growth and development of
nations. No nation can realise the full benefit of its stock of land if
the land is not used in a harmonious and orderly manner. Devel-
opment controls are therefore increasingly used by nations across
the globe to attain effective and efficient use of land (Aribigbola,
2008). Land-use regulations set the legal limits for public and
private land uses in an area (Arimah & Adeagbo, 2000). The
methods of dealing with issues related to land affect accessibility,
convenience and harmonious land use in any given environment
(Oyesiku, 1997). Effective land-use control and management is
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: addaianas@yahoo.com, nboamahaddai@yahoo.com (N.A. Boamah),
cgyimah@yahoo.com (C. Gyimah), johnnelson60@hotmail.com (J.K. Bediako Nelson).
slum formation, incompatible land uses, flooding, overcrowding
and congestion (Aribigbola, 2008). Development controls are
therefore necessary for the realisation of sustainable city develop-
ment, and the safety and health needs of societies. But develop-
ment regulations will have significant effect only when they are in
consonance with the prevailing socio-economic setting and take
cognisance of the interests of the various social groups (Arimah &
Adeagbo, 2000).
Development controls in most African countries could be traced to
the colonial era. Most colonial era land-use planning policies in Africa
reflected the experiences, needs and aspirations of the colonialist and
was largely inconsistent with the socio-economic status of the indig-
enous Africans. This colonial legacy has continued with little or
no modifications by most post-independent governments of Africa.
Development controls in most African countries have generally been
less beneficial to the masses. Compliance levels to development
controls are also generally low in most African countries. Urban
centres in Sub-Saharan Africa are dominated by unauthorised devel-
opments and unplanned extension of city borders (Antwi, 2002). In
Ibadan, Nigeria only 15% of houses complied with provisions on plot
coverage ratio in the high quality residential neighbourhoods; 83% of
houses violated zoning regulations in the medium class neighbour-
hoods; and none of the developers complied with plot coverage ratio
stipulations in the lower class neighbourhoods (Arimah & Adeagbo,

0197-3975/$ e see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2011.06.010
 N.A. Boamah et al. / Habitat International 36 (2012) 136e142
2000). A significant number of households in Botswana build their
houses incrementally; they mainly disregard planning and building
control regulations in the process (Mosha, 2010). Land-use controls are
generally ineffective in sub-Saharan Africa. The violation of develop-
ment controls in most African countries generally is as a result of low
income levels, large family sizes, security concerns, cultural practices
and unrealistic land-use regulations. Boamah (2010) for instance notes
that most households in Tamale and Kumasi (Ghana) violated regu-
lations concerning occupancy rate because of rapidly increasing
household size. The low level of compliance with fence construction
regulation in Ibadan, Nigeria may be due to the high level of crime in
the city (Arimah & Adeagbo, 2000).
The history of development controls in Ghana dates back to the
colonial era with the enactment of the Town and Country Planning
Ordinance (Cap 84), 1945. The cap 84 was based on the English
Town and Country Planning Act of 1932 and aimed at promoting
and enforcing orderly development of land, towns and other areas
whether urban or rural, and to preserve and improve the amenities
thereof and other matters (Konadu-Agyemang, 2001). The cap 84
however, did not benefit the entire populace. It only succeeded in
creating orderly and improved neighbourhoods for the colonial
expatriate staff, senior indigenous staff in the colonial public
service, and expatriate staff of the European companies. Colonial
era development control system largely regulated physical devel-
opment among the expatriate residents and the very few educated
Ghanaians. The colonial town and country planning laws made it
impossible for the indigenous people to acquire building sites
particularly in the urban centres. The benefits of the cap 84 to the
indigenes need to be questioned (Konadu-Agyemang, 2001). The
cap 84 did not take into account the socio-economic status of the
larger Ghanaian populace. Despite the ineffectiveness of the cap 84
it has remained in the country’s status books till today. Post inde-
pendence land-use regulations in Ghana like the colonial policies
are not in consonance with the country’s level of socio-economic
development.
Despite the long history of development controls and the
existence of laws to regulate land uses in Ghana, urban land-use
problems such as haphazard development, incompatible uses of
adjourning lands, inaccessibility of neighbourhoods and insani-
tary conditions prevail in most towns and cities of Ghana.
Development controls are largely violated in Ghana. Develop-
ment controls are not enforced in Ghana due to ineffective
mechanisms (Gough, 1999). Boamah (2010) observes that about
39% and 74.6% respectively of respondents in Kumasi and Tamale
had no toilet facilities in their housing units. This violates stip-
ulations in the building regulation that makes it mandatory for
every housing unit to have a toilet facility. Lands allocated for
public uses on layout plans are mostly diverted to unapproved
uses; a school land at Sepetinpom has for instance been devel-
oped into a health centre without authorisation from the plan-
ning authorities (Edusah, 2008).
From a distance, one may be tempted to believe that there are
no rules and regulations that guide physical development activ-
ities in Ghanaian cities and towns. This is so, considering what
one comes across particularly in our sprawling urban towns,
municipalities and cities. The mess in the built environment
requires not just the law to deal with it, but heavy handed
interventions like demolition of badly needed housing, indus-
trial, commercial, educational, sanitary, civic and cultural
infrastructure.
This paper examines the system of development controls in the
Wa Municipality (WM). It finds out the challenges to the enforce-
ment of development controls in the Wa Municipality. It also finds
out the effectiveness of the system of development control in the
Wa Municipality.
137
The study area
The Wa municipality is the political capital of the Upper West
Region of Ghana. It is located in the North-Western part of Ghana.
The municipality had a total land area of 5460 km2, a population of
224,066 persons, and a population density of 41 persons per km2 in
2000 (Ghana Statistical Service (GSS), 2005). The annual rate of
growth in the municipality’s population was 4.0%, 3.7%, and 3.8%
respectively between 1960 and 1970, 1970 and 1984, and 1984 and
2000 (GSS, 2005). The indigenous people in the municipality are
the Wala’s and the Dagaba’s. A characteristic of the Wa municipality
is haphazard and uncontrolled development, inaccessible neigh-
bourhoods, poor drainage facilities, uncompleted buildings, low
quality and dilapidated housing, and poor living environment.
Methodology
The paper reviewed literature on development controls. It also
examined the legal framework for development controls in Ghana.
It used questionnaire to gather data from the officials of the
Municipal Building Inspectorate Division (MBID), Wa. Relying on
the Wa Municipal Assembly’s (WMA) classification of residential
areas, the paper stratified the Wa Municipality into low, middle and
high class residential areas. A total of 12 residential neighbour-
hoods was selected for data gathering, thus 4 neighbourhoods were
taken from each of the stratum through simple random sampling
technique. It also selected 10 residential units from each of the
selected residential neighbourhoods similarly. Balloting was con-
ducted to pick 120 study samples in all the neighbourhoods.
Properties in 7 of the residential neighbourhoods involved in the
study were re-numbered to facilitate picking of samples. In 5 of the
neighbourhoods the Municipality’s house numbers were used.
With the use of a qualitative interview guide, the study also soli-
cited the opinion, knowledge, experience and perception of land
developers (property owners) on the system of development
controls in the WM. The respondents were the owners of the
sampled properties.
Rational for development controls
Land uses must be regulated to ensure the compatibility of
adjourning land uses and a cleaner and balanced built environ-
ment. Land-use planning allows the planning authorities to
mediate conflicts of interests over how land should be used and
developed, and to coordinate and control individual actions which
may lead to negative externalities, inefficient land uses, injustices,
and unfair resource allotment (Nnkya, 1999). Development controls
may be adopted to maintain or innovatively change a social system
and a political order and thus allocate scarce resources more
effectively among competing uses and users (Chabot & Duhaime,
1998). Land-use regulations generally guides urban development
(Halla, 2002) and ensure a cleaner and safe living environment in
the urban area. In the absence of land-use regulations, potentially
conflicting land uses such as stores, gas stations, and even factories
are sometimes accommodated in the same block as residential
units in densely populated urban areas (McMillen & McDonald,
2002). Environmental amenities such as habitat protection may
not be adequately catered for by actions of individual landowners
(Jaeger, 2006). But land-use plans basically aims at improving the
lives, living environment and health status of the residence of
a given urban area. Land-use plans will therefore help in averting
the nuisance that conflicting land uses will cause to households.
Land-use planning enables the planning authority to control or
direct the urban development process in an efficient manner (Hui &
Ho, 2003). Unregulated land development causes a multitude of
138 N.A. Boamah et al. / Habitat International 36 (2012) 136e142

urban problems including haphazard development, neighbourhood extremely difficult for any DPA to implement section 7(3) of LI
blight, automobile congestion, and environmental degradation. 1630; there will be public uproar.
This lowers the quality of life of the residents of an urban area Worthy of note is the inconsistency between Act 462 (1993),
(Aribigbola, 2008). Land-use regulations have a potential welfare sections 49(1) and 64(1), and the LI 1630 (1996) section 8(2).
and housing affordability effects (Grout, Jaeger, & Plantinga, 2009). Sections 49(1) and 64 (1) of Act 462 prohibits any physical devel-
Land-use regulations generally enhance a community’s welfare and opment without prior written approval by the planning authority.
makes cities more attractive to homebuyers (Ihlanfeldt, 2009). But, section 8(2) of LI 1630 states that “an applicant not informed of
Land-use regulations, therefore have positive impact on the stan- the grant or refusal of the application may after the expiry of 3 months
dard of living of the residents of an urban area. Rapid growth in commence development on the basis that the application is acceptable
urban population affects the dynamics of and the importance of to the District Planning Authority”. This flaw in itself may be a source
land development; there is therefore the need for long-range land- of confusion for both physical developers and the District Planning
use planning (Alexander, 2001). Authority. It is important for this conflict to be resolved if orderly
Most countries employ development controls such as growth development of Ghanaian towns and cities is to be attained.
controls to divert unwanted population in one community to other Section 52(1) and 64(5) of Act 462 empowers the planning
communities that can adequately accommodate them. This helps to authority to prohibit, abate, alter, remove or demolish unauthorised
avert congestion and overcrowding, and ensures improved living developments and recover any expenses incurred in such an
environment in cities and thereby enhance living standards of enforcement exercise from the developer. Also, section 52(3) of Act
residents. Growth controls preserves a community’s “quality of 462 empowers the planning authority to issue an enforcement
life”, this creates an amenity effect whose value is capitalised into order demanding an immediate stoppage of unauthorised devel-
land prices (Brueckner, 1990). Development controls such as land opment. Section 52(4) of the Act 462 also imposes a fine of ¢
use zoning provide landowners with insurance against future 200,000 (GH¢20) or to a prison term of at most 6 months or both on
intrusions of conflicting commercial land uses and thus guarantees developers who violates an enforcement notice issued under
their future wellbeing. section 52(3) of Act 462. Also, section 55 of Act 462 empowers the
planning authority to instantly prohibit, abate, alter, remove or
The legal framework for development controls in Ghana demolish any unauthorised development that encroaches or will
encroach upon a community’s right of space, or interferes or will
Due to the extreme importance of development controls for the interfere with the use of such space. There exists sufficient legal
attainment of sustainable cities and cleaner and safe living envi- backing for the enforcement of land-use regulations by the MMDAs
ronment, Ghana has instituted a land-use control regime. From the in Ghana.
colonial era through independence, physical development in Gha-
naian towns and cities has been guided by the Town and Country Development controls enforcement challenges in Wa
Planning Ordinance (Cap 84) of 1945; Town and Country Planning
Act, 1958; Town and Country Planning Regulations, 1959; the Local Control of physical development has huge significance for the
Government Act (Act 465), 1993; and the Building code (L.I. 1630), dynamics of the built environment. Development control in large part
1996. The cap 84 though remains in the country’s statute books it is is a critical decider of discomfort, conflict and chaos or convenience,
rarely used by planning officials in recent times. safety and harmony in our Ghanaian towns and cities. Yet, land-use
Currently, the Local Government Act, (Act 462), 1993 and the regulations have not been adequately enforced in the Wa Munici-
National Building Code, (LI 1630), 1996 are the main instruments pality. This situation has therefore denied residents of the munici-
used for the guidance of physical development throughout Ghana. pality the expected gains from such regulations. The Wa Municipal
Section 46(1) of Act 462 establishes the Metropolitan-Municipal- Assembly (WMA) has not been able to effectively enforce the devel-
District Assemblies (MMDAs) as the planning authorities for their opment schemes for the municipality. It is evident that land-use
respective districts. The MMDAs are therefore responsible for the control is ineffective and uncoordinated in the municipality.
preparation and implementation of development schemes, and the
enforcement of development controls in their areas of jurisdiction. Awareness level of respondents on land-use regulations
The Act 462 makes building permits a mandatory requirement for
physical development in Ghana. Section 49, sub-section (1) of Act The awareness level of physical developers on the existence of
462 states that “no physical development shall be carried out in development scheme and development control laws is very high in
a district without prior approval in the form of written permit granted the Wa Municipality. As indicated in Table 1, 88% and 76% of
by the District Planning Authority”, and sub-section (2) states, “the respondents were respectively aware of the issuance of development
procedure and manner for securing a permit under subsection (1) of permits by the WMA and the legal requirement for development
this section shall be prescribed by regulations”. The regulations being
referred to here is the National Building Code (LI 1630), 1996.
Table 1
The building code regulates all physical development in Ghana
Awareness level and permit applications.
(section 1, LI 1630, 1996). The LI 1630 spells out in detail the
building permit application requirements, building densities, Awareness level Applied for building Total
permit
permissible land uses, site and spatial standards, the responsibility
of the DPA, and the validity period of building permits. The code Yes No
makes it mandatory for the DPA to notify a permit applicant within Aware of building permit Yes 77 (100%) 29 (67%) 106 (88%)
3 months of the receipt of an application of its decision to grant or No 0 (0%) 13 (30%) 13 (11%)
No response 0 (0%) 1 (2%) 1 (1%)
to refuse the application (section 8(2)). Section 7(3) of LI 1630
Total 77 (100%) 43 (100%) 120 (100%)
stipulates a 5 year validity period for building permits. This provi- Aware of building permit Yes 72 (94%) 19 (44%) 91 (76%)
sion is unrealistic and inconsistent with the socio-economic status as a legal requirement No 4 (5%) 19 (44%) 23 (19%)
of most Ghanaians. Over 90% of properties in Ghana are delivered No response 1 (1%) 5 (12%) 6 (5%)
by individual households through the incremental building process Total 77 (100%) 43 (100%) 120 (100%)

which takes between 5 and 15 years (Boamah, 2010). It will thus be Source: Author’s Construct, 2010.
 N.A. Boamah et al. / Habitat International 36 (2012) 136e142 139

Table 2 Table 4
Commencement of development prior to decision on permit application. Applicants perception of the BPA process and attitudes of planning officials.

Decision period Building permit applicants Perception on building permit process Total

Built after decision Built before decision Total Transparent Not-transparent Corrupt Declined comments
on application on application 36 (47%) 32 (42%) 7 (9%) 2 (3%) 77 (100%)
Within 3 months 30 (63%) e 30 (39%) Perception on attitudes of officials
Between 3 and 12 months 16 (33%) 7 (24%) 23 (30%) Very good Good Bad Very bad Declined comments
More than 12 months 2 (4%) 18 (62%) 20 (26%) 10 (13%) 18 (23%) 32 (42%) 15 (20%) 2 (3%) 77 (100%)
No response e 4 (14%) 4 (5%)
Source: Author’s Construct, 2010.
Total respondents 48 (100%) 29 (100%) 77 (100%)

Source: Author’s Construct, 2010.
permit prior to the commencement of physical development. Also,
about 67% of respondents who did not apply for building permit were
aware of the existence of building permit. Also, 44% of non-building
permit applicants were aware that building permit was a legal
requirement that needed to be fulfilled prior to land development.
Despite the high awareness level on building permits and the laws
governing physical development, development controls are not
adhered to by significant proportion of developers in the Wa
municipality. Majority of developers who violated development
control laws in the Wa Municipality was highly conscious of their
actions and the consequences for it.
Processing duration of permit applications and development control
compliance levels
Delays in the processing of development permit applications are
a major challenge to the enforcement of development controls in
the Wa Municipality. Contrary to section 8(1) of the LI 1630 it takes
on average 3.5 years for the Wa Municipal Planning Authority
(WMPA) to make a decision on building permit applications. About
39.0%, 29.9% and 26.0% of respondents respectively indicated that
the decision on their building permit applications were made by
the WMA within 3 months, between 3 and 12 months, and after 12
months respectively (Table 2). As Table 2 shows, about 63%, and 33%
of respondents who built after the WMA’s decision on their permit
applications respectively indicated that the WMA made the deci-
sion within 3 months and between 3 and 12 months. However,
about 62% of the respondents who commenced development
before the WMPA’s decision on their permit applications pointed
out that the decision on their applications were made by the WMA
more than 12 months after submission.
Analysis of field data indicates that building permit applicants
willingness to comply with sections 49(1) and 64 (1) of Act 462
depends greatly on the time taken by the WMPA to make a decision
on their development permit applications. As shown in Table 3, there
is a significant negative correlation between the time it takes for the
WMA to make a decision on Building Permit Applications (BPA) and
the applicants’ willingness to wait for the WMA’s decision on their
BPAs. The delay in the processing of BPAs is a source of concern to
developers in the municipality. The delay extremely frustrates BPA
applicants and it has significant impact on development costs.
Respondents perceptions of the development control process
Developers concern about the attitudes of the planning officials
and their negative perceptions about the development permit
application process are major challenges to the enforcement of land-
use regulations in the Wa Municipality. A significant proportion of
building permit applicants has negative perceptions about the
development permit process and the attitudes of the planning offi-
cials. For instance, 51% of applicants had negative perception about
the BPA process (Table 4). Also, as much as 61% of applicants had
negative perceptions about the planning officials’ attitudes (Table 4).
These negative perceptions are major deterrent to prospective
development permit applicants. Some applicants perceive the plan-
ning permission process in the Wa Municipality as not only unnec-
essarily lengthy and bureaucratic but also a corruption endemic one.
A respondent in one neighbourhood noted “I paid for several charges
as part of the application process, but most of the moneys paid did not
reflect on the final receipt issued to me by the municipal assembly”.
What influence building permit applications in the Wa
municipality?
Socio-cultural reasons may be responsible for developers’ non-
adherence to development permit regulations in the Wa Munici-
pality. Out of 43 (36%) of respondents who did not apply for
building permit, 30 (70%) were natives (indigenes) of and 13 (30%)
were non-natives (non-indigenes) of the municipality (Table 5).
Similarly, out of 77 (64%) of respondents who applied for building
permits, 33 (43%) were natives and 44 (57%) were non-natives.
Table 5 indicates that 44% of respondents and 63% of natives who
did not apply for development permit cited their indigenousness as
their reason for non-adherence to building regulations in the
municipality.
There is a high rate of non-adherence to building permit regu-
lations among the natives than non-natives in the Wa Municipality.
The natives question the rational for building permits. They claim
that as indigenes they are developing their own lands; there is
therefore no need for them to apply for building permit. Below are
the extracts from some of the respondents;
“a native-no need for permit”
“when building on a family land one has no need of a building
permit since it is not necessary for the children of the land. Only
people from outside acquiring land needs building permit”.
“indigenes are not supposed to acquire building permit”
Thus, the indigenes imply that there is no need for a native who
owns the land by virtue of an inherent customary right to secure
building permit before developing it.
Table 5
Reasons for not applying for building permit.
Reasons Ethnic origin Total

Table 3 Native Non-native

Correlation between decision period and commencement of development. A Native 19 (63%) e 19 (44%)
Financial constraints e 3 (23%) 3 (7%)
Decision period
Neighbours experience 3 (10%) e 3 (7%)
Commencement of development Pearson correlation 0.737 Others 8 (27%) 10 (77%) 18 (42%)
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 Total 30 (100%) 13(100%) 43 (100%)
N 77
Source: Author’s Construct, 2010.
140 N.A. Boamah et al. / Habitat International 36 (2012) 136e142
Table 6
Reasons for applying for building permits.
Reason Frequency Percentage Cumulative percent
Required by law 35 46 46
Security of tenure 31 40 86
Loans 3 4 90
Electricity 2 3 92
Government compensation 4 5 97
No response 2 36 100
Total 77 100
Source: Author’s Construct, 2010.
The natives of the Wa Municipality agree in principle to the use
of building permits. However, they contend that regulations on
building permits should apply only to the non-indigenes. This may
be the result of the general misunderstanding of the purpose of
building permits among the respondents. Table 6 indicates that
there is a general misconception among the respondents about the
rational for building permits. A significant proportion (40%) of
building permit applicants in the Wa Municipality is doing so on
the fundamentally wrong basis that it establishes their ownership
right and protects them from adverse future claim. Applicants
seeking building permits are therefore relying on a protection that
is never granted by a grant of building permit by the planning
authority. This widespread misconception may be the reason why
natives whose ownership right to their building lots could be
proved by customary rights claim that they do not need building
permits. This is a serious challenge to the enforcement of building
regulations in the Wa Municipality.
Neighbourhood characteristics also influenced BPAs in the Wa
municipality. As Table 7 indicates, 10%, 35%, and 63% of respondents
in the high, middle and low class residential areas respectively did
not apply for building permits. Also, 90%, 65%, and 38% corre-
spondingly of respondents in the high, middle and low class resi-
dential areas applied for building permits.
Enforcement of development controls in the Wa municipality
Political interference is a major challenge to the enforcement of
development controls in the Wa Municipality. The huge mess in the
built environment that are approved by political big wits is
a common knowledge. For instance, buildings and fuel filling
stations have been located on waterways, approved open spaces
(like access roads and children playing grounds), and on educa-
tional lands contrary to the provisions of the laws governing
physical development in the country. However, city authorities
either look unconcerned, powerless or unable to enforce the
regulations. The simple question is, why has the city authorities not
been able to clear these unauthorised developments or sanction the
developers who have violated laws on physical development with
great impunity? The inability of the planning authority to sanction
unauthorised development is surprising as it has a huge legal
backing (see section 52 (1e4) of Act 462). There may therefore be
no justifiable reasons why the planning authority should not
sanction owners of unauthorised development.
Table 7
Application for building permit and nature of neighbourhood.
Applications for building permit Nature of neighbourhood
High class Middle class Low class
No 4 (10%) 14 (35%) 25 (63%) 43 (36%)
Yes 36 (90%) 26 (65%) 15 (38%) 77 (64%)
Total 40 (100%) 40 (100%) 40 (100%) 40 (100%)
Source: Author’s Construct, 2010.
The planning officials were unwilling to release data on sanc-
tions (such as demolitions, fines, and notices) that have been
imposed on unauthorised developments in the municipality. But
evidence on the ground indicates that so far, it is the section 52(3)
of Act 462 that the Wa Municipal’s planning authority has
attempted to enforce. The enforcement effort of the WMA is
however, restricted to the issuance of enforcement notices. No
concrete attempts have been made to enforce section 52(4) of the
Act 462 against developers who contravene its enforcement
notices. Developers have therefore treated enforcement notices
issued under section 52(3) of the Act with the greatest contempt.
Only 10% of respondents whose building permit applications were
refused did not subsequently develop contrary to the decision of
the planning authority. The 90% who developed despite a decline of
building permit by the Wa Municipal’s planning authority indicated
that they did so because the authority does not enforce its orders.
The inability of the authority to enforce its planning scheme may be
due to unnecessary political interference. A staff of the Wa
Municipal’s Building Inspectorate Division (BID) stated, “ —— when
we started demolishing unauthorised structures in the municipality,
we received an order from Accra that all further demolishing exercises
should cease until further notice. Several years now, this until further
notice order is still in force. We need to protect our jobs and therefore
cannot contravene an order from a higher office”. The political
interference in the enforcement of land-use regulations in respect
of unauthorised development is a huge source of frustration to
planning officials. It is an irony to find out that some of these
unauthorised developments have received the blessing of political
office holders.
The planning authority also should posses the ability to monitor
change in the urban system in response to the goals of the land-use
regulation (Cripps & Foot, 1969). The planning authority therefore
needs an appropriate underlying technology, capacity and resources
to be able to effectively enforce land-use legislations. Unfortunately,
the WMA lacks the capacity to fully enforce its land-use regulations.
The building inspectorate division of the municipality is handi-
capped in terms of manpower and related logistics (office space,
computers, vehicles, etc). For instance, there is only one profes-
sionally trained building inspector in the municipality. The staff at
the building inspectorate division work under deplorable condi-
tions. They lack the capacity and requisite resources to effectively
discharge their functions. The working environment of the building
inspectorate division is a disincentive. The staffs of the division are
therefore unmotivated.
Policy implications of the findings
It is extremely essential that efforts are made to ensure orderly
development of the Wa municipality. The WMPA should focus on
addressing the challenges militating against the enforcement of
land-use regulations in the municipality. It is germane for the
WMPA to put the appropriate structures in place to facilitate the
processing of building permit applications. It is recommended that
the statutory period for permit approval be fully enforced. This will
shorten the time it takes to make a decision on permit applications;
it will increase the willingness of applicants to wait voluntarily for
a decision on their development permit applications. Also, periodic
review of the development permit approval process is recom-
mended; this will ensure that the processes reflect the realities on
Total the ground. It is important that the capacities of the MTCPD and
MBID are enhanced through improved human resource base, and
funding and logistical support. Also, use of equipment (such as
Geographic Information Systems) that will ensure a more effective
implementation of planning regulations must be embraced by the
planning authority. These will make the planners more effective,
 N.A. Boamah et al. / Habitat International 36 (2012) 136e142
facilitate the development control process, enhance the monitoring
role of the MBID, ensure efficiency, and improve the image of the
MBID and MTCPD.
The planning authority should make it easy for developers to
adhere to development controls. Pre-emptive measures to ensure
developers’ compliance will make the planning authority more
effective. The WMPA should embark on massive public education
with the aim of eroding the general misconception in the munici-
pality regarding the rational for building permits. This will enable
the residents of the municipality to properly appreciate the land-
use regulation process. Also, the public education must place less
emphasis on the fact that building permit is a legal requirement
and more emphasis on the sanctions for non-compliance with BP
regulations. Again, the public sensitisation programmes must focus
on the low and middle class residential areas. Violation of BP
regulation was found to be substantial in the lower class residential
areas.
It is imperative for the planning officials to work with devel-
opers to ensure compliance with the planning regulations. Officials
must work with permit applicants to address identified infringe-
ments on the land-use regulations when plans are submitted for
approval. The present system where permit applications are either
granted or rejected by planning officials without assisting permit
applicants to cure code breaches in the proposed designs should be
abandoned. Instead, officials must see building permit applicants as
partners in the development control process and support them to
ensure compliance to the land-use regulations. Officials must
willingly give their feedback to permit applicants and work with
them in resolving all regulatory issues arising from them. This will
significantly contribute to the lessening of unauthorised develop-
ments in the municipality and thus makes it easy and cost effective
for planning authorities to enforce development controls in the
municipality.
Arimah and Adeagbo (2000) rightly observed that public apathy
and disdain for the planning authority may lead to widespread
violation of planning regulations. The WMPA should address the
problem of negative public perception about the land-use regulation
process. This will create a conducive environment for the enforce-
ment of land-use regulations in the municipality. It will establish
a good rapport between the public and planning officials. It will
encourage more developers in the municipality to comply with
development controls. There will therefore, be a limited need for the
WMPA to evoke the sanctions in Act 462 to ensure compliance with
its land-use regulations. Similarly, it will be easy for the WMPA to
enforce land-use regulations if voluntary compliance level increases.
Political interference in the enforcement of development
controls disrupts the smooth implementation of planning schemes
and demoralises planning officials; it must therefore cease imme-
diately. Politicians should isolate the development control process
from their political interests. Society, at large including the
unlawful developer stands to lose from uncontrolled development,
therefore, the enforcement of regulations governing land uses
should not be sacrificed for short-term political gains. It should be
impossible for politicians to butt in the planning enforcement
process or reverse the decisions or actions of the planning authority
or its agents. The building inspectorate requires strengthening and
a free hand to operate so long as the division operates within the
limits of the law.
The planning authority must create a platform which will give
members of the public insights on their activities and also formulate
strategies that are aimed at improving their activities. Such a forum
will achieve a dual purpose of educating the public and also involving
the public in the development planning process. Development control
in the Wa Municipality must be enforced through strategies that are
dynamic and responsive to the needs of developers. Policies for
141
development control are dynamic; their formulation and imple-
mentation are a continuing process. There is the need for the planning
authority to adopt new strategies that will guarantee public partici-
pation in the land-use planning and development control enforce-
ment processes in the municipality. The UNCHS (1994) noted that the
advantages to be derived from a participatory development planning
process are numerous. The planning process must not be seen as
specialist or technical activities requiring only skilled personnel to
execute. A rigid top-down planning process with limited stakeholder
participation will serve only the interest of a few; the majority of the
residents in the planned area is likely to refuse compliance. Limited or
no public involvement in the planning process will reduce the chances
of voluntary compliance to the planning scheme. The technocrats
must lead the planning process, but must allow extensive consultation
with or participation of members of the public. Extensive consultation
will enable residents of the municipality to accept the plan as their
own and contribute to its implementation. Public participation in the
preparation and implementation of planning schemes in the Wa
Municipality will significantly enhance the willingness of the residents
to comply with development controls. It will reduce the cost of
enforcing the land-use plan by the WMPA. A critical issue that influ-
ences developers’ compliance with planning regulations is access to
and sources of buildable land. It is important that the planning
authority regularly engage landowners in the municipality in
a constructive discussion on the planning process. Land owners’
understanding of the physical planning process is essential for the
successful implementation of land-use regulations in the municipality.
Conclusion
Land-use regulations in the Wa municipality are generally not
obeyed despite the existence of adequate legal framework. The
non-compliance with development controls in the Wa Municipality
has resulted in haphazard development, lack of access routes,
neighbourhood blight, poor ventilation and low housing quality in
the municipality. It is therefore extremely essential that the WMPA
strictly enforce its land-use regulations. This is necessary if the
residents of the municipality are to live in clean, healthy and
orderly neighbourhoods. There is no need preparing and imposing
land-use regulations at the expense of the tax payer if the regula-
tions cannot be enforced. The preparation of planning schemes is
an expensive venture. The tax payer requires nothing but value for
money; this can only be attained if the land-use regulations are
adhered to as stipulated by law.
References
Agbola, T., Olatubara, C. O., & Olorunfemi, F. B. (2002). Urban land and infrastruc-
ture: issues, challenges and strategies in the design and management of
Nigerian cities. In Proceedings of a National Conference organized by the Faculty of
Environmental Design and Management. Ile Ife, Nigeria: Obafemi Awolowo
University. 9the11th October, 2002.
Alexander, E. R. (2001). Governance and transaction costs in planning systems:
a conceptual framework for institutional analysis of land-use planning and
development control; the case of Israel. Environment and Planning B: Planning
and Design, 28, 755e776.
Antwi, A. (2002). A Study of Informal Urban Land Transactions in Accra, Ghana, Our
Common Estate. Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors Foundation.
Aribigbola, A. (2008). Improving urban land use planning and management in
Nigeria: the case of Akure. Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban
Management, 3(9).
Arimah, N. B. C., & Adeagbo, D. (2000). Compliance with urban development and
planning regulations in Ibadan. Habitat International, 24(279), 294.
Boamah, N. A. (2010). Housing affordability in Ghana: a focus on Kumasi and
Tamale. Ethiopian Journal of Environmental Studies and Management, 3(3).
Brueckner, J. K. (1990). Growth controls and land values in an open city. Land
Economics, 66(3), 237e248.
Chabot, M., & Duhaime, G. (1998). Land-use planning and participation: the case of
Innuit public housing (Nunavik, Canada). Habitat International, 22(4), 429e447.
142 N.A. Boamah et al. / Habitat International 36 (2012) 136e142
Cripps, E. L., & Foot, D. H. S. (1969). A land-use model for sub regional planning.
Regional Studies, Vol. 3, 243e268.
Edusah, S. E. (2006). Land use, land allocation and the environment in Kumasi and
peri-urban communities of Ghana. In 12th EADI general conference, 24e28, June
2008, Geneva.
Ghana Statistical Service. (2005). Population data analysis report, policy implications
of population trends, Vol. 2. Accra: GSS.
Gough, K. V. (1999). The changing nature of urban governance in peri-urban Accra,
Ghana. Third World Planning Review, 21, 397e414.
Grout, C., Jaeger, W. K., Plantinga, A. J. (2009). Does Oregon’s land-use planning
system affect land prices? A regression discontinuity design approach.
Halla, F. (2002). Preparation and implementation of a general planning scheme in
Tanzania: Kahama strategic urban development planning framework. Habitat
International, 26, 281e293.
Hui, E. C., & Ho, V. S. (2003). Does the planning system affect housing prices? Theory
and with evidence from Hong Kong. Habitat International, 27, 339e359.
Ihlanfeldt, K. R. (2009). Does comprehensive land-use planning improve cities?
Land Economics, 85(1), 74e86.
Jaeger, W. K. (2006). The effects of land-use regulations on property values. Envi-
ronmental Law, 36, 105.
View publication stats
Konadu-Agyeman, K. (2001). The political economy of housing and urban develop-
ment in Africa: Ghana’s experience from colonial times to 1998. Westport: Praeger
Publishers.
McMillen, D. P., & McDonald, J. F. (2002). Land values in a newly zoned city. Review
of Economics and Statistics, 84(1), 62e72.
Mosha, A. C. (2010). Making Land and housing accessible to the urban low income in
Botswana. In Paper presented at the regional symposium on land reform and the rights
of the urban poor to housing, 15the16th February, 2010. Tanzania: Ardhi University.
Nnkya, T. J. (1999). Land use planning practice under the public land ownership
policy in Tanzania. Habitat International, 23(1), 135e155.
Oyesiku, O. O. (1997). The new cities as a physical planning strategy concept.
Nigerian Journal of Social Management Science, 1, 76e101.
Ratcliff, J. (1976). Land policy: an exploration of the nature of land in society. The
Built Environment, 1e27.
Salazar, A., Brando, P., & Gershon, F. (1995). Regulatory policies and reform: the case
of land markets. In F. Claudio (Ed.), In regulatory policies and reforms: A
comparative perspective (pp. 191e209). World Bank.
UNCHS (1994). Report of the international conference on reappraising the urban
planning process as an instrument of sustainable urban development and
management. Nairobi: United Nations Centre for Human Settlements.