I have observed numerous blunders, commissions or omissions by Kampala City Council (KCC) technocrats in form of degazetting public works and road reserves for development, and approving buildings for construction and occupation without adequate parking and access. What is the future of this city?
An urban planner must in pursuance of his practice and duties, balance a number of conflicting but very important objectives to accommodate human activity in urban areas on a sustainable basis. These objectives include provision of adequate infrastructure in support of trade, leisure, social services, residences, industries, etc. Human beings therefore need to move to and from and within the city in order to provide or gain access to these services. This is why standards, for example, those of the Ministry of Works and Transport in regard to road design, are developed to ensure that all traffic (motorised, non-motorised and pedestrians) is appropriately and adequately catered for.
It is disturbing to see that some unscrupulous individuals in KCC are leading the city and nation backwards and are paid for this, although some of us spend long unpaid hours on government request to develop standard plans to take us all into a more civilised future.
For example, the Division Planner for Central Division recommended to the Town Clerk and the Chief Town Planner, that a building be allowed on Plot 215 Block 12 in Kisenyi well knowing that this plot is part of a road which was left by the original mailo owner after subdividing his plot for sale. One wonders why such technocrats should disregard all standards and plans obtaining and misadvise their superiors that indeed this plot can be developed with a permanent building.
For a start, the Kampala structural Master Plan recognises and provides for the entire 15-metre wide plot 215, Block 12 as being an urban road/street off Kisenyi lane and serving the urban developments on either side of it. Secondary, the current standard for urban roads is found in Section 4(3)(2) of the Ministry of Works and Transport road design manual in classes TI for single carriageway roads and T2 for dual carriage roads.
Class TI provides for a two–way traffic on a single carriage way with traffic lanes of 3-3.25 metres wide depending on the maximum allowable speed, plus a minimum of 2 metres on either side for pedestrians walkways giving a minimum road reserve width of 10 metres. Where possible this width can be increased to allow for open channel storm water drainage, lighting installations, other services, and provisions for turning radius in case of commercial streets that accommodate heavy goods vehicles. Class T2 provides for 19-21 metres allowing for two, two-lane carriageways on either side of a median island, a shoulder and pedestrian walkway on either side.
Considering the above provisions in the standards, it is evident that the original mailo owner was well advised to provide adequate reserve width to meet the class TI standard for a single carriage two-way traffic urban road. Interestingly, technocrats wrote that in a backyard access lane of five metres width, two vehicles were bypassing each other comfortably and that was enough basis to reduce the provided road reserve. One is left to wonder what the sizes of the vehicles were, passing speeds, and whether there were pedestrians in the vicinity, etc.
Incidentally the so-called report mentions surveyor s having visited the site with the planner, but it does not indicate any technical survey data or drawings to confirm that. A city based on such rudimentary statements purportedly in a technical reports is headed for disaster. It is time for those responsible to act. Mr Mayor and the entire council, the Chief Town Planner and, the Minister of Lands, Housing and Urban Development, it is your duty to bring sobriety back to physical planning in the city. You should carry your cross now.
Ends
