Urban development planning in Indonesia

government has realized that the plan is expensive. But much more expensive is the development without planning. It is felt at all on urban development. In terms of urban development planning, in Indonesia has long held, beginning with the enactment of De Statuten van 1642, specifically for the city of Batavia (now Jakarta. The next period stipulated by the Indonesian Government Ordinance Standsvorming, Staatblaad No. 168 1948. This provision is effective until the enactment Act No. 24 of 1992 on Spatial Planning, which expressly revoked the entry into force Standsvorming Ordinance, Staatblaad No. 168 of 1948, the colonial-smelling.

Although the law on the new Spatial Planning established in 1992, which is exactly on October 13, 1992, this does not mean that the activities of urban spatial planning is not done by the Government. Beginning around the 1970s, a comprehensive spatial planning has been carried out under the responsibility of the Directorate General of Cipta Karya Department of Public Works, in cooperation with DG PUOD (Public Administration and Regional Autonomy) Department of the Interior. In general spatial pattern at that time was more referring to the spatial patterns in Europe, namely the pattern pemintakatan or strict zoning.

In the execution of the zoning pattern of spatial products are not effective, so the published instructions of the Minister of Interior No.: 30 of 1985 on Forest Law Enforcement and Regulations in the Context of Urban Management, which was followed by the issuance of: (a) the Minister of Home Affairs Regulation No. 7 of 1986 concerning City Boundary Determination Across Indonesia, and (b) Regulation of the Minister of Home Affairs No. 2 of 1987 on Guidelines for City Planning. Both regulation of the Minister of Home Affairs is the reference of the parties involved in the preparation of urban spatial structure, prior to the enactment of Government Regulation on Implementation of Spatial Planning Act.

Product urban spatial planning that refers to both regulations the Minister of the Interior is felt to be more flexible (flexible), because it is more based on trends, and every 5 (five) years were evaluated and if there is deviation could be revised again. But in the absence of sanctions against violations of this city spatial plan also indicates the uncertainty of urban spatial plan which has been designated as local regulation.

The study found that in general drift towards urban spatial planning actually begins with government policies. This means local governments in charge of urban spatial planning is less consistent in carrying out urban development. As a major cause of lack of effective urban spatial plans (with indicators of various deviations) are in addition to lack of coordination between government offices, are also less inclusion of the community, so that the aspirations of less traffic load on the master plan of the city.

Of the things on the above can be said that the establishment of local regulations on urban spatial planning is just a formality, in accordance with the provisions of the Minister of the Interior. But starting from the preparation process, until the implementation and execution is far from what is desired by the rules basically.