The Tema Metropolitan Assembly (TMA) has intensified its defence of its planning authority, insisting that the TDC Company Limited cannot undertake physical development within the Tema Metropolis without obtaining the necessary approvals from the Assembly.
The position comes amid a growing dispute between the two institutions over an infilling project at Community One Site Three, with the Assembly maintaining that development activities at the site did not follow the required planning and consultation procedures.
Tema Metropolitan Chief Executive (MCE), Madam Ebi Bright, said the Assembly’s position was based on Ghana’s local governance and planning laws, which assign physical planning and development control functions to Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies (MMDAs).
She made the clarification during a meeting with residents of Sites Three and Eight following complaints about developments in the communities.
According to Madam Bright, residents had petitioned the Assembly over a number of activities, including the cutting down of about 50 trees, demolition of existing structures, encroachment on playgrounds and green belts, and the blocking of access routes.
She said officials subsequently visited the affected areas and confirmed that some of the activities complained about were taking place.
The MCE acknowledged TDC’s responsibilities as a landowner and property manager, particularly in relation to leases and other commercial interests, but stressed that those responsibilities did not make the company the planning authority for Tema.
“TMA is the planning and development authority for the city,” she stated.
Madam Bright explained that while TDC could develop land under its control, it was required to secure the appropriate permits from the Assembly before undertaking physical developments.
She said the Assembly was also responsible for assessing proposed developments, consulting affected communities and their elected representatives, considering objections and, where necessary, coordinating rezoning processes and securing statutory approvals.
According to her, the Community One Site Three project did not go through those processes, leading the Assembly to direct the developers to suspend work pending further engagement.
She said the directive was not intended to undermine TDC’s legitimate commercial interests but to ensure that all institutions operating within Tema complied with their respective legal mandates.
Madam Bright further pointed to TDC’s conversion into a private limited liability company in 2017, saying the change reinforced the distinction between the company’s property management responsibilities and the statutory regulatory functions of the Assembly.
She said TDC could collect ground rent, manage its properties and administer leases, but did not have the authority to issue building permits, demolish structures under the Assembly’s regulatory jurisdiction, rezone public spaces or issue enforcement notices.
The MCE also raised concerns over reports that residents were receiving conflicting directives from TMA and TDC.
She said some residents had complained that structures carrying valid TMA permit numbers had allegedly been demolished by a TDC task force.
Madam Bright cautioned against such actions, stressing that regulatory responsibilities must be exercised by the institution legally mandated to perform them.
She assured residents that the Assembly would continue to protect its planning mandate while working with relevant institutions to resolve the disagreement and ensure that future developments in Tema complied with the law.
The dispute over Community One Site Three has consequently raised broader questions about the respective roles of the Assembly and TDC in land development, property management and physical planning within the Tema Metropolis.
