Investment by private land developer companies and postcolonial urban growth in Ruwa (Zimbabwe), 1986-2015

This article qualitatively analyses the role of private land developer companies’ investment in postcolonial Zimbabwe’s urban development, with special reference to Ruwa Town. This sprawling town is outstanding for involving private land developers in its growth and expansion. All postcolonial established towns had emerged out of Government’s direct investment through the Growth Point policy. By contrast, Ruwa was peculiar, because it developed from a public-private partnership approach. The article argues that, in the absence of State financial capacity in the postcolonial era, developer companies played a crucial role in infrastructure development and facilitation of public amenities. Although the companies were important in spearheading the growth of the town, they sometimes failed to meet certain standards of quality in urban infrastructure development required by town planning authorities. Despite this shortcoming, the article finds that the companies were essentially the most appropriate vehicles of urban development in times of economic crisis in the country.


INTRODUCTION
Scholars who have written on urban development in Zimbabwe have generally viewed urban infrastructure development as a state or government function. Because of this, they have missed the role of Private Land Developer Companies (PLDCs) in rapidly growing towns. They have also missed the intricate links between the state and developer companies leading to a not-so-intended public-private partnership. Literature by, for example, Moszoro and Krzyzanowsk (2011), Ding and Lichtenbery (2009) and Van Der Veen (2009) on PLDCs and their functions in terms of urban spaces has mainly focused on the role and efficacy of these non-state institutions in industrial and fastindustrialising societies' growth and expansion. Until 2015, the role that private sector companies and their investment played in developing urban land for residential and commercial purposes was significant, given the difficult economic circumstances prevalent in Zimbabwe during this period (Nyandoro & Muzorewa, 2017: 8). In general, the State in no partnership with private sector companies was instrumental in aiding town growth in a number of areas in Zimbabwe. However, the country's first specific experience with developer companies taking a leading corporate role in the emergence of a town, born out of the ashes of a defunct growth point, only manifested itself in the Ruwa case.
The article investigates the role of PLDCs in the development of Ruwa Town in Zimbabwe. It assesses the contribution of these institutions to the infrastructure development and expansion of the local economy of Ruwa since its inception in 1986. PLDCs were a unique case of non-direct government investment in postcolonial urban growth in the country. This article shows that postcolonial small town growth in Zimbabwe is not a homogeneous, but rather a heterogeneous and contested process that involves numerous town developer actors. These private developer players in Ruwa (a town located in the East of the capital, Harare) operated as autonomous units who, however, interacted with the government mostly at the infrastructure development level, not necessarily at the spatial planning level. The government did not purposely intend to have this interaction, but the lack of capacity and funds in a country experiencing myriad economic hardships since the 1990s stimulated it. The uniqueness of Ruwa Town development indicates how modern urban development was achievable in Zimbabwe based on a total different experience. The article articulates how a growth point, initially rendered defunct, was then reorganised into a flourishing post-independence fast-growing town following an influx of residents from the rural areas and from nearby major metropolitan centres such as Harare.

LITERATURE REVIEW
In order to understand urban development in Ruwa, Zimbabwe, it is important to introduce the theory on partnership included in this study. The existing theory focuses on PLDCs, public-private partnerships (PPPs), bilateral partnership and the Regional, Town and Country Planning Act (1976) as the base for a partnership.

Urban development in Ruwa, Zimbabwe
The unremitting economic crisis in Zimbabwe (with the effect of hindering industrialisation) has demonstrated not only the lack of state and urban authorities' capacity to finance urban growth, but also the centrality of nonstate institutions in the country to facilitate the development of urban infrastructure and public amenities in sprawling towns.
Ever-changing rural and quasiurban authorities managed various services in the period up to 1986, but service provision generally remained in shambles. There was a need for improved services by the growing numbers of people moving in from Harare and different parts of the country to settle there after independence (Nyandoro & Muzorewa, 2017: 6). Residents of the area mainly hoped that independence would rapidly transform towns such as Ruwa from a rural to an urban settlement. However, this did not happen as fast as anticipated, due to the economic crisis besetting Zimbabwe in the early 1980s -a crisis exacerbated by the introduction of the Economic Structural Adjustment Programme (ESAP) in the early 1990s (Mlambo, 1997) and the controversial land reforms of 2000. The government and the emerging urban administrations, on their own, were financially constrained during ESAP (1990ESAP ( /1991ESAP ( -1995

Private land developer companies (PLDCs)
PLDCs, also referred to as developers, are companies that subdivide land, which they own or purchase from individual private owners, into urban residential plots for the purpose of making a profit (Chirisa, 2013: 113 States of America (USA) for providing housing and urban infrastructure (Mifaftab, 2004: 90). In the East, China and Russia also employed PLDCs in building essential infrastructure and expanding their cities (Wei, Taubenbock & Blaschke, 2017: 32;Ding & Lichtenberg, 2009: 1). In most cases worldwide, development organisations employed PLDCs to expand and renew towns and cities that were already established, but in Ruwa, these companies took a leading role in shaping the built environment from the inception of the town until 2015.
In Zimbabwe, PLDCs operated within the context of urbanisation and land markets. Marongwe, Mukoto and Chatiza (2011: 11-12) analysed urban markets in the country, defining them as the platform for interaction among land buyers, land developers and retailers, as well as the process of registration of land and property. They are part of the framework that governs planning and land administration in the country. In examining the situation facing different land developers in the urban land market in Zimbabwe, Marongwe et al. (2011: 12) contend that most of the companies' economic and policy challenges emanated from the economic crisis facing the country post-1980. Moszoro and Krzyzanowsk (2011: 3) examine broad public-private partnerships and the theory underpinning them. In their work, they view PPP institutions' operations as closely linked to PLDCs, and PPPs as "cooperation agreements between a public authority and the private sector to provide public service". These scholars provide the background of the theory and the risks involved in using the PPP approach in urban development and public service delivery. According to Moszoro and Krzyzanowsk (2011: 3), governments must be cautious of the tendency by private entities to take total control of public projects. Hence, they urge governments to set clear and unambiguous principles in their contracts with PLDCs in order to avoid the domination of these for-profit private partners. The work of these scholars clarifies the partnership theory, and their ideas have partly influenced the analysis of the nature of the partnership that emerged in Zimbabwe between the Ruwa local authorities and PLDCs.

Bilateral partnership
Since Ruwa is a new town developed during the independence era, there is hardly any literature on it compared to big cities such as Harare and Bulawayo. In a D.Phil. study on Ruwa, Chirisa (2013: 46-47) uses the stewardship theory and the partnership model as major concepts to guide his analysis on housing and infrastructure delivery.
Merging stewardship theory and the partnership model, he came up with what he calls 'institutional pluralism', which he defines as "the cooperation of the government and civic society groups including the private sector, community and non-governmental organisations" in providing urban infrastructure (Chirisa, 2013: 2). His thesis calls for the creation of a forum for institutions to collaborate for the general good of citizens in housing provision (Chirisa, 2013: 39).
Unlike Chirisa's institutional pluralism, this article focuses on the bilateral partnership between Ruwa local authorities and PLDCs. While the article examines Ruwa's experience with PLDCs taking a leading role in the emergence of a town, it also shows (using qualitative approaches) the companies' differential impact on town development and the importance in Ruwa of imbedding the partnership theory or approach to urban studies. The Regional, Town and Country Planning Act of 1976 provided the most solid foundation of a partnership in Ruwa.

The Regional, Town and Country Planning Act (1976):
The basis for a partnership As stipulated by the Act, no development involving the change of land use and intensity of infrastructure building was allowed without a development permit (National Archives of Zimbabwe 38971, 1995). Before any construction or development commenced, PLDCs were, therefore, obliged to apply for a development permit to the Department of Physical Planning of the Ministry of Local Government. The Department of Physical Planning worked with local planning authorities to draft the permit and to authorise permit applicants to start work. This then marked the evolution and consolidation of a collaborative process demonstrating the involvement of multiple stakeholders.
In order to achieve common objectives, the various stakeholders mobilised by the State and the local government-run town council to interact and negotiate horizontally, actively involved the urban planning authorities in the permit process (Follador, Duarte & Carrier, 2018: 1;Nyandoro & Muzorewa, 2017: 3). Involving the Ruwa planning authorities in making decisions on permit applications gave the Council a sense of ownership of the infrastructure development projects applied for by developers in a country not historically known for such collaboration between multiple social actors, councils and the State. However, such ownership was nominal, as the Council lacked direct control of the activities of the land developers except through granting the permit (for which they were the custodians) and exacting endowment payments from the developers. This, in some way, constituted a modicum model for private land developers to have a measure of control over land in the post-colony in Zimbabwe.
The RTCPA clearly stipulated that applicants for land subdivision for development purposes should set aside land for public amenities. It, thus, made it mandatory for PLDCs to set aside land for their construction (Government of Zimbabwe, 1996). After granting the land permit to a PLDC, it became the duty of the local planning authority to monitor the development activities of the developer company. Once issued, the permit was valid for between 12 and 24 months depending on the scale of the land development project applied for (Government of Zimbabwe, 1996).

Development permits offered to
PLDCs show that most of the projects undertaken by the developers in Ruwa ranged in size from 25 to 600 hectares. The primary role of the companies derived from the new and astute town planning that replaced the old piecemeal or ad hoc planning.

Development background of Ruwa town
Situated 23 km from the capital city of Zimbabwe, Harare's central business district (CBD), Ruwa town is a postcolonial established town (see Figure 1 for location of Ruwa in Zimbabwe). The town was founded on a White commercial farming area, which existed under the Bromley Ruwa Rural Council (BRRC) in the now Goromonzi District of Mashonaland East Province. Ruwa was established in 1890 as a farming area and its first local administrative authority, the BRRC, was set up in 1950 (Muzorewa, 2017: 15). In 1980, when Zimbabwe became independent, the BRRC changed its name to the Goromonzi Rural District Council, and the area assumed growth point status in 1986 (Muzorewa, 2017: 15). Operating as a growth point from 1986 to 1990,

METHODOLOGY
In assessing the role played by the developers in the growth of Ruwa, the article uses primary and secondary sources to derive research data. Primary data was mainly derived from interviews chiefly based on purposive sampling targeting Ruwa residents, PLDCs' personnel and workers of the Ruwa Council. The Ruwa Town Repository or Archive was a main source of primary data. Secondary sources (journals, books, articles, and newspapers) were useful in situating the Ruwa case within broader urban studies in Zimbabwe and the world at large.

Town planning in Ruwa and its interface with private sector companies
The early stages of Ruwa's development were characterised by ad hoc or piecemeal planning. This methodology of planning involves the use of a number of independent and different micro-layout plans (Chigara, Magwaro-Ndiweni, Mudzengerere & Ncube, 2013: 32). Such type of planning has been associated with a myriad of weaknesses that include lack of harmony in land use, uncoordinated developments in sprawling environments, and disorderliness. In Zimbabwe, piecemeal planning was a result of the incapacity of small towns to develop both local development plans and master plans (Chigara et al., 2013: 32). Generating or creating local development plans involved consultation with land surveyors. This was a cumbersome process for small towns such as Ruwa with limited technical staff and financial resources. In Ruwa, using piecemeal planning, every PLDC prepared a plan or diagram showing the subdivision of the land to be developed. Because the plans were prepared in isolation and in different periods, this resulted in duplication of zoning of land use or services in adjacent or neighbouring development projects.
In the aftermath of these developments, being the first urban local authority responsible for Ruwa, in 1990, the Ruwa Local Board discovered that the area had been characterised by incremental and ad hoc subdivision of private land without an overall planning document in place. Therefore, the RLB started to prepare the Ruwa Local Development Plan (LDP) with the aim of harmonising development and stopping piecemeal planning by adopting formal planning in the development of the town. The preparation of the first draft of the LDP took place from 1991 to 1996, but it was only approved in 2000 (Muzorewa, 2017: 108). This was rather too late to rectify the damage caused by piecemeal planning, since some PLDCs had already received their land development permits, with others already engaged in developing the areas allocated to them.
Notwithstanding these challenges, PLDCs' planning resulted in the development of more residential areas than any other land scheme in Ruwa and most of the residential plots were sold to people who were working in Harare and Chitungwiza. The number of residential areas in Ruwa outgrew the industrial parks, thereby causing a degree of partial dependency for jobs and services on Harare. This was because, generally, Zimbabwe was facing an economic crisis of major proportions between 2000 and 2008 that led to the collapse of the manufacturing industry. However, despite the collapse of industries, housing continued to be a necessity among people in the country, causing a high demand for residential plots, but a low demand for industrial plots.

Contribution of private land developer companies in the growth of Ruwa, 1986-2015
PLDCs made significant contributions in various areas of town development that included the development of residential, commercial and industrial areas (Ruwa Town Council, 2011: 4). The companies were responsible for the construction of on-site, off-site and public infrastructure in the town. In Ruwa, land was mainly privately owned and from the attainment of growth point status in 1986, many private landowners resorted to subdividing their land for the purposes of urban development (Chirisa, 2013: 18

PLDCs and the establishment of manufacturing industries in Ruwa
PLDCs such as Mashonaland Holdings and Damofalls immensely contributed to industrial development, with the former playing a leading role in developing infrastructure and subsequently handing it over to the Ruwa Council in a process, which began in 1996, a year after the abandonment of ESAP (The Herald, 2007: 6). They serviced the town with roads, residential and industrial plots, and other infrastructure between the late 1980s and 1990 when the Zimbabwe economy was still relatively stable (see Figure 3).
In the early 1990s, the well-serviced industrial plots attracted a number of companies to operate in the town (Muzorewa, 2017: 133). Odero (2003: 5) notes that the well-serviced industrial plots and the building of a water pump station by this developer effectively reduced the cost of industrial investments to prospective investors, thereby attracting industries to the area. The serviced plots, for instance, attracted industrial companies such as Agric-Africa to relocate from Harare to Ruwa, because the cost of investing in new industrial plants and off-site infrastructure by PLD investors was 50% lower compared to Harare (Odero, 2003: 4

PLDCs and the establishment of low-cost housing in Ruwa
Apart from establishing industrial complexes, PLDCs played a crucial role in the development of high-density, low-cost housing and medium-density suburbs that generated some employment that partly cushioned some construction workers from the effects of the ESAP and immediate post-ESAP eras. Because of the prominent role performed by the private developers, the naming of most of the suburbs in Ruwa after the companies that developed them became common.
The first company to establish a residential suburb was Mashonaland Holdings (see Figure 4) In an interview on 10 June 2014, Albert Paulo (a land development officer) noted that 450-square metre plots in Fairview, which were available after the hyper-inflation period, were sold in 2009 for only USD 8500. This was relatively affordable for some low-income earners and led to the development of approximately 6 000 properties by PLDCs (Muzorewa, 2017: 108).
However, the development of high-and medium-density suburbs by PLDCs had intrinsic problems. PLDCs found the selling of residential plots in high-density suburbs so profitable that this affected the development of other important land-use schemes such as industrial and commercial. The development of Cranbrook Park is an example of a situation where a high-density suburb was prioritised over the establishment of an industrial area.
In the Ruwa Development Plan, Cranbrook farm had been zoned for industrial plot development, but the plan was changed to a residential one after the developer realised the dire need for plots for the low-income earners compared to industrial facilities (Palmer Associates Private Limited, 1996: 2). However, changing the Local Development Plan left  Figure 4 is a satellite view of Ruwa location residential suburb. The picture shows the southern part of the suburb, which is a medium-/ high-density residential area. Medium-to high-density suburbs were prioritised over industrial sites, as illustrated in Figure 5.

The development of public recreational and social amenities in Ruwa: A PLDC responsibility
PLDCs played a leading role in the development of public and social amenities in Ruwa, as they left open spaces for public recreational purposes. Sporting activities such as tennis, rugby, golf, cricket, hockey, basketball and swimming, regarded as European and affluent people's sports, were hitherto not culturally common among African communities (Cheater, 1986: 133). Recreational and sporting facilities were thus created considering that the larger part of the African population in Ruwa was not interested in them. Culturally, the Ruwa community was quite interested in soccer (football) and this influenced the private company-led development of soccer facilities in the town. This is why, in the Ruwa location, four residential park plots were turned into a vast sporting field used by residents for various sporting and cultural activities such as soccer, netball and traditional dance groups (Ruwa Town Council, 1996b: 2). PLDCs, therefore, provided an essential service and played an important role in establishing sporting arenas, which were part of public recreational facilities in the town.
In addition to recreational facilities, the companies also provided additional land for the construction of community amenities such as churches and beer halls. In Zimre Park, the developer reserved land for a beer garden, a tavern and a community beer hall (Ruwa Town Council, 2006a). Mashonaland Holdings also constructed Mavambo Beer Hall (Ruwa Town Council, 2006a). Religious denominations such as the Anglican Church, the United Methodist, the Methodist Church in Zimbabwe, the Seventh Day Adventist, His People Ministries, the Salvation Army and Maranatha benefited from the land that Mashonaland Holdings reserved for community purposes (Ruwa Town Council, 2011: 12). There were, for instance, eight church plots reserved for faith-based organisations in the Damofalls area and all of the plots were occupied by the end of 2001 (Ruwa Town Council, 2001a). In all the suburbs, at least one plot was reserved for a church. Churches catered for the religious, spiritual and social needs of the community. Nearly every member of a household in the Ruwa community went to church (Muzorewa, 2007: 120), and PLDCs played a huge role in providing such cherished facilities.  (Ruwa Town Council, 2006a). This prevented private investors such as Winwood from taking over land reserved for school development.

The development of educational and health facilities in Ruwa: A PLDC responsibility
In Chipukutu Park, the private land developer provided land for the establishment of a primary school and two crèches (Ruwa Town Council, 2004: 2). In 2001, when development of Damofalls Park started, the Damofalls PLDC, in an attempt to expand social services, facilitated the establishment of five primary schools and four plots for pre-school institutions (Ruwa Town Council, 2003a: 2). Land for school development was not easy for PLDCs to sell compared to residential plots which were in high demand. Therefore, the Ruwa local authorities ensured that the developer companies contributed towards school development by making it mandatory for PLDCs to set aside land for educational facilities. This helped avoid a shortage of schools in the town.
To cater for the health needs of the town, PLDCs further facilitated the establishment of health facilities such as clinics. In 1995, Mashonaland Holdings constructed a clinic in Ruwa location. According to Chidhakwa, the Ruwa Town Planner, in an interview on 5 June 2014, the clinic provided health services to residents from all low-income earning groups in the residential suburb. The clinic and polyclinics established by private developers had a bigger mandate, as they served a broad catchment. These health centres serviced not only Ruwa residents, but also the adjacent urban and peri-urban areas such as Epworth and Goromonzi.

Installation of water development systems
Apart from contributing towards the development of recreational, health and educational facilities, Ruwa PLDCs played an important part in the installation of water supply and water reticulation systems. In 2007, PLDCs operating in the northern part of Ruwa joined in creating the Ruwa River Consortium (RRC) or water development syndicate. This consortium had a mandate of improving water infrastructure in the town. The members of the RRC included prominent PLDCs such as ZB Financial Holdings, Fairview Land Developers, Barochit Land Developers, and Tawona Gardens.
To facilitate water provision to meet the rising demand, the RRC entered into a memorandum of understanding with the RLB in 2007 to construct a water reservoir (Ruwa Town Council, 2006b). The water reservoir, measuring 6.8m in height from its base, was constructed and elevated on Rambuko Ranch in Springvale (see Figure 6).
According to Bakaris, Director of Tawona Gardens, in an interview on 11 January 2015, the RRC is credited with constructing 60% of the main water system for the northern Ruwa suburbs, while the Local Authority put up the remainder of 40%. After constructing the reservoir, the Consortium also established a water pumping station and other water reservoirs at the Chiremba Road and Harare-Mutare Road intersections (Muzorewa, 2017: 120). These reservoirs were part of the main water infrastructure financed by PLDCs, but owned by the Local Authority, and their construction underscored the Authority's long-standing partnership with private land developers (Nyandoro & Muzorewa, 2017: 1-10). The amalgamation of PLDCs into a consortium that collaborated with the Local Authority played a crucial role in developing the water system in Ruwa.
PLDCs did not only work through consortiums in providing water infrastructure, but individual developers were involved in many different water infrastructure projects in the town. Damofalls Land Developers, for example, constructed a water treatment plant in Ventusburg, 74 km from Ruwa, to secure water supply for Damofalls Park. According to Mhiti, Financial Director of RTC, in an interview on 9 March 2012, the water plant not only supplied Damofalls Park, but also supplemented Ruwa Town's water supply from Harare City. Harare had served as the major water supplier for Ruwa since the town's inception as a growth point in 1986 (Nyandoro & Muzorewa, 2017: 3). Because of the high population growth in the town, which reached over 25 000 people in 1991 (Central Statistics, 2014), it was failing to meet the daily water requirements that were over 1 900m 3 per day in 1990 after Ruwa was given urban status (Davison, 2005: 89). The granting of town status had effectively reclused The drilling of boreholes further boosted water from the treatment plant. PLDCs such as Mashonaland Holdings, Springvale and ZB also sank boreholes used as water supplements in times of water shortages, that is, when the Council failed to supply water (Chirisa, 2013: 232). Mashonaland Holdings Limited worked in partnership with the Town Council in sinking six boreholes near residential areas in the Ruwa location (Davison, 2005: 25). The boreholes became very important when the Council failed to provide clean tap water because of limited water sources for the Local Authority. Hence, whenever there were water shortages, people queued for water at the boreholes.
In addition to boreholes, sewerage systems were established. Each PLDC was responsible for the construction of sewerage systems as well as connecting the sewerage pipes to the main pipes owned by the Local Authority. Ruwa's main sewerage infrastructure was put in place by PLDCs as part of the terms of their permits (Muzorewa, 2017: 125;Nyandoro & Muzorewa, 2017: 9). While the RRC constructed the main sewer system for the northern suburbs (Chirisa, 2013: 232), not all plots in Ruwa were serviced by piped sewerage systems. Some larger plots (over 1 000m 2 ) especially in the low-density and industrial areas were serviced by septic tanks.
Some septic tanks in parts of Ruwa, nevertheless, posed pollution dangers to the Ruwa river that flows underneath suburbs such as Zimre Park. According to the Ruwa Town Planner, soil samples from Zimre Park proved that the soil type was sandy and loose. This soil allowed sewerage to contaminate the river. Sewerage contamination led the Local Authority to warn the ZIMRE developer company against the environmental danger of using septic tanks in some parts of Zimre Park, but the PLDC was determined to cut the cost of sewer piping by using septic tanks (Chirisa, 2013: 109). Ultimately, no action was taken against the developer, because ZIMRE received its permit in the early 1990s when there were no strict regulations for the protection of the environment in the country. Environmental issues were only seriously considered after the enactment of the Environment Management Act (Chapter 20: 17) of 2002, which established the Environment Management Agency (EMA) to oversee the sustainable management and protection of the environment (Nyandoro, 2018). Therefore, it can be noted that, although PLDCs played a vital role in the establishment of sewerage systems in Ruwa, they often did not consider environmental issues.

Installation of road systems
PLDCs constructed the road system in Ruwa town to improve transportation efficiency. Developer companies graded and tarred all roads in the Ruwa industrial area, Ruwa location, Chipukutu, Windsor, and Zimre Park. Nevertheless, in certain suburbs, some developers such as Fairview and Barochit did not finish the construction of roads, while others such as Damofalls were very slow in completing the road-construction process (Ruwa Town Council, 2006c: 4-5). The companies attributed their failure to complete the construction of road infrastructure and their slow pace to the fact that the residential plots they were supposed to service were sold during the national economic crisis, which was characterised by hyperinflation. In 2008, inflation reached a record daily rate of 98% (Economics Help, 2018). Inflation made it difficult for the developer companies to invest the proceeds from the sales of plots in road construction, because it eroded profits. However, inflation cannot vindicate them from their failure to put in place road infrastructure, since it was their mandate to do so, as required by the development permit and their contractual agreement with the RLB.

Installation of electricity development systems
Besides road construction, PLDCs were responsible for the installation of electricity supply infrastructure in Ruwa. Every industrial complex was connected to the electricity supply system, while most of the residential areas had electricity installed. The developers, through the government's utility company, the Zimbabwe Electricity Supply Authority (ZESA), installed electricity in the town. ZESA Holdings carried out the establishment of ZESA substations in the residential suburbs, while the developer financed the process (Muzorewa, 2017: 126). The power utility company carried out electricity installations and re-routed power lines. Damofalls Land Developers provided seven plots for the erection of ZESA substations (Ruwa Town Council, 2003b: 2). This marked an important phase in the installation of electricity by PLDCs in Ruwa, which greatly assisted the Local Authority.
Although PLDCs were hailed for electricity infrastructure, some suburbs lagged behind in terms of electricity installations just as in the construction of roads. An example can be given of Fairview Park where, in phases one and two of the development project, the installation process was incomplete, with only poles and wiring in place. There were no electricity transformers by 2015 (Muzorewa, 2017: 28). Notwithstanding this, PLDCs still had a role to improve service delivery, given a local economy that was not performing.

Private land developers and the Ruwa local economy
Apart from providing housing and public infrastructure, PLDCs were involved in improving the local economy through establishing some commercial areas and shopping malls in the town (see Figure 5). Mashonaland Holdings, for example, constructed a commercial centre to service both industrial and residential areas. In these areas, services such as banking, shopping facilities and market places for locally produced agricultural and industrial commodities were provided. As part of their contribution to the local economy, all PLDCs paid endowments to the Local Authority for property development in Ruwa.
The endowments benefited the Council, as they constituted its land and revenue bases. One per cent of the land owned by the Local Authority was acquired through land development endowments from Mashonaland Holdings (Ruwa Town Council, 2011: 4). In Damofalls Park, the Damofalls Company gave part of the endowment to the RLB in the form of a plot (Ruwa Town Council, 2001b). Clearly, the Local Authority had no land prior to the involvement of the PLDCs in the town, as all the land was privately owned by these companies, after purchasing it from commercial farmers and individual plot holders in the area (Nyandoro & Muzorewa, 2017: 5). Therefore, land endowments gave the Local Authority the opportunity to own land in Ruwa.
Some cash endowments were also given to the Council. The Council received an average of 10% from the proceeds of the sale of high-density suburbs by Mashonaland Holdings, ZIMRE and Chipukutu Properties (Ruwa Town Council, 1996a: C14). The endowment ranged between 7% and 13% (depending on the size of the plots) of the proceeds from the sales of the plots in the development scheme. The endowment fees paid by the PLDCs became a major revenue source for the Local Authority, and without money from endowments, the operations of the Local Authority were not viable.
To improve the aesthetic value of the area, PLDCs in Ruwa played an important role in protecting the natural environment -a concept that attracts investors. This is contrary to the view of the critics of the private-public partnership approach in urban development that the private sector does not consider the environment in the urbanisation process because of their greed for profit-making (Mifaftab, 2004: 93;Nyandoro and Muzorewa, 2017: 6). In Ruwa, the indigenous Musasa trees, preserved in most of the suburbs in open spaces, demarcated different land uses. The development of the plots in Springvale was undertaken after the developer received positive recommendation from the Environment Impact Management Report prepared by the Director-General of EMA (Ruwa Town Council, 2011: 2). The PLDC had, in fact, employed security guards to guard the Springvale area against the illegal extraction of pit and river sand by local builders (Chirisa, 2013: 232).
In the process, ZB Financial Holdings (developers of Springvale residential park) saved the Ruwa river from pollution by preserving and protecting an open space along its edges (Muzorewa, 2017: 131). The open space left by ZB preserved the Ruwa river's ecological system by keeping human activities that caused pollution away from the river. Ruwa was also squatter free. Private security together with the Town Council security made the town impenetrable by squatters on private property. This improved the aesthetic value of the area while simultaneously preserving the ecological environment. The town being established by private entities, therefore, became exclusive.

CONCLUSION
The article concludes that the contribution and role played by PLDCs in urban development in postcolonial Zimbabwe with reference to Ruwa town was immense. It finds that, apart from facilitating the establishment of low-and high-density residential suburbs, developer companies contributed to the development of industrial and commercial areas, in spite of the ravages of an unremitting economic crisis in Zimbabwe that had the deleterious impact of hindering the industrialisation of the country. It provides a useful insight into these development issues in a unique situation. Some developers significantly facilitated the development of the built environment during the independence era by building residential suburbs in the town, while others developed industrial and commercial areas.
It is evident that all the PLDCs, in a unique Zimbabwean case of non-direct government investment in postcolonial urban growth, developed off-site and supporting infrastructure which included roads, sewerage and water reticulation systems. In order to satisfy all the public infrastructure needs of the town, the PLDCs reserved land for the development of public and community amenities such as education, health institutions, and recreational facilities, which filled an important social role.
In a country beset by an un-abating economic crisis, the endowment fees paid by the private developers became one of the Local Authority's major revenue sources. Endowments, which were paid in the form of land, significantly eliminated the Council's land scarcity predicament by providing the required land. The endowments that were paid in cash to a certain extent allayed the cash woes of the Ruwa Town Council -a factor that eased the administrative costs of the Council during the crisis. Invariably, the permit system guaranteed urban council administration and control. For example, it was only after the issuing of a certificate of compliance to the PLDCs that the Local Authority took over the administration of off-site infrastructure and public amenities such as toilets, market places, open spaces, buffer zones, and sporting fields. This increased council-owned premises in the area, since the Council could not afford to build the facilities itself, because it did not have the money.
However, although the PLDCs' role in developing Ruwa was remarkable, the article demonstrated that it was not always positive as in some suburbs such as Tawona Park, Fairview Park, Cranbrook and Barochit, the development of off-site infrastructure was slow and, in other parts, it was incomplete. Economic challenges sometimes compromised the quality of PLDC-developed infrastructure; hence, developer companies failed to meet the required standards set by the urban planning authorities as stipulated in the land development permit. Notwithstanding the shortcomings of PLDCs, the companies still carried an important economic, social and infrastructural responsibility and, without them, the area would not have developed into the sprawling town it was by 2015. The postcolonial State's acquiescence to draw on the services provided by PLDCs illustrates that the companies were, therefore, effective instruments in ensuring the success of the liberal urban development strategy adopted by the local town planners in spite of their shortcomings. Hence, the embryonic town of Ruwa is simultaneously an example and an exception as one of the few success stories of post-independence urban planning in Zimbabwe in a time of un-abating economic crisis.