REPORT
OF THE
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
ON THE
‘DRAFT REVISED MASTER PLAN -
2015’
OF THE
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
NOVEMBER 2005
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ADVISORY
COMMITTEE ON THE REVISED MASTER PLAN 2015 OF THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
53. The BDA needs to adopt a new approach in
certain respects :
54.
HOUSING : All slums
irrespective of legal status should be marked in the Master Plan, and listed in
the Planning District Reports. This has more than symbolic significance. As an
addendum to the Revised Master Plan a separate study on the housing needs of
the urban poor in Bangalore needs to be prepared, and a programme of housing
implemented during the period of the
Plan.
55.
There is need to provide for low income housing within easy
distance from work, and ensure a basic set of services and sanitation in such
colonies. Development control and sub-division regulations should be on the
basis of detailed plans for such areas. Areas for service personnel
(washerwomen, servants, local sanitation workers, etc.) should be shown in layout plans – up to 5 or
10% of the population.
56.
The housing board and
slum improvement board should take up public housing programmes on such lands
specifically for the low income tenants. In the first place there should be
list of such lands, which should consist of all lands which are not required by
the village community. Details of such land should be made public.
57.
LANDS HELD BY
GOVERNMENT : Government needs to articulate a policy with regard to land under
the Revenue Department. There should be a policy of making public lands
available for priority housing for the weaker sections. The first claim to such
land should be to the BDA and to agencies such as the Housing Board and the
Slum Improvement Board for the specific purpose of public housing for the
poorer families.
58.
INTEGRATION OF
VILLAGES WITH THE URBAN FABRIC : BDA should develop a model plan for the
villages which are likely to get submerged in the urban growth so that the
villagers share the benefit of urban standards of housing and infrastructure.
59.
URBAN AMENITIES : A
time frame of six months should be determined for deciding on the urban
amenities required to be provided in each Planning District, and land for
locating them should also be identified.
60.
FOLLOW UP PLANNING : As
immediate follow up there is need for three levels of detailed planning: that
of the BDA, that of the Service/Sectoral Agencies, and that of the Planning
Districts/Wards. Ward level planning should be a fully participatory exercise
involving the local residents. State Government and BDA should set up Working
Groups for each of these levels of planning with a time limit of 3 months to
draw up their respective courses of action. Financial planning should come in
at this stage
61.
The areas to be
entrusted to the respective Working Groups are :
i.
Strengthening and
restructuring of the Bangalore Development Authority for implementation of the
Revised Master Plan 2015, especially its Town Planning Division, and capacity
for implementation of Public-Private Partnerships
ii.
Heritage conservation
schemes for sites identified in the Plan, and inclusion of any others, and
issues of urban design
iii.
Area improvement schemes,
development of shadow areas, slums; housing schemes such as public housing and
rental housing
iv.
Transport and
utilities schemes
v.
Village integration
and development plan for the 200 meter area beyond the perimeter of the
existing village
vi.
Planning for lands
designated for Public and semi public land use, parks and open spaces, large
infrastructure and large transportation structures, and other dedicated land
uses marked in the Revised Master Plan 2015
vii.
City sub-centres
including their location, amenities and facilities to be provided, access,
public-private partnerships, and major activities for each sub-centre
viii.
Criteria for declaration
of Transformation Zones, Commercial Axis, and Mutation Corridor, and
finalization of the areas to be declared under each
62. Government should
consider setting up a high level committee for the implementation of the
Revised Master Plan 2015 of the BDA. The Committee should be headed by the
Chief Secretary.
63. The Committee is of the view that its Report is a
part of the wider debate relating to the Master Plan and future of the City.
The Committee would like its Report to be made available to the public, and
hopes that the State Government will comply with this suggestion.
CHAPTER 1
: INTRODUCTION
1.1 The extent
of Bangalore Metropolitan Area notified in 1984 is now recalculated at 1306 sq.
kms. from the earlier 1279 sq. kms. With
the formation of the Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project Planning
Area, 65 sq. kms. went out of the jurisdiction of the Bangalore Development
Authority, though, of course, in
practical terms this area continues to be part of Bangalore in very many ways,
not the least because of the BMICP Road (proposed in this Report to be the Proposed Peripheral Ring Road for
this stretch) which passes through this area, and all the developments which
interlock it with the Local Planning Area of the Bangalore Development Authority.
1.2 The
Local Planning Area falls into two broad categories of urbanized and
non-urbanized areas (lands). The area which is not urbanized is mostly
classified in land revenue records as agricultural. It cannot be used for non-agricultural – or, urban –
use unless it is first brought under the conurbation area, and then converted
to non-agricultural use. A Master Plan determines the extent of urbanization,
and what is not brought under urbanization continues to remain agricultural
land, which is intended for cultivation, and liable to pay land revenue to the
Government. The agricultural area needs to be carefully determined for a variety of reasons, such as the
implausibility of providing infrastructure and municipal services which an
urban area requires, to avoid loss of cultivable land, to prevent purely
speculative holding of land, to prevent loss to farmers if land is alienated
before authentic demand is built up, and for environmental support to the urban
area by preserving greenery, water resources and life forms found in nature,
preservation of features of nature whose value is being discovered once again
as essential for protection against vagaries of nature, and so on. The Bangalore
Metropolitan Area is large enough for accommodating for the foreseeable future
period both the needs of the growth of the city and the essential ‘Green Zone’
around the conurbation which has been even in the past a feature of planning
for Bangalore. The available land however, needs to be carefully husbanded. Thus
determination of the area to be urbanized in the period of a Master Plan is one
of the most important objectives of the Master Plan or Revised Master Plan.
1.3 The
Advisory Committee was set up by the Government of Karnataka to study the responses received from the public to the Draft
Revised Master Plan 2015 of the BDA (the Draft or Draft RMP 2015). The
intention of appointing the Committee is obviously to assist the BDA and the State Government to take
decisions on the changes if any to be incorporated in the Draft Revised Master
Plan 2015 before its finalization. On the Committee’s part, it was felt that
our task after study of the responses is to funnel the diversity of views
received from the stakeholders into focal areas on which the Committee would
then furnish its own opinions, keeping in view the objectives of preparing the
Revised Master Plan 2015 as laid down in the Karnataka Town and Country Planning
Act 1961 and the need for speedy implementation of the Plan in the best
interests of the quality of life of the citizens of Bangalore, and ensure that
the growth of the city is achieved in an orderly fashion.
1.4 The
responses of the public were required to be filed by 20th of
September 2005. The Committee had before it about 4000 pages of material
received from responding individuals and groups. The Committee is of the view that its Report is a part of the wider
debate relating to the Master Plan and future of the City. The Committee would
like its Report to be made available to the public, and hopes that the State
Government will comply with this suggestion.
1.5 The task
of the Committee was only to advise on public responses placed before it.
However, the range and extent as well as the volume of responses was very wide.
Individual requests needed to be viewed in the context of the planning concept
or planning proposal which lay at the back of the problem felt by the
responders. The Committee has therefore had to deal with the issues in a broad
manner but hastens to clarify that the Report is not to be construed as a full
review of the Draft Revised Master Plan 2015 of the BDA. A full review of the
draft would require a wider mandate, and much more time and resources.
1.6 It
will be observed from this Report that there are not many instances where the
individual requests relating to particular lands have been dealt with. The
resolution of most of the individual problems requires verification of facts of
the case from the records. In some cases a hearing may also be called for. Most
of the requests arise out of changed zoning of the lands involved. Some cases
involve legal issues because the land involved has received approval from
authorities including the Government, and in some cases the land allotted by or
purchased from the BDA. In the
course of its Report the Committee has attempted to make its recommendation as
to the general principles which can form the basis for deciding the individual
cases. These cases require not a
Committee of this kind, but a designated authority within the BDA and a process
of verification of the facts which can then lead to a decision. It is now for the BDA to take up the
individual cases for specific decisions, for which the response forms or
letters/applications already filed with the BDA during the prescribed period of
60 days to respond to the Draft RMP 2015, should be the basis.
1.7 Despite
the wide range of responses received, in the Committee’s observation the
process of public information and response has still left several areas and
sections of public inadequately
touched. The most notable of these is the relatively muted representations from
the ‘shadow areas’, which constitute along with the traffic and transport
problems, the most important of issues affecting the quality of life of a major
part of the residents of the city. From the affected villages to which the
urbanization is now proposed to be extended also the Committee did not come
across many responses.
1.8 The
provisions of the KTCP Act 1961 relating to preparation of Master Plans has to
be kept in focus.
“12. Contents of Master Plan.- (1) The Master Plan shall consist of a series of
maps and documents indicating the manner in which the development and
improvement of the entire planning area within the jurisdiction of the Planning
Authority are to be carried out and regulated, such plan shall include
proposals for the following, namely.-
a)
zoning of land use
for residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational,
educational and other purposes together with Zoning Regulations;
b)
a complete street
pattern, indicating major and minor roads, national highways, and state
highways, and traffic circulation pattern, for meeting immediate and future
requirements with proposals for improvements;
c)
areas reserved for
parks, playgrounds, and other recreational uses, public open spaces, public
buildings and institutions and area reserved for such other purposes as may be
expedient for new civic developments;
d)
areas earmarked for
future development and expansion;
e)
reservation of land
for the purposes of Central Government, the State Government, Planning
Authority or public utility undertaking or any other authority established by
Law, and the designation of lands being subject to acquisition for public
purposes or as specified in Master Plan or securing the use of the landing in
the manner provided by or under this Act;
f)
declaring certain
areas, as areas of special control and development in such areas being subject
to such regulations as may be made in regard to building line, heights of the
building, floor area ratio, architectural features and such other particulars
as may be prescribed;
g)
stages by which the
plan is to be carried out.
Explanation.-(i) “Building Line” means the line up
to which the plinth of a building adjoining a street may lawfully extend and
includes the lines prescribed, if any, in scheme;
(ii) “Floor Area Ratio” means the quotient of the
ratio of the combined gross floor area of all the floors, excepting areas
specifically, exempted under the regulations, to the total area of the plot.
(2) The following particulars shall be published an
sent to the State Government through the Director along with the master plan,
namely.-
(i) a report of the surveys carried out by the
Planning Authority before the preparation of such plan;
(ii) report explaining the provisions of the Master
Plan
(iii) regulations in respect of each land use
zone to enforce the provisions of such plan and explaining the manner in which
necessary permission for developing any land can be obtained from the Planning
Authority;
(iv) a report of the stages by which it is
proposed to meet the obligations imposed on the Planning Authority by such
plan.
(3) Master Plan shall indicate “Heritage Buildings”
and “Heritage Precincts” and shall include the regulations made therein for
conservation of the same.”
1.9 The ‘Master Plan’ under the Act regulates land
use, zoning, and development control. The street pattern is specifically to be
provided in the Master Plan, as also land for public purposes. It is evident
that in the growth and management of a city, these only part requirements,
however important in themselves. The Draft Revised Master Plan 2015 disappoints
people who took the ‘Master Plan’ to be a comprehensive all-inclusive plan covering
all aspects of the problems facing the city. It is seen that people expect that
at least those services which are within the purview of public authorities to
provide, should be covered in the Master Plan. Even if the law does not say so,
it is well within the means of the State Government to instruct the agencies
under its purview to provide their respective plans to the BDA. In particular, the issues of transport and
traffic, water supply and sanitation, housing, commercial and industrial
development etc, as well as measures for the decongestion of the city have been
inadequately touched, which indicates a certain lack of coordination between
the different agencies. This needs to be remedied even now by preparing separate
sectoral plans relating to water supply and sewerage, transport, power supply,
municipal services, etc. For these services the Master Plan is the starting point,
because it lays out for the concerned agencies the scope of the work ahead of them.
1.10 In
the ten years since CDP 1995, Bangalore has witnessed massive changes in its
features, growing into a hub of the IT industry in particular, with attendant
growth in population, vehicles, buildings, and economic activity. It has been
one of the most popular destinations for investors. Correspondingly, the poor state
of city’s infra-structure has drawn much attention, and in some quarters doubts
have been expressed whether the city can indeed cope with its status as a
growing metropolis. There have in fact been significant investments in the
city’s infrastructure for roads, public transport, water supply, and municipal
services but it is evident that much more needs to be done to achieve a quality
of life in the city for all sections of its population commensurate with its
ambitions to be a world city. Parts of the city have undergone transformation
which had not been foreseen, thanks to pulls for space for activities not
originally planned in the largely residential, ‘pensioners’ paradise’ kind of an urban settlement that Bangalore
at one time was. Nature of non-residential activities have changed with rise
and fall of some old, public-sector led industries and neglect and degeneration
of early industrial areas, while there is some movement towards newer IT-led
establishments and revitalization of some manufacturing sectors. Extensions
have changed their character beyond recognition, and there are powerful
contrary pulls regarding the use of prime areas of the city. The changes are
too numerous to detail in this brief report.
1.11 The
decade ahead relating to the revised Master Plan is therefore of crucial importance, some would say the most
important period in the life of the city which may make it or mar it for all of
future. The Revised Master Plan 2015 therefore has a role and a responsibility
to ensure that even while Bangalore grows into a Metropolis, the quality of
life in the city which has apparently taken a knock in recent years, is
retrieved and improved, across all sections of its residents. Those
engaged in framing and implementing the Revised Master Plan must learn from the
recent history of Bangalore’s growth, the successes and failures of its
institutions entrusted with various aspects of urban management and their
efforts in this direction, the national and global experience of cities growing
in a tearing hurry, and the pitfalls of
ignoring important social, ecological, and sustainability issues, and apply
these lessons in the planning and regulation of the city’s growth in the
immediate years ahead.
1.12 Along
with technical innovations, the Draft RMP 2015 brings about significant changes
in the approach to planning for the city. Advances in technology such as GIS
have been adopted to good effect and the quality of the document has been
widely appreciated. Apart from better maps and other basic data which are
provided in far greater detail than in the previous CDPs, there are important changes in the planning and zoning concepts, and
proposed regulations. To a degree this is the result of a particular and possibly
more analytical understanding of the trend and direction, and the dynamics and
the complexity of urban growth, its planning needs, and its regulation keeping
in view the future of the city. Consequently, there is an inevitable degree of
effort - if not difficulty - in making the transition from the old Zoning
Regulations to the new, which must be addressed. There are, of course, many
views which disagree with the proposals contained in the Draft, and these are
the issues this Report is mainly concerned with.
1.13 The
process of making a Master Plan : There has been suggestion that the process
was not participatory enough, that there should have been a more ‘bottom up’
approach. Discussion of the Draft with the public is, as many have accepted, a
step forward compared to earlier practice. There is vocal demand for involving
the residents as groups and neighbours in land use changes. It is advisable to involve the residents in
the decisions affecting them such as declaring a Transformation Zone or a
Commercial Axis or a Mutation Corridor, before such a decision is taken,
sharing with them the considerations which have led to the proposal. There is
also need for greater transparency and public consultation in any changes in
land from the use as per zoning regulations, especially if the powers under S.
14A are exercised. Apart from this, we will be suggesting a further process of
plan-making at the Ward level, where participation of the public and elected
representatives will again be recommended.
There have been suggestions relating to the Metropolitan
Planning Committee, on which it is appropriate that the State Government take
decision in accordance with the provisions contained in the Constitution
through the 74th Amendment.
1.14 The Revised Master Plan 2015 should conform to
the provisions of S. 12 of the KTCP Act, 1961. The Draft RMP 2015 is presented
in five volumes, and it is to be emphasized that all these are considered only to
be drafts. By definition therefore, they are likely to undergo changes before
finalization. The volumes are:
Volume 1 – Master Plan Report – 2015 : Vision Document
Volume 2 – Existing Land Use Maps
Volume 3 – Proposed Land Use Maps
Volume 4 – Land Use Zonal Regulations
Volume 5 – Planning Districts Report
1.15 On
perusal, the Vision Document and the Land Use Zonal Regulations in particular
will require to be subjected to corrections and tight editing, as they contain
many errors, tentative data, and inconsistencies. The Vision Report in
particular should avoid repetitive coverage of the same issues which has
sometimes led to inconsistent treatment.
The Vision Document is intended to contain the
basic assumptions, approaches, and understanding of the issues facing Bangalore
city. The Vision Document contains many suggestions and hints on what
needs attention. While these are
important areas for action, the suggestions are left undeveloped. The details
of the proposals need to be filled in, and to facilitate follow-up, model plans
should be developed to illustrate what is being proposed. The law, however, requires
‘a report explaining the provisions of the Master Plan’. This calls for a
chapter each on some of the important aspects of the Master Plan from an
implementation perspective. As an instance,
while considerable work has been done to identify roads to be built and
traffic, transport, and commuter facilities
to be provided, a comprehensive treatment which will show the total picture of
the proposals relating to roads and road based transport - street pattern,
traffic circulation pattern, new roads and roads to be improved taking into
account the requirements of different parts of the city, access to the new
airport, facilities for private bus operators, KSRTC and BMTC and their
interconnection, multi-modal transport, intra-city and mofussil / long distances
bus services, etc., - is missing. Similarly the major provisions relating to
residential development, development of industry and commerce – both
traditional and modern, high-tech including the IT industry, the Green Zone and
other protected lands and water bodies, integration of the villages into the
urban fabric, the problems of slums and the shadow areas, are among those
pertinent issues of the city and the Master Plan needs to treat them individually
in some detail in such a fashion as to give the entirety of the problems and
their solutions which are provided in the Master Plan, each on in a separate
chapter.
In our view these are covered in the requirements
of the ‘report explaining the provisions of the Master Plan’, and should be
part of the Revised Master Plan 2015. Support documents with maps should be
generated for each sector (transport, water supply, sewerage, drainage, power)
along with phasing and cost estimates. This should have the approval of the
sectoral departments and made part of the Master Plan for BDA 2015. In
particular the map for the integrated protection of lakes, valleys, and water
bodies is a crucial map requiring statutory acceptance, and should also have a
programme for the protection and rehabilitation of the water bodies.
1.16 Change
in Planning Area : The 1306 sq. kms. includes 65 sq kms of BMICPA area. An
Outline Development Plan for the BMICPA area has already been prepared. BMICPA
area contains in addition to the 65 sq. kms. which were earlier part of the
CDP, the length of the expressway area stretching all the way to Mysore. This
is a significant development in extending the advantages of the
Metropolitan Bangalore to its
hinterland along the corridor to Mysore. It is necessary to discuss in the
Revised Master Plan the dovetailing of the BMICPA area with the Revised Master Plan
2005 of the BDA because there is an umbilical relation between the two Planning
Areas which can be exploited for the benefit of city and the Southern Karnataka
region.
1.17 Developments
in the Bangalore Metropolitan Region and the Bangalore International Airport
Planning Area : The observation that the Master Plan should comply with s. 81-C
requiring it to be submitted through the BMRDA is valid and should be done even
at this stage. Legally, the Master Plan for BMA has to sit within the BMRDA
Plan. A chapter can still be added identifying the impact of the Bangalore
Metropolitan Region and developments therein such as the new Bangalore
International Airport, on the Bangalore Metropolitan Area. The new
International Airport, though located outside the BDA limits, will still be the
airport for the city. As with the BMICPA, its impact will be felt both within
and outside the BDA limits, and the salience of this development to the city requires
discussion in the Revised Master Plan 2015.
1.18 Planning
Districts : The LPA is divided in 47 Planning Districts, which fall into three
concentric area groupings – core, developed around core, and extension in
outskirts – also described as the 1st, 2nd and 3rd
Ring areas.
Concern has expressed that the CMCs and Panchayat
jurisdictions should not cut across Planning District boundaries, or vice
versa. Though the Planning District is not an administrative unit, the local
government jurisdictions are important, and there appears to be no valid reason
why the wards of the CMCs/TMC, and
Panchayat jurisdictions are not followed in the Planning Districts to avoid
fragmented responsibility. Such convergence would enable detailed plans through
wards and where a focused public participation is possible.
1.19 The
legends in the Existing Land Use Maps and Master Plan and Proposed Land Use
Maps should be the same to facilitate comparisons on changes between 2005 and
2015. The KTCP Act and the BDA Act have
prescribed the range of broad land
uses. The legend of the maps could be reformatted accordingly, with variations
only in sub- categories. The same should apply to each of the Planning District
maps.
CHAPTER 2
: PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH AND OUTWARD GROWTH OF THE CITY – MEETING LAND
NEEDS FOR DIFFERENT SECTORS IN 2015
2.1 According
to Existing Land Use Survey 2003 carried out in the course of the preparation
of the Draft, the urbanization of the city reached by the year 2003 was 565 sq.
kms., which is the same as the geographical extent which had been projected for
urbanization by the year 2011 in CDP 95, which was 564.6 sq. kms. However there
are major differences between the two: area under Residential, projected at
243.69 sq. kms. for 2011, was only 143 sq. km. in 2003. There was an extent of 180 sq. km. of
developed vacant land in the urbanized area which had not been foreseen. This
is particularly striking, because it is as much as 31.9% of the total urbanized
area in 2003. There are sharp shortfalls in area under Parks and Open Spaces in
existing land use 2003 as compared with the allocated CDP 95 - 2.8% against
8.7%. The area under Transport and Communication also fell short at 13.9% as
compared with the allocated CDP 95 of 20.7%. Thus there are far fewer parks and
open spaces, and far less area under
roads and transport facilities than had been planned. These are important
shortfalls in the achievement of CDP 1995, and have serious impact on transport
in particular, and quality of life in general.
2.2 It
is projected that by 2015 the population of the Bangalore Metropolitan
Area will reach 8.848 million, and the Draft attempts to
propose the required increase in urbanization in order to meet the increase in
population. The area to be urbanized depends on the density assumed. Between
2001 and 2015 the projected evolution of densities is as follows:
-
BCC: from 191 to 236 persons
/ ha
-
Conurbation area: from 100 persona
/ ha to 110 persons / ha
Against this, to take only the new extensions in
the 3rd Ring, the actual average existing net density in these Planning Districts is worked out at around 195 persons per ha. For comparison, in
the six localities of Indira Nagar, Koramangala, Jayanagar, Banashankari,
Vijayanagar, Rajajinagar – taken as a group because of their predominance of
good lay-outs – the average of net densities works out to 457 persons per ha. For
a megacity 100 pph overall would be on the low side. In Delhi, it was assessed
that 170-180 pph overall would be the maximum possible for planned development.
2.3 From
the assessment of population growth, a proposal to increase land under
Residential use from 143 sq. kms. in 2003 to 280 sq. kms. in 2015 has been
made. However in arriving at the size of urbanization by 2015, it appears an assumed
rate of ‘urban sprawl’, and a proposal to extend the urbanization to the area
inside the PPRR, have also played a part. The result is that the area proposed
is far larger than what the city requires by 2015. To treat the ‘urban sprawl’ of
4.54%, which is much higher than the rate of growth of population even while
there is a vast area of ‘vacant developed’ land is to contradict the stated objective
of the Master Plan which is to contain the outward growth of the city in the
interests of better provision and management of urban infrastructure, and
protection of the agricultural zone. The Vision Document states that the
‘expansive mode of development uses a lot of space, is costly to equip and
encourages the use of individual transport…’ It also speaks of incoherence in
the management of urban extension with ‘neither planning nor even a larger
framework’, and absence of control on development. Thus the Master Plan speaks
on the one hand of the need to densify
the already urbanized part, and simultaneously assumes an outward growth. In
both urbanized parts and area to be urbanized hereafter a net density of levels
far below the actual existing levels is assumed, to justify the outward
expansion of the city. To accommodate this assumed inexorable ‘sprawl’ of the
urban Bangalore, the Green Zone of CDP 95 is breached, and even the Proposed Peripheral
Ring Road which is otherwise treated as the outer limit, is crossed at certain
points.
2.4 The
Vision Document states that ‘existing urbanized areas within which urban
renewal and transformation of old zones must be encouraged to limit urbanization
costs and to improve the cost-effectiveness of infrastructures (transport,
potable water, etc.)’ and that ‘future extensions are to be organized and planned
while ensuring the coherence of their development with respect to evolving
needs and available infrastructure and with a real involvement of the private
sector.’ These are sound ideas which if implemented will help reduce the urban
sprawl.
2.5 For
the BDA, an overall density of between 140 to 150 pph should be aimed at for
2015. This would enable a more compact growth at the periphery and more land for greenery now (in the
interstices between the corridors) but more
compact growth beyond 2015. This would also address the planned
objectives of eco-management plans, primarily:
a) High density – Low rise (overall)
b) Compact services delivery
c) Multi-modal intra city transport
2.6 THE
PHENOMENON OF VACANT DEVELOPED LAND : Given the existence of 18,000 hectares of
‘vacant developed’ land – defined as ‘essentially land that is fully or
partially serviced but unbuilt/non-habitated as per Existing Land Use Survey
2003 carried out by SCE’- the attempt
should be bring these areas under construction, rather than further add to this
category of land. There is little discussion in the Draft of the causes and
contributing factors to the amazing amount of ‘vacant undeveloped’ land which
exceeds the actual built residential area of the city as it exists (143 sq.
kms.). The phenomenon of vacant developed land in the city, even exceeding the
existing residential built up area, is apparently the consequence of a number
of factors which can be surmised as speculative holding of land, unsuitability
of location of some the lay-outs, inadequate opportunities for employment in
extension areas, non-availability of infrastructure, excess supply of land not
immediately required for development etc. To this must be added the
developments in the neighbouring areas of the Bangalore International Airport and
other parts of BMRDA bordering on the BMA. At this juncture the absence of the
sub-regional context is keenly felt, as there is little light thrown on what is
the level of growth in the Bangalore Metropolitan Region.
2.7 The
conurbation area should not be equated as the area of the ‘urban sprawl’ to
come in the ten year period, as suggested in the Draft, but should be defined
as that area in which during the period of the RMP 2015, the agencies concerned
can provide a reasonable amount of infrastructure and services, which again can
only be the area which is realistically required to be brought under
construction for housing and other needs. Considering the increasing cost of
covering larger and larger areas under urbanization coupled with decreasing cost-effectivenss,
the restriction on horizontal outward growth is a necessity for orderly
development of the city. The conurbation proposal should not aid and encourage
speculative but premature transactions in land in the outskirts, but should aim
at assisting farmers who own land in the outskirts to get better prices by
delaying the sale of lands till genuine demand has built up.
2.8 Prescribing
and enforcing the restricted development area/agricultural zone in the outer Planning Districts the Green
Zone is one of the means of checking the growth of the city. The Green Zone is
in addition a necessity for environmental support to the city-dwellers. The Green Zone under the CDP 95 was 736 sq.
kms., as estimated by the Consultants taking into account the change in the
overall area of the BMA. According to survey, the existing/developments
encroachments within the CDP 95 Green Zone is 33 sq. kms., i.e., 4.5% of the
Green Zone. This shows a fairly good degree of preservation of the Green Zone,
and is somewhat contrary to the general belief that there is widespread
violation. However, there is another set of figures in the Planning District
Reports, according to which land under quarries,
lakes and tanks, and agriculture in the Planning Districts of the 3rd
Ring works out to 688 sq. kms. If we take this figure, then a violation of a
larger order of 13.6% appears likely. Nevertheless, despite expression of much
fear regarding the Green Zone and its enforcement, it appears that the
agricultural zone can still be counted upon to check the growth of the urban
sprawl.
Area
under lakes, quarries, and agricultural land in Planning Districts of the 3rd
Ring as per Existing Land Use Survey
2003:
Group 1 – West and South Planning
Districts of the 3rd Ring :
35225.7 ha
Group 2 – East and North Planning
Districts of the 3rd Ring :
33573.5 ha
TOTAL : 68799 ha
The proposed conurbation area of the BDA LPA is 786
sq kms, with a Green Zone consisting of a Restricted Development Zone of 283 sq km and agricultural land of 172 sq
km, making a total of 455 sq kms. The existing urbanized area 2003 is 565 sq
km, to which an area of 221 sq km is proposed to be added raising the
conurbation area 2015 to 786 sq kms. This results in a reduced Green Zone/Agricultural
land of 455 sq kms.
2.9 Considering
the above, there is need for a
realistic figure of net density by the year 2015 for the ‘developed vacant’
lands, and the newly urbanized outlying areas. In Delhi in the Master Plan for
2021 the overall projection is 155 pph. For Bangalore at 150 pph, the
requirement will be 566 sq. kms. by 2015. This much of urbanization in fact has
already been achieved. Even assuming a slightly lower density, the Green Zone
can certainly be kept at not less than 550 sq kms, or even 600 sq. kms. which
will still make available adequate extent of land for conurbation during the
period up to 2015. All large land owning agencies should develop their land on
the basis of a plan to fit into BDA RMP-2015 with overall densities prescribed.
For military lands the density could be 100 pph keeping with their low
intensity ambience. The Committee is of the view that the area proposed for
conurbation under the Revised Master Plan 2015 is excessive and both the proposed
conurbation area and the Green Zone require to be re-worked, decreasing the one
and increasing the other.
2.10 ZONING
, EXISTING LAND USE DATA, AND PLANNING DISTRICT REPORTS : Zoning has a powerful
effect on the growth of the different parts of the city. In the CDP95 the
zoning followed a somewhat simple pattern – there were designated lands for
residential, commercial, industrial, transport, public and semi-public, parks
and open spaces etc. Since the Draft documents do not provide a detailed review
of the CDP 95, there is no overall picture of the growth of different Planning
Districts, or the degree of conformity to the proposed zoning in the CDP.
However, the shortfall in some categories such as open spaces, including parks,
and transport and communication have already been noted. The roads which were
delineated did just not happen. Lands were not acquired for open spaces and
parks. On the other hand vacant developed land has proliferated.
2.11 There
are changes in zoning in the new Master Plan and the system of classification is
also different. It is not necessary to go into all the details of the proposed zoning.
Suffice it to note that the emphasis is on pragmatic zoning. According the document, ‘the mono-functional
parcel based land wise proposals are rigid and do not recognize the larger
trends in areas/territories. To enable
diverse zones with land uses responsive to the ground realities a zone based on
the territory is considered…’ However, terms such as ‘Mixed Land Use Zone’ is a
contradiction in terms because zoning under the law is a process of defining
land for specific uses and purposes. Therefore such terms should not figure in
a Master Plan. ‘Mixed Residential’ is however a zone where the nature of land
use itself has grown over time to contain large amounts of both residential and
non-residential uses.
2.12 Changes
in zoning from CDP 95 to the Revised Master Plan 2015 is a major concern for
many land holders. Many of the responses received relate to changes mandated by
change in classification system, as well as change in the zone into which a
parcel of land falls thanks to the changes proposed in the Revised Master Plan
2015. For instance, if a piece of land
was in Residential Zone earlier, and now gets modified in the new Master Plan
into industrial or high-tech or logistics zone, what is the remedy to someone
who had planned, or even taken approval, for construction of a house, and what
of a house already constructed in such a zone ? Many responses are on the point that the area proposed for a
particular zone is already developed on other lines, and is not suitable for
the proposed zone.
2.13 The
document itself clarifies that ‘the regulations proposed are not retrospective
and allows for developments that are lawfully established prior to the coming
into effect of zonal regulations.’ In the CDP1995 it was stated that
‘nonconforming uses (are)…to be
…gradually eliminated over years without inflicting unreasonable
hardship upon the property owner.’ These are standard provisions in the process
of bringing into effect a new set of zonal regulations. Since the Master Plan
permits flexibility in land use in zoning, it may be possible to accommodate
the desire of existing land owners to put land to a particular use. However,
there will be cases where the land holders may find it inappropriate to proceed
with their plans because the neighbourhood itself changes character. The
following course of action is suggested for the BDA to follow:
2.14 The
Draft breaks new ground as far as Bangalore is concerned with regard to the
zoning. It breaks down the BMA into three concentric rings, and within each
ring each there are Planning Districts, and various Zones which determine land
use and development. The three rings are more descriptive of the historical and
secular development of the city over a long period, whereas the zonal
regulations are designed for the three Land Use Zone categories of Main Areas,
Specific Areas and Constraint Area Zones. The Main Areas are further
sub-divided into Old Urban Areas, Urban Redevelopment areas, Residential areas,
Industrial/activity areas, and Green areas. Within the zone, the main land use
category, ancillary uses, and the permissible development and land use are
defined with the back up of the Master
Plan strategies. The categorization of ‘Intensely Developed’, ‘Moderately
Developed’ and ‘Sparsely Developed’ found in the CDP of 1995 and which were
shown as A, B and C in the Map to Read Zoning Regulations has been done
away with. The proposed zonal
development control regulations relating
to permissible uses, FAR and other
aspects of building construction, will be discussed subsequently in the report.
2.15 Wherever
obvious errors in the maps, locations, categorization of existing land use,
etc. are brought to light, corrections should be made before finalization of
the Revised Master Plan 2015.
2.16 The
list of permissible industries in the Mixed Residential areas, it was pointed
out, does not include textile industries such as weaving, twisting, dyeing etc.
These are traditional industries in many parts of the city, and they should be
incorporated in Table 31. Industrial
Land use category.
CHAPTER 3 : INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE CITY
(a) ROADS
AND TRANSPORT;
3.1 The
transportation Land Use is a major component of the Master Plan. For the
Bangalore Metropolitan Region this comprises of a synergy between intra- and
inter-settlement road and rail transport and inter-settlement air transport.
These are for transporting both goods and people. As a system, transportation
is intrinsically related to Land Use and for the mega agglomeration of the
BMR/BDA, multimodal transport is a necessity. The roads of Bangalore are
inadequate for its growing vehicular population. The strengthening of the road
network is therefore of prime necessity. The special provisions which can help in
implementation of road schemes are the non-lapseability of the land zoned for
roads (s. 69), and the provisions in the Act relating to Transfer of
Development Rights.
3.2 There
is need for a separate chapter discussing the proposals relating to the
strengthening of the road network. The Master Plan needs to specify a hierarchy
of roads in the new areas, as well as propose widening and strengthening of
selected existing roads. The Committee has certain suggestions to make regarding
the Basic Transport Sector (Annex 1). It was stated that in the Draft that new
roads to the extent of 164 kms have been proposed in the Master Plan. The CDP
of 1995 contained neat grids of roads, but these have not been realized. This
should not happen in the Revised Master Plan. The roads to be formed or widened
should be should be clearly shown in the Proposed Land Use Maps. They should bedemarcated
on ground so that land-owners know the zoning
The exercise of Transfer of Development Rights
requires that the Authority shall publish annual programme for road widening or
construction of new road or for any other public purpose specified in S. 14-B
of the Act, for granting TDRs. There is need for a phasing of the road programme
for purpose of TDR, which should then be followed scrupulously.
3.4 The
importance of access to the new airport is almost entirely ignored. The draft
should indicate the route to the new Airport from different parts of the city,
and the development which needs to be taken to improve such access. The airport
may require rail connection also, and this needs to be pursued with either
BMRTL or the Railways, or both. One immediate measure should be to connect
Tumkur Road from the point of the BMICP Road, to the Devanahalli Road by taking
up the 20 km stretch of the Proposed Peripheral Ring Road as first priority.
3.5 In
s. 14-B, the TDR can be exercised anywhere in the local planning area. In the Terms
and Conditions for the grant of TDRs however, the Development Rights are to be
utilized within the respective Municipal Corporation Limits. Considering the
LPA of BMA as a single entity, it is to be considered whether the TDR should be
made exerciseable anywhere in the LPA if granted by the BDA in respect of a
project undertaken by it. The Terms and Conditions state that a DRC shall be
utilized in the same Zone or in the less intensified Zones but not vice-versa,
wherever the city is divided into different zones based on the intensity of
development. In the Revised Master Plan there are no such gradations. In view
of this, the 1st Ring may be
taken as the most intensely developed, with 2nd ring areas as
moderately developed, and 3rd ring areas as sparsely developed.
3.6 There
is no two opinion that a comprehensive and affordable public transport system
is essential for the city. Apart from BMTC the proposed systems include the
Metro, and the CRS of the railways. The KSRTC which provides mofussil and
long-distance road connectivity, and
the provision of parking space in the city are the other key components.
3.7 People
have expressed their disappointment that the Master Plan does not contain an
integrated transport plan. BMTC has notified the lands it is in the process of
acquiring for bus stands, but there is no overall framework and no connection
is established between intra- and inter-city bus transport systems, and public
and private sector operators. The provision of satellite bus stands in different corners of the city where the
radial road intersect with city roads, has often been spoken of but there is no
indication of such a programme, nor any land requirements from KSRTC. On the
other hand, there are reports of plans to have a large complex in Subhash Nagar
grounds, which if realized can only add to the congestion on the roads leading
to it.
3.8 The
Commuter Rail System is a proposal with very few details. The Railways can play
a significant role in providing a Commuter Rail System, as well as by providing
facilities for long distance passengers to use the many stations within the
city such as the Yelahanka, Kengeri, KR Puram and Yeshwantpur stations, thus
further reducing the need to go the City Station. The plans of the railways are,
however, not known. This needs to be pursued, and resultant provisions made in
the Revised Master Plan 2015.
3.9 The
Vision Document deals with the burden on the central road (MG Road) by
proposing a core ring road. The core
ring road and the scope for strengthening it, the anticipated improvement on
transport situation on the Mahatama Gandhi Road, need explication. The Vision
Document appears on the whole to be pessimistic about the improvement of the
central congestion. The secondary axes
(Kanakapura and Bannerghatta Roads to the South, Whitefield and Sarjapura Roads
to the East, Hennur Main Road and Kalkere Roads to the North) will also add to
the pressures on the central areas. The document also suggests that it is
necessary to decentralize bus and railway stations by moving them from the
central zone. The bus and commuting traffic in this zone could be reduced by
creating in peripheral areas, new bus stations, in proximity to railway
stations. It recommends exchanges for
commuting at the intersections between the Peripheral Ring Road and the major
radial arteries. Much emphasis is placed on the CRS although there is no
confirmation of this project from the Railways. If there is possibility of
strengthening the other transversal roads outside the proposed core ring road,
they need to be pursued and proposed in the Master Plan.
3.10 The classification of roads and
specifications also need to be stated in clear terms. In this regard, the
committee recommends the note at Annexe 1 on
Basic Transport Sector which has been suggested by Sri E.F.Ribeiro,
member of the Committee.
3.11 The
very attractive proposal ‘ to organize the larger road network into place in
the South of the agglomeration, by creating transversal road to interlink the
radial roads such as Bannerghatta, Hosur, Kanakapura, Mysore, Magadi etc.’ is not further developed, as
also the proposal to connect planned industrial developments to the South East
of the city to other parts. Much of the vacant developed land in South and West
require development of infrastructure, the most important of which is road
infrastructure giving them access to the more developed parts of the city.
3.12 THE
PROPOSED PERIPHERAL RING ROAD (PPRR) : Acquisition of land for this road has
already been notified. It is recommended that the stretch between Tumkur Road
and Hosur Road need not be duplicated as the NICE Corridor project in this area
is already under construction. The rest of the PPRR should also be of the same
specifications as the NICE road, and also a toll-based road. Care has to be
taken to see that the formation of the PPRR does not lead to a spurt in the
urban sprawl on both sides of the road.
3.13 The Committee is of the view that an Unified
Metropolitan Transport Authority (UMTA) for public transport is necessary. The
UMTA will be responsible for MRTS, High
Capacity Bus, and normal bus services for the intra BMR transportation of
people.
3.14 (b) OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE : There are
requests for land from the BWSSB but without details of the overall plan to
extend water supply and sewerage services to unserviced areas. The Truck
Terminal Company has also put forth certain suggestions, but perhaps need not
duplicate the efforts of the NICE to provide this facility and can concentrate
on other areas. The location of landfill sites need to be finalized.
3.15 In
short, support documents with maps should be generated for each sector
(transport, water supply, sewerage, drainage, power, housing, slum improvement)
along with phasing and cost estimates. This should have the approval of the
sectoral departments and made part of the Master Plan for BDA 2015. In
particular the map for the integrated protection of lakes, valleys, and water
bodies is a crucial map requiring statutory acceptance.
CHAPTER 4
: GREEN SPACES, VALLEYS, WATER BODIES
4.1 The
term Green Zone is used to describe land in the periphery which is technically
agricultural land or other land to be protected from urbanization, and on which
zoning regulations impose restrictions of any kind of urban development or
permit only limited development. While the CDP of 1995 treated all such
agricultural land as a single category, in the Revised Master Plan 2015 this
area is categorized into Restricted Development Zone extending from the west to
the south including the TGR catchment area in the north, and the Agricultural
Zone area to the North and East, which though subject to the same regulations
as Restricted development Zone, is also subject to urbanization in future. In
fact a part of the agricultural area to the North and East is already
identified for urbanization.
4.2 In
the Revised Master Plan 2015, the earlier Green Zone has been proposed to be
reduced to 445 sq kms, further divided into a Restricted Development Zone (270
sq. kms.) and an Agricultural Zone (174 sq. kms.). The permissible list for
Agriculture Zone was more wide in the earlier CDP 95. As already stated, the
Green Zone on the whole has apparently maintained its character, barring some
violation.
The Committee has already indicated that the Green
Zone (Restricted Development Zone, Agricultural Zone) needs to be maintained,
after re-working the area required for urbanization, at 550 to 600 sq. kms. As
regards the distinction between West and South West on the one hand, and North
and East on the other, while there are strong reasons to have a Restricted
Development Zone in the West and South, the Agricultural Zone to the North and
East is treated with laxity, which is not called for. Both the Restricted
Development Zone and Agricultural Zone should have the same regulations in the
RMP 2015 and enforced with equal vigour.
REGULATION OF GREEN ZONE/RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT
ZONE/AGRICULTURAL ZONE:
4.3 Regulation
for these zones are restrictive, permitting agri-industrial units/complexes, and
urban amenities such as education. There have been suggestions that the Green
Belt should not be only to the West and South as proposed in the Draft. The
reason for providing protection to lands in the West and South have been
explained in the Vision Document as being due to the profile of the terrain
there, forests and biodiversity particularly in the South, the catchment area
of the Thippagondanahalli reservoir in the West. Further there are already
large extensions with few facilities, and therefore this direction is not
suited for further expansion. The Committee is not in agreement with the suggestions to relax the regulations
relating to the Green Zone to permit housing with restrictions such as minimum
plot size, reduced ground coverage etc. while keeping the Green Zone area
intact. Such relaxation will not protect the Green Belt and will defeat the purposes
for which the Green Zone has been built into the earlier CDP and the present
Draft. The suggestion to acquire the entire Green Belt area cannot perhaps be
implemented both because of the cost involved, as well as the impossibility of
protecting such area thereafter. As regards the suggestion that the present
allocation of land for Restricted Development Zone/Agricultural Zone discriminates
against some parts, the proposed larger Green Belt/Agricultural Zone with the
same set of regulations uniformly applied should help to feel that there is
equity in the choice of the areas. However, subject to maintaining a larger
Green Zone as suggested in this Report, there can be no objection to a review of
the actual survey numbers brought under the Green Belt taking into account the
suitability of the terrain, level of development, access, and needs for
urbanization as seen from the existing activities, population and their
requirements. This exercise may be undertaken by the BDA in the areas currently
excluded from urbanization, particularly in the Southern and Western areas,
before finally demarcating the Green Zone. The allocation of the Green Zone between the Planning Districts
needs to be re-worked and incorporated in the RMP 2015 and Zoning Regulations
for Restricted Development Zone (Ef) applied to both the zones.
4.4 VALLEY
REGION : The valleys, which are designated as part of the Protected Land Zone
as being natural environmentally sensitive sites such as tanks, lakes, valley
beds, forests, etc., follow the
catchment of the water bodies and the inter-connecting area forming the natural
drainage for storm-water. There is in
the Draft a clear map showing the connections and the valley regions. The
concept of preserving the natural valley systems of the terrain has been
generally welcomed and commended. This identification is again a feature
introduced in the Master Plan thanks to advanced mapping technology. Though
some suggestions have been made to reexamine the areas marked as valley region,
taking into account the experience of flooded blocks during the monsoon of
2005, the proposed valley in its entirety needs to be protected.
4.5 In
the Zoning Regulations the areas classified as Protected Land Zone are designated
for conservation and preservation, basically by protecting them from
developmental activity. The Zonal Regulations list the permissible land uses. The
suggestions received from the public also propose that allowable use of these
areas should be used for parks, gardens, natural bird habitats, and recreation.
4.6 The
designation of valley zones has raised a large number of objections and
requests from those owning lands in this region, and those who have already
obtained approval of various types for development. This is a key area for the
BDA to decide, because legal issues may be involved since the BDA and State
Government have given approval for developments. Some responses have suggested
that the valley zone should be limited to public lands, and exclude privately
owned areas. Such division of the valley system will not be feasible.
4.7 Superimposition
of maps of development on the maps of the valley zone shows considerable area of
the latter type which has already been put to development of various types, and
BDA itself has developed sites in some valley area. The earlier CDP had
declared some of them to be Residential zone. It now appears that the
information on the valleys was not available or was not made use of in planning
development in these areas. When innumerable tanks themselves have been
breached and tank beds put to a variety of uses and development, the
interconnecting valley zones could hardly be expected to be treated any
differently. But now the time has come for Bangalore to protect what remains of
the tanks, water bodies, wet and swampy lands, and valleys, both as valuable
natural features of the Metropolitan Area, as well as to avoid problems caused
by blockage of natural drains of the terrain.
4.8 Valley
may also be privately owned land, and if so will come under the same regulation
as publicly owned lands. Development of these areas is not in the interests of
either the city or of the investors themselves, which is the lesson from the
flooding of many of these pockets during 2005. Every effort should be made to
shift development away from the valley and other protected land zones. Further
development should not be permitted. If approvals have been given or investments already made,
compensatory development rights may be given allowing set off against the
proposed Premium FAR. BDA could also allot alternative locations to persons who
need to move their residence to safer areas. Where such relocation is not feasible,
drainage works adequate to carry storm waters may be implemented on priority,
if found to be an appropriate solution on due examination of the problem.
4.9 Some
have questioned whether the extent of valley is entirely needed to be
protected. This is a topographical fact and based on mapping of the lie of the
land in the drainage area.
4.10 The
interconnection of tanks and drainage from higher reaches to lower, is well
understood by every villagers. Such knowledge should not be lost with
urbanization. There was no valley zone earlier. Now they have been mapped and
classified as protected and open land. This should also apply to areas already
built up because the area as well as individuals who occupy these spaces will
suffer, as has already happened in the monsoons of 2005.
4.11 WATER
BODIES : The Lake Development Authority has technical competence to protect the
water bodies but seems to lack teeth to prevent and remove encroachments, and
financial resources for undertaking the required level of restoration and
development. There is also need to enforce a restricted development buffer zone
around the periphery of the tanks.
4.12 BDA
being in overall charge of development of the city, needs to be supportive of
the Lake Development Authority, and provide it with budgetary support.
Government should empower the BDA rather than the Revenue Department to remove
encroachments. Protection of the tanks is proceeding all too slowly and
requires to be made an area of priority for the city. Tank restoration works
should be planned in consultation with the residents of the area, who should be
given a stake in the proper upkeep of the tank and its environment.
CHAPTER 5
: VERTICAL GROWTH AND CHANGE OF CHARACTER OF LOCALITIES – CHANGES IN
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL REGULATIONS
5.1 In
keeping with stated objectives in the Vision Document of densification of the
inner core, and provision of quality locations for the expanding business area,
the Draft Zonal Regulations make several proposals of far-reaching impact, and these
will be examined in the light of the response received from a large number of
respondents. The changed system of categorization of zones is also part of the
overall system of changing the structure of buildings and character of
localities. There is a perception in the Draft that the Central Business
District is blocked, and that the current regulations try to freeze the
situation whereas the city is in the process of transformation. The proposals relating
to densification of the developed areas include higher scales of FAR in most
zones, and introduction of premium
FAR. The Zonal Regulations also propose
development of Mutation Corridors, Transformation Zone, and Commercial Axes in
the residential areas, as well as along arterial and other major roads. All
these proposals will have significant impact on existing developed Planning
Districts, and on the life of those residing and working in them. Predictably, many objections have been received
particularly from Indiranagar, Koramangala and other premier residential areas.
In the Committee’s view also, it is necessary to take due care in proposing
changes in the developed residential areas, where the quality of life and
comfort of the residents must have primacy.
5.2 Certain
non-residential uses were permitted in the residential zones under CDP 1995. The
Revised Master Plan 2015 now proposes a hierarchy of mixing of uses in the
different zones. This has the advantage of a better definition of the permissible
types of uses of built area in each zone, and less discretion to authorities to
permit commercial uses under ‘special’ circumstances.
5.3 The
proposed Zoning Regulations, and the Proposed Land Use Maps, follow a
classification of localities which differs from the earlier CDP 95. These zones
reflect the complex realities of land use as existing on the ground, and of the
proposed uses to which land and its development can be put in these localities
and areas. It is not only the areas classified as ‘B–Urban Redevelopment Areas’
which undergo transformation in the new Plan, but all areas will change their
profile and character, if the proposed zoning and development control are
accepted. The FAR is used as the main instrument for densification, along with enlargement
of areas to be made available for commercial uses. In general the FAR increases
with width of the road. In the earlier CDP 1995 the FAR ranged from 0.75 to
2.00, increasing from intensely developed areas to sparsely developed areas,
depending on also the plot area and road width. Larger plots on wider roads
(over 15 to 18 mtrs wide) had the highest FAR. In the proposed Draft Zonal
Regulations a new concept of Premium FAR is introduced which is an instrument
for raising resources for the upgradation of infrastructure in the areas where
these are inadequate. Inclusive of the Premium portion, the highest FAR
permissible is 3.25 on the specified Main roads of the Petta Zone, namely, OTC
Road, Arcot Srinivasachar Road, BVK Iyengar Road, Avenue Road, TCM Royan Road,
and Bashyam Road. The FARs vary in the other areas. In Mainly Residential Areas
(Cb) an FAR of 2 will be permissible in plots above 150 sq mtrs. The matrix is
complex because the Ground Coverage, Set Backs, and Height Restrictions also
come into pay. In a Mainly Residential Area, on a plot with a minimum of 150 sq
mts located on a road not less than 9 m wide, a structure of FAR 2 and a height
of up 11.5 (approx. 38 feet) will be permissible – twice the built area that
was permissible earlier. Subject to prescribed road width of 12 meters and size
of the plot being not less than 150 sq. mtrs., FAR of 2.75 or 3 is permissible
in Mixed Residential Areas.
5.4
In the older areas in
the 1st Ring, the area under Residential use is
projected to decline sharply due to the expansion
of the CBD and Transformation Zones. Some of these are:
|
Planning District |
Existing Residential area in ha |
Proposed Residential area 2015 in ha |
Existing Commercial Area in ha |
Proposed Mixed Land Use Zone including Commerce & Activity 2015
in ha |
|
Vasant Nagar# |
95.2 |
16.4 |
68.6 |
157.1 |
|
Shivaji Nagar |
109.7 |
6.7 |
32.4 |
145.8 |
|
Richmond Town** |
96.7 |
- |
76.2 |
202.4 |
|
Chamarajpet |
108.2 |
9.1 |
106.6 |
255.8 |
|
Kempapura Agrahara |
354.6 |
63.4 |
38.3 |
403.7 |
|
Srirampuram |
163 |
88.6 |
21.9 |
110.2 |
|
Malleshwaram |
451.8 |
201.7 |
62.1 |
377.7 |
|
Benson Town |
179.3 |
54 |
13.7 |
157.3 |
|
Shantinagar# |
481 |
247.9 |
89.5 |
481.4 |
# Proposed as CBD Precinct Zone
** Proposed as CBD, CBD Precinct, and MG Road Zones
5.5 MUTATION
CORRIDORS, TRANSFORMATION ZONES, AND COMMERCIAL AXES: Densification of any kind
in a locality of will add to pressures on roads and other infrastructure, and
therefore needs to be made with an eye on the capacity of the infrastructure to
bear a higher level of population, and activities particularly of a commercial
nature. More commerce will mean more traffic, more pollution, more noise, and
more congestion, which is not desirable in a residential area. When a road is
both a commercial area as well as a main corridor such as being part of the
Ring Road, then the problems get aggravated. These areas get clogged with
traffic – both vehicles which move on the roads, and those which are illegally
parked on street - and cause a great deal of inconvenience to users.
5.6 In
the Committee’s opinion it is not desirable to permit developments of a nature
which will convert Mainly Residential areas in due course to Mixed Residential
areas. In the Committee’s considered opinion the process of intrusion of
commercial use in residential areas needs to be curbed. The process is not
inexorable, though perhaps not likely to be reversed. A halt has be called
before the tipping point of unliveability is reached.
Apart from this, in framing the Zonal Regulations the
Local residents should be given a central role in the articulation of needs
through a participatory approach, and empowered to monitor land use, building
violations and traffic.
5.7 However,
on certain roads in residential areas, there has been conversion to commercial
use, often with approval under section 14A, a provision which provides wide
discretion for permitting land use with little by way of guidelines which
protect the interests of residents. In addition the CDP 1995 encouraged conversion of residential plots to commercial by allowing
a higher FAR for commercial
buildings. This was double incentive to go commercial because the sites were
located attractively in affluent neighbourhoods on prime roads.
5.8 Where
such commercial use is considerable, liveability as residential area has
declined, and there have been requests from residents of some such roads to
allow commercial use as they are not suitable for residential use because of
predominance of commercial activity. It is necessary to allow such change. Even
this has to be made selectively, and the existence of or even predominance of
commercial activity on roads in a residential area is not to be made the
justification of allowing commercial usage without check.
5.9 The Draft
Revised Master Plan 2015 apparently accepts the notion that once
commercialization starts, there is only
one way ahead in residential
areas along selected roads – that of more or even complete commercialization.
This type of commercialization is neither inevitable nor even necessary. There
is plenty of land on other good roads which can accommodate commercial uses.
All that is needed is a firm policy of directing commercial enterprises to such
locations. Provision of good roads is the biggest motivator, and in this regard
the recent development on the Outer Ring Road in several pockets where open
land uncluttered with habitation was available, proves this. Road based
development is possible along the new BMICP road, which covers 41 kms.
5.10 What is
not clear from the Draft Vision Document and Proposed Land Use Maps, is the criteria
which were applied in determining the commercial areas through Transformation
Zones, Mutation Corridors, and Commercial Axes. Before any of these changes is
proposed in a Mainly Residential zone, there is need to examine the sufficiency
of the roads, parking areas, and the impact on the through traffic which may be
using this road. The linear extension of commercial areas on major roads is the
least desirable way of developing commercial zones. It is further necessary to
examine whether there are other alternatives to the objective of creating
commercial space in the area. For instance, Indiranagar has a large shopping
complex, which is grossly under-utilized. If the existing structure is pulled down and re-built in keeping
with the enormous commercial value of the location, it can meet a major part of
the commercial demand now being proposed on the major roads of the lay-out. Further,
in developed areas, has it completely been ruled out that the transformation
cannot happen off the major roads ? Is there no possibility of declaring a
block with good access as Transformation Zone in lieu of the length of the transport
corridor running through the area ? The criteria for declaring a Commercial Axis
or Transformation Zone should look at the overall development along the road.
For this a proper survey is necessary, and it does not appear that in fully
developed residential localities due care has been taken in this regard because
it appears that even roads with limited commercial development are also being
proposed for changing over to Transformation Zone or Mutation Corridor or
Commercial Axis. The proposal to declare entire lengths of important
roads, and entire localities, as
Transformation Zones is too easy and is
not based on a rigorous study of the alternatives, and of the impact on the
neighbourhood. In less developed localities, again, where land is available for
setting up neihbourhood hubs, why should major roads alone be the
transformation zone, when it is feasible to develop sub-centres or local
centres in blocks off the main roads ?
5.11 The
basic principles in the view of the Committee should be that a Mainly
Residential area should be enabled to retain its residential character.
Secondly, large scale commercial development along main corridors of traffic is
not desirable. Thirdly, there should be commercial development in an identified
neighbourhood hub wherever possible, which is to be determined after proper
survey and consideration of all available options. Fourthly, in the new
extensions where development is still sparse, there should be no linear
commercial development on major arteries, but instead, using the provisions
such as Town Planning Scheme, acquisition of land, and employing public–private
partnerships, neighbourhood hubs with good access and which combine urban
amenities with expansion of opportunities for employment, services, transport
and other facilities, should be
developed.
5.12 The
Committee recommends that the Mainly Residential pockets should be protected
from unbridled commercial development. Keeping this in mind, no Mutation Corridor
should be permitted in (or through) any area which is classified as Mainly
Residential.
5.13 The
criteria for Transformation Zones and Commercial Axis should first be strictly
defined, and applied after proper survey and identification of the roads and stretches
of roads which have already been commercialized to such an extent that it is necessary for the
remaining residents to have the choice to convert to commercial property
because of the decline in liveability. The number and length of such roads should
be strictly limited.
5.14 In
Mainly Residential areas, in any area along the major roads, the zonal regulations
should permit only the same FAR as are applicable to residential property. Higher
FARs may be permitted in neighbourhood hubs located away from the major roads,
in order to provide an incentive for the development of such hubs.
5.15 Zoning
of this nature should not lead to automatic regularization of violations, which
should first be dealt with under existing regulations. The declaration of Transformation
Zones and Commercial Axis should be made only after the violations have been
identified and action initiated for penalization of such violations as per existing
law.
5.16 Only identified roads should be permitted to have
independent buildings for ancillary uses, and only along specific stretches
which should exclude those parts of the roads which are still mostly
residential. FAR for both residential and commercial uses should be identical. Apart
from Koramangala, Indiranagar, Rajajinagar and other more recent lay-outs,
older residential areas such as Malleshwaram,
Gandhi Bazar, Shankarapurm, Basavanagudi, Vasant Nagar, Benson Town, Shanthi
Nagar, Vishwshvarapuram, Jayanagar, and
Richmond Town Planning Districts also have Mainly Residential character.
Barring a limited stretches on a small number of specified roads, they should
be declared Mainly Residential areas. In these areas, Transformation Zone
should be limited to only these selected roads and specified stretches. In this
context the areas shown in the Proposed Land Use Maps as Bd or Commercial Axis
abutting Mainly Residential area will have to be treated as part of such Mainly
Residential area.
5.17 There
is need to regulate building lines and building heights in order that the developments
are pleasing in design.
5.18 FAR :
The increase in FAR across the board as proposed in the Draft Zonal Regulations
requires reconsideration. Again, as with declaration of Transformation Zone,
Mutation Zone and Commercial Axis, the sudden increase in FAR in already built
up area can lead to unforeseen consequences, affecting the infrastructure in
particular which may not be able to cope with the increased demands. The
alternative approach is to have a higher FAR in the extension areas, with a view
to encouraging more development there and greater emigration of activities from
the core areas.
5.19 In
the CDP 1995 while FARs were based on intensity of development, the difference in
FARs available to sparsely developed areas was perhaps not large enough. It is
therefore recommended that the FARs recommended in the Draft Zonal Regulations for
‘Transformation Zone/Development Area Zone’, ‘Mutation Corridor Zone’, ‘Mainly
Residential Area’, and ‘Commercial Axis’, should only made applicable to the
respective zones coming under these nomenclatures, only in respect of areas in the 3rd Ring. This
differentiates fully developed residential neighbourhoods from lay-outs still
in initial stages.
5.20 In
all other areas, namely in 1st and 2nd Ring areas, the prevailing
FARs should continue, along with the permissible additions based on TDRs. This
will also apply to the areas categorized as ‘Transformation Zone/Development
Area Zone’, ‘Mutation Corridor Zone’, ‘Mainly Residential Area’, and
‘Commercial Axis’ in the 1st and 2nd Rings. The intention
is to prompt faster and more dense development in the extension areas (3rd Ring areas) as a
counter-balance to the development in the older areas(1st and 2nd
Ring areas) which are already congested and cannot bear densification and
further commercialization, particularly of the Mainly Residential Areas.
5.21 The
Committee does not favour the concept of Premium FAR proposed in the Zonal
Regulations and recommends that the Premium FAR be deleted. There is little to
show that the Premium FAR will yield substantial revenues, and if it does help
the BDA to generate resources on the one hand, it would on the other hand add
to the costs of departments that are to service the city. There should only be additional FAR which is already provided for in the Transfer of
Development Rights. This will be over and above the normal FAR for each zone,
and will be available in all parts of the city barring those which are
specifically excluded in the Draft Zonal Regulations as having restrictions on receiving TDR.
5.22 FAR
should be on floor area/plinth area basis and not carpet area basis. Uses to be
considered outside FAR calculations should be kept to the bare minimum.
5.23 The
proposals contained in the Zonal Regulations relating to Ground Coverage,
Setbacks, Building Line etc need to be re-checked for accuracy and internal
consistency. Subject to such re-check and correction, these proposals can be
accepted and implemented. The reservations of the Committee, it is clarified, relate to high FARs in the 1st
and 2nd Ring areas, and the concept of ‘Premium’ FAR. The
exerciseability or otherwise of TDRs on different roads and zones can be implemented
on the lines recommended in the Draft Zonal Regulations.
5.24 As
regards land use changes, once the Revised Master Plan 2015 comes into force,
there should be no application of S. 14A in respect of change from residential
to other uses, as the cases where land use can be changed will be laid down in
the Revised Master Plan 2015 itself obviating the need for discretionary
changes.
5.25 USE
OF THE BASEMENT IN HOTEL INDUSTRY : The Federation of Hotels has requested that
the clarification regarding use of basement in hotels contained in the State
Government Circular dated 6-4-1998 may be incorporated in the Zonal
Regulations. This is helpful to the tourism industry, and is accordingly
recommended.
5.26 ENFORCEMENT
: The key to success in town planning is the quality of enforcement. The people
will have confidence in the efficacy of the Master Plan only if convinced that
the regulations will be accepted, and enforced by the authorities. It is a
widespread belief that the violations are rampant, and that violators of
building bye-laws, zoning regulations, and parking regulations get away scot-free
despite the gross nature of the violations. This is a perception which is not
conducive to the implementation of the Master Plan, and the consequences of
poor enforcement are often wrongly blamed on the Master Plan itself.
CHAPTER 6
: RE-DEFINING THE ROLE OF THE BDA IN REVISED MASTER PLAN 2015 – ACHIEVING
ALL-ROUND AND BALANCED GROWTH OF THE CITY THROUGH STRATEGIC INTERVENTIONS
6.1 Unlike
other agencies which provide services to the BMA, in the case of the BDA, the
Authority itself bears the major responsibility for land and road based
development. It would be appropriate for the Revised Master Play to lay out the
BDA’s own role and activity during the period leading up to 2015. The Draft
does not contain any material discussing a role and organizational structure for
the BDA which matches the demands of the Revised Master Plan 2015. BDA’s
efforts should be towards developing a ‘New Look’ Bangalore in particular in
extension areas where developments have not yet reached a point of no return.
Some of the questions to be raised are: What is the paradigm of development for
the BDA arising out of the Revised Master Plan 2015 ? Can the past practices of
residential layout development suffice or is there need for a wider engagement
through strategic planning and direct development by the BDA even in areas where
no lay-out is being developed by BDA itself
? What should the BDA do if it is to play a leadership role in respect
of all other service agencies ? What should be land acquisition proposals of
the BDA within the Revised Master Plan period ? Town Planning Scheme is a
provision never utilized in the past by the BDA. What are the required
preparations for implementing Town Planning Schemes ? There is also the new
concept of the Coordinated Planning Scheme. How is it to be implemented ? How
should the BDA strengthen itself to play the new roles it is being cast into as
a consequence of the new approaches contained in the Revised Master Plan 2015 ?
6.2 In
the view of the Committee, the Bangalore Development Authority should aim at
achieving a balanced and dispersed growth of the city in all its territory
defined as the conurbation area. There should be no room for discontent in any
part of the Planning Area that it is being neglected in the ongoing growth process
of the city. While it is true that the IT industry, a major provider of jobs,
is located more towards East and South, and the new airport is coming up
towards the North, to balance this, the first part of the PPRR in the form of
the NICE road is coming up in the West, and the largest chunks of ‘vacant
developed’ land is concentrated in the area benefiting from the NICE corridor. This
opens up the possibility for the relatively less developed areas west of the
Hosur Road up to Tumkur Road via Kengeri area, to make their own case for accelerated
development. Balanced growth also requires moderating the growth in the centre.
The trend towards greater density in the core needs to be reversed because
otherwise the problem of congestion there will only be exacerbated. Given the
Intermediate and Outer Ring Roads, and the proposed Peripheral Ring Road/BMICP
Road, there is no great advantage for any activity to be located only in the
inner areas. To change to such an approach, there is need for promoting and developing
the peripheral areas as new growth centres.
6.3 The
Planning Districts of Herohalli, Makali, Kengeri, Anjanapura, Electronic City
and Begur already comprise the largest pockets of ‘developed vacant’ lands –
between them a total of 10349 ha. This area is available for immediate
development. However, the Revised Master Plan 2015 does not really recognize
the potential of these areas, nor contain a proper programme to develop them.
It sees them mainly as residential areas, despite the fact that the large BDA
lay-outs in these areas remain vacant. The proximity to the BMICPA road is also
ignored.
6.4 DEVELOPMENT
OF CITY SUB CENTRES : the Vision Document contains suggestion regarding the
development of City Sub-Centres but these
are not fully developed in the document. In the peripheral areas,
Yelahanka and Kengeri are identified to form structured development around
large public facilities. These areas need to be supported (p.30). But again the
emphasis is on developing along the existing road corridors. While the need for
regulation here is noted, the regulation appears to be only those contained in
the Zonal Regulations relating to Mutation Corridors, etc., without an effort
to develop alternate locations which do not congest the arterial roads. The secondary
centralities are mostly linear developments along the major arteries.
6.5 On
the other hand, the large new layouts of the BDA in Banashankari 6th
Stage, Sri MV Layout, and Anjanapura, remain just residential without an
examination of how much longer these layouts, developed on a stand-alone basis
and not as part of an overall plan for the Planning Districts in which they are
located, will remain in the deserted state they are in today.
6.6 The
Vision Document correctly argues in favour of local area centres :‘in future
developments, centralities must no longer be thought of only along linear
commercial developments, but also around public facilities or public spaces
(schools, health establishments…) sundry activities (offices, commerce,
services) or transport facilities (bus and railway stations), and in the
periphery villages to support these new local centralities.’ The proposed
‘local centres’ of this nature in the Draft are few and far between,
without clear conceptualization or a recommended
process of implementation. As per the Vision Document, outside the BCC the
division between the different types of fabric will take place according to
geographical criteria with a continuous ring dedicated to housing in areas
further away from axes of communication. These areas will be interspersed with
secondary centralities based on points of activity (railway stations, bus
stands, villages). While the Vision Document speaks of favouring secondary
centralities and developing local centres around activities it is short on
specifics of making these concepts a reality.
6.7 The
Draft rightly draws attention to the two functions of ‘strategic urban
planning’ and ‘urban development regulation’ on one hand and
‘Promotion-implementation’ on the other, in both of which the BDA has the
leading role and fullest responsibility. These call for a restructuring of the
BDA, and in particular, strengthen its capacities in the key areas of Town
Planning, and formulation of Public-Private Partnerships.
6.8 Large
parts of the city were developed by the BDA through its sites and services
programme. The flip-side has been the absence of provision for what are now
being felt as essential neighbourhood economic, shopping, recreation centres.
This is something the BDA can learn from past experience, and rectify in its
newer lay-outs, including those where much progress has not been made beyond
allotment of sites. It has been observed that the BDA developments in the south
have scattered and sporadic housing development, unconnected to transport and
employment opportunities resulting in wasteful expenditure and deteriorating
infrastructure. Can this be re-worked to the advantage of that area ? There has
been considerable opinion in favour of planned hubs for each neighbourhood. A beginning
can be made to provide these in the newer extensions. In the new blocks
sub-city centres located in proximity to the main roads but off them, with easy
access, ample parking, and space for a variety of activities needs to be
provided. This is an essential feature to be built into the Draft, which has
not been done.
6.9 On
its part the BDA needs to adopt a new approach in certain respects :
6.10 Stand
alone pure residential lay-outs are not what the city requires. This was
appropriate in the 60s and 70s. The experience of new lay-outs is evidence that
lay-outs need to be part of overall plan for the Planning District, with equal
importance to economic, and other activities, and facilities for the area to be
self-sufficient to a large degree. This is also in the interests of the city as
a whole, as otherwise the pressure on the central areas will continue unabated.
6.11 The
old sites-and-services approach also needs to give way to the recognition that
group housing has greater scope for dense but compact development which needs
to be promoted in the city. The BDA should provide land for group housing /
multi-family dwellings, which are known to lead to compact development which
reduces the requirements of land and cost of providing infra-structure.
6.12 In a
city of such magnitude and complexity, given the expectations of the citizens
for high quality in services, housing, and neighbourhood facilities, there is
need to bring in the private sector through partnership. The city centres and
neighbourhood hubs should be developed with private sector participating.
6.13 There
is need for imaginative planning in the new extensions. Each Planning District
in neighbourhood areas should be home for one or more selected activity such as
education, health, IT, recreation and shopping etc. around which the
neighbourhood hub should develop. The hub itself should provide a wide range of
facilities and activities which people require. The list of urban amenities and
provisions in such areas should invariably include markets for the informal
sector and for farmers to vend their produce.
6.14 There
is a paucity in large places of congregation and recreation in recent years
comparable to the Lal Bagh and Cubbon Park. BDA should locate in outer regions
suitable land for such centres, and take up their development.
6.15 HOUSING
NEEDS : There is little clarity about what should be done regarding housing at
the lower end – slums and shadow areas. In the first instance the Committee is
of the view that all slums irrespective of legal status should be marked in the
Master Plan, and listed in the Planning District Reports. This has more than
symbolic significance. The prospering city should not neglect to foster the
interests of its less fortunate citizens. All slums by definition require in
situ development, security of tenure for those who live in them, and assistance
in respect of proper housing, sanitation, education, health-care, and
employment to their inhabitants. As an addendum to the Revised Master Plan a
separate study on the housing needs of the urban poor in Bangalore needs to be
prepared, and a programme of housing implemented during the period of the Plan.
6.16 There
is need to provide for low income
housing within easy distance from work, and ensure a basic set of services and
sanitation in such colonies. Development control and sub-division regulations
should be on the basis of detailed plans for such areas. Areas for service
personnel (washerwomen, servants, local sanitation workers, etc.) should be shown in layout plans – up to 5 or
10% of the population.
6.17 The
housing board and slum improvement board should take up public housing
programmes on such lands specifically for the low income tenants. In the first
place there should be list of such lands, which should consist of all lands
which are not required by the village community. Details of such land should be
made public.
6.18 Government
needs to articulate a policy with regard to land under the Revenue Department. There
should be a policy of making public lands available for priority housing for
the weaker sections. The first claim to such land should be to the BDA and to
agencies such as the Housing Board and the Slum Improvement Board for the
specific purpose of public housing for the poorer families.
6.19 There
is need involve the Department of Housing in developing such concepts as public
housing, and rental housing for different economic categories.
6.20 The
reservations for low cost housing in the sub-division regulations need to be
enforced. Builders need to be brought in to take up a programme to construct
houses also for the poor.
6.21 INTEGRATION
OF VILLAGES IN CONURBATION AREA : The Draft is quite correct in emphasizing the
need to pay adequate attention to the villages whose lands come under
urbanization. There is need to detail out the approach to the issue of
developing the villages. At present the old villages within urban limits are
merely adding to the ‘shadow areas’. It is possible to have a different outcome
when village lands are acquired or large-scale conversion of agricultural land
takes place. The BDA in particular should not treat the villages as merely
sources of lands to be acquired. The villagers lose their agricultural lands
because of urbanization, as well as get hemmed in by the layouts of urban
houses which encircle them while the old village population continues suffering
for want of basic amenities and provision to improve their own habitation.
There is a basic inequity in this approach to the village population. The
villages should be treated as part of the development effort, re-designed to
reach urban standards of housing, and provided with the same infrastructure
which is provided in the new layouts
developed in the neighbourhood. BDA
should develop a model plan for the villages which are likely to get submerged
in the urban growth so that the villagers share the benefit of urban standards
of housing and infrastructure.
6.22 LARGE
PUBLIC AND SEMI PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE, DEDICATED LAND USES, AND LARGE
TRANSPORTATION STRUCTURE : There are provisions made in the Proposed Land Use
Maps which are not necessarily crystallized at this stage. The cut-off for ‘Large
public and semi-public infrastructure’ is a land component above 20 acres. The
two categories are (Ks) Large
infrastructure in health, school, sport, and culture which are ‘of considerable
development and impact at the city level’, and (Kg) Large government owned companies. Each of these has a defined
development control regulations. The need for BDA to develop facilities
comparable to Lal Bagh and Cubbon Park, has already been stressed. On similar
lines, this provision can be used to develop institutional facilities in the
public sphere, for health, school, sport and culture. However, there are no
lands or pockets designated ‘Ks’ in
the Proposed Land Use Maps.
6.23 ‘Dedicated
land uses’ include land for public utilities, cemetery, power utilities,
microwave and telecom towers, parks, unclassified land use, and urban
amenities. These areas are intended to
be designated in the maps of Proposed Land Use (PLUMs). The lands designated
for these purposes will need to be acquired and put to use. This calls for
adequate preparation and resources, but this is a challenge which needs to be
taken up by the agencies.
6.24 The
list of social, health and cultural infrastructure needs to be expanded to
include Auditoria and Theatres, Schools, informal markets (farmers and
vendors), play grounds, and parking area.
It is necessary to provide land for cinemas and shopping malls, and
commercial areas in the neighbourbood hubs.
6.25 Large
transporation structures, include Railways, Airport and Bus terminals. There
are specific regulations for the lands brought under this category
6.26 Urban
amenities include civic amenities. The list of urban and civic amenities should
be comprehensive in order that wherever required, they can be provided for out
of land reserved for these purposes. A
time frame of six months should be determined for deciding on the urban
amenities required to be provided in each Planning District, and land for
locating them should also be identified.
CHAPTER 7
: FOLLOW-UP PLANS BY BDA AND OTHER AGENCIES
7.1 This
Report has already pointed out the need for sectoral plans, which should be
part of the Revised Master Plan 2015. The Act makes it a part of the Master
Plan to state the stages by which the plan is to be carried out. Financial
projections can be a part of this section of the Master Plan. There is no such
section in the Draft. It is necessary that this is built into the Master Plan.
7.2 As
immediate follow up there is need for three levels of detailed planning: that
of the BDA, that of the Service/Sectoral Agencies, and that of the Planning
Districts/Wards. State Government and BDA should set up Working Groups for each
of these levels of planning with a time limit of 3 months to draw up their
respective courses of action. Financial planning should come in at this stage
7.3 One
key task of the Working Group at the Planning District level will be to prepare
plans for the shadow areas and slums. There should be a participatory process
in the preparation of all these plans.
7.4 The
Planning District Reports contain suggestions for local level works essential
for improving the concerned locality. There are a sizeable number of
implementation or Planning
Recommendations in the Plan, under each Planning District. These are presently
just points which require detailed working out and implementation, and involve
a number of agencies. They are critical for the success of the Master Plan.
These recommendations which identify local solutions, are significant improvements
over the approach of the earlier CDPs
and show an appreciable degree of study of the requirements at the local level,
but will make no difference unless followed up and implemented. There is less
clarity on who will be responsible for implementation, and how this will be
done. These are to be decided by the Working Groups.
7.5 Some
of the areas to be entrusted to the respective Working Groups are :
7.6 Government should consider setting
up a high level committee for the implementation of the Revised Master Plan
2015 of the BDA. The Committee should be headed by the Chief Secretary.