posted on behalf of Gita Dewan-Verma
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is apropos the Express Newsline report ? ?Ananth Kumar has a
reason: The ?changing scenario?'
<htttp://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=28034>
on the proposal for of permitting commercial use of industrial land in Delhi.
More at <
http://in.architexturez.net/+/e/000083.shtml>
How reasonable are Mr Kumar?s reasons?
Gita Dewan Verma / Planner / 31.08.02
Union Urban Development Minister Ananth Kumar?s ?reasons? for the proposal
to allow commercial activities in industrial plots after converting them
from free hold to leasehold, as reported in Express Newsline on 31.08.02
merit comment. The Minister is quoted saying that ??Masterplans do provide
for modifications? and that ??This provision has been made so that the
plan answers to the changing needs of the society and socio-economic
requirements of the public at large.?? What the Minister has not pointed
out is that the Master Plan for Delhi specifically states how this is to
be done. Page-86 of the document states, under the heading ?Plan
Monitoring?, that a monitoring framework is required for ?(i) [evaluating]
the achievement of physical targets prescribed in the plan and (ii)
identification of socio-economic changes in the city to review plan
policies?. Pages-87-90 spell out a detailed monitoring framework, which
specifies, for instance that the target of developing 1600 hectares of
industrial land up to 2001, development of commercial centres (in which
several types of industries are permitted, though DDA has kept this a
closely guarded secret), and shifting of hazardous units had to be
monitored on a yearly basis. Pages-90-91 spell out indicators for
monitoring socio-economic changes at 5-year intervals. Pages-91-92 spell
out the mechanism for monitoring and how its outputs are to form the basis
of Plan review. The fumbling efforts of Delhi Government (under the
stewardship of first Mr Khurana, then Mr Sahib Singh Verma and then Ms
Sheila Dikshit) following the Apex Court?s intervention in the matter of
industries in places not meant for industries leave no doubt whatsoever
that had the ?changing scenario? that Mr Kumar is speaking of been
monitored as per these statutory provisions, it would have become obvious
ten years ago that provision of industrial space in the city is slipping
way below targets even as industrial activity in the city is by no means
less than what was anticipated in the Plan.
Mr Kumar is also quoted saying that ??certain uses such as administrative
offices and sales outlets are permissible on industrial plots??. This is
not accurate. While provision of facilities (fire station, police station,
electric sub-station, parking, industrial area (commercial) centre) is
envisaged (Clause-8(i), pp.55-56), this is at the level of industrial
estate, not plot. The total area under these facilities, furthermore, is
restricted. A light and service industrial area for 20000 workers, for
instance, is envisaged to be of about 70 Ha, of which only 4 Ha are meant
for these. Likewise, an extensive industrial area for 20,000 workers is
envisaged to be about 125 Ha, of which only 5 Ha are meant for these. The
?Commercial Centre? in both cases is limited to 1 Ha and is meant to
accommodate only essential facilities required for the industrial estate.
Sub-Clause(ii) (p.56-58) specifically states that residential activities
are not permitted in industrial areas and that commercial use is
permissible only in commercial centres in them.
The Minister is quoted saying that ?the possibility for widening the use
permissibility on the industrial plots needs to be examined?. This, he
?insisted? ?is being time and again emphasised?due to the declining
industrial activities in Delhi vis-a-vis need for more commercial space?.
While the Minister is right in saying that this is being ?emphasized? ?
even aggressively pushed with no regard to the law ? by his political
colleagues, he is not right in his twin assumption of declining industrial
activity and shortage of commercial space. If industrial activity was
truly disappearing from the city, there would not have been mayhem
following the Supreme Court?s orders requiring relocation, nor would Mr
Khurana and Ms Dikshit have been demanding regularisation of industries in
residential areas. As for shortage of commercial space, the on-going
Master Plan revision studies will surely provide the figures that
statutorily mandatory monitoring data should have but did not, but it is
obvious even to ordinary citizens that a large amount of planned
commercial space in Delhi has either not been built up or, if built up, is
lying unused for purely speculative reasons.
Lastly, the Minister says that the DDA has been asked to submit a proposal
so that the Ministry ??can look into the permissibility aspects?? under
the Act. This liberal view of development may make for good politics, but
it makes for bad planning. Modifications to the Master Plan really should
be made only if they are considered necessary for furthering Plan goals
and not merely because procedures permit them. The Minister would do well
to recall that as one who is in charge of the Ministry that is in charge
of DDA that is custodian of the Master Plan that provides the statutory
framework for planned development of the capital of the world?s largest
democracy, greater responsibility is expected of him. This is especially
so when the Plan is sub-review and willfully taken landuse decisions may
well jeopardise not only the entitlements of certain sections of citizens,
but the future of the city.