[in-enaction] [Campaign] Regularisation of flat alterations in Delhi

Union Urban Development Minister has announced that unauthorised
additions and alterations in flats in Delhi stand condoned and
permitted. Our politicians will have us believe that this ?policy? has
the broad
concurrence of flat residents and urban development professionals. I
contend this is far from true and that many would not want to endorse
this ?policy? if its implications were to be transparently discussed.
This space is for the ?other side? in the one-sided debate that has
resulted in this ?policy?.
----------------------------------

Union Urban Development Minister in the BJP-led coalition government at
the Centre has announced, in line with long-standing demands and
election-year promises of BJP Delhi President, that unauthorised
additions and alterations in flats built by Delhi Development Authority
(DDA) and cooperative group housing societies in Delhi stand condoned
and permitted. The only ?opposition? from the Congress government in
Delhi, as has become usual, is that yet another Congress-original demand
has been ?hijacked? by BJP.

Our politicians will have us believe that this ?policy? has the broad
concurrence of all flat walas (nearly all of whom, they claim, have
altered their flats) as well as of the professional fraternity (an
impression being conveyed through some so-called ?technical? details).
As a strongly disapproving flat resident and professional planner I
constitute evidence to the contrary. I contend further not only that
many others also disapprove but also that many more are unlikely to
endorse this ?policy? if its implications were to be transparently
discussed rather than be pushed through with one-sided debate.

Raised here ? in the hope of creating a small space for the ?other side?
of the debate to come together ? are a few issues (at building, area and
city levels and apropos governance and legal matters) that have been
skirted in the discourse. All those who disagree with the ?policy?
and/or feel concerned about these and similar issues are requested to
post their comments / endorsements, ask others to do the same and post
others? comments in the media? anything to show there are two sides to
this debate.

I am aware Delhi?s citizenry has largely ?given up?, but I am also aware
that many have not and do whine like I do. I suggest whining in one
place to make a loud whine, maybe a loud enough one.


Building level issues

Safety is being projected as a core concern. But all that the ?policy?
suggests is a ?certificate? from a ?structural engineer?. This is even
as seismicity in Delhi in general and the critical ground water status
in South and South West Delhi in addition requires parameters for
structural safety of even existing buildings to be systematically
established and evaluated in area-specific rather than city-wide terms.

In general, there is a large body of research on design and visual
aspects of transformations that this ?policy? has not drawn upon to
pro-actively ?advise?. Instead, it merely ?lists? and retroactively
condones and permits continuation of common alterations, even as many of
them are problematic. What was needed is not general-purpose populist
policy but problem-solving of greater specificity.


Area level issues

This ?policy? will make DDA flats one-step more up-market as two bedroom
flats are allowed to become three-bedroom, etc. It is for good reason
that property brokers ? and flat walas wanting to sell ? are cheered. A
lot of buying and selling can be expected and the community profile of
flatted areas will change.

We are assured no new dwellings will be added and population will not
exceed infrastructure capacity. This may be true for water, sewage, etc,
where consumption relates primarily to population figures. However, a
more up-market population will lead to greater demand for power and
parking, both of which are currently headline-hogging problems.


City level issues

DDA?s self-financing flats and sites allotted for cooperative flats were
meant for middle income groups and priced at or near no-profit-no-loss
rates. This ?policy? will open up housing stock developed on public land
by our public authority without profit to upper-income market segments
from which the public authority should have made profits under Delhi?s
land policy.

As per targets in the Master Plan, of which DDA and MoUD are custodians,
?backlog? on housing is in low and middle income segments. Our
governments, oddly, are fighting over credit for a ?policy? to transfer
even existing stock to higher income groups. This has implications for
carrying capacity (including water, sewage, etc) because it will add
unintended high income population to the city while anticipated others
will also be there, albeit in housing not provided or facilitated by the
state.


Governance issues

A serious concern, and one that has been repeatedly raised and never
answered, is to do with the message loudly conveyed by each such
?policy? ? go ahead, break the law, we?ll take care of you. This trend
of condoning culprits becoming state policy seems definitely dangerous.

Another oft-raised but never answered question relates to the worth of
planning for the future (such as through the on-going Master Plan
revision) when it is planning for the past through simplistic sweeping
regularisations through such ?policy? that is the (political) practice.

The impression being conveyed is that the ?policy? will benefit ?The
Common Man? as most flat walas have illegally altered their flats. I am
sure this is not the case and would like to see the inventory data that
suggests it. I am sure ?The Common Man? includes, in large numbers,
those who have not made major or problematic alterations or even
otherwise disapprove of such regularisation.

Residents? Welfare Associations (RWAs), Federations of RWAs and Apex
Associations of Federations of RWAs are ?legitimising? claims of
politicians and endorsing this ?policy?. Bonhomie of bhagidari
notwithstanding, the fact remains that residents have mandated their
RWAs only for routine activities of cleaning, greening and securing.
RWAs have neither their members? mandate nor any constitutional basis to
make interventions in policy-making in the vein of an extra tier of
government.


Legal issues

Since this ?policy? will potentially make DDA housing more up-market
than it was planned to be, it arguably amounts to a modification (in
terms of ?change of user?) of Master Plan norms for composition of
residential neighbourhoods. As such, it attracts Plan modification
provisions of s.11 of Delhi Development Act that make it obligatory for
DDA/MoUD to, among other things, issue Public Notice inviting objections
and suggestions from the general public. This democratic and statutory
option for participation in planning is far superior to exclusionary and
perhaps unconstitutional bhagidari seminars, etc, and there is no reason
why it should be denied to citizens.

At the moment, the Master Plan for Delhi is sub-review. As per law this
process requires extensive surveys and planning data and professional
inputs and consultations with public authorities, etc. At the moment,
especially, there is no excuse for simplistic populist ?policy?
announcements to pre-empt holistic planning based