Introduction of projects sans Master Plan contestable
|
The public has been duped in the participatory process of planning , writes Tara Murali
|
The recent move to amend master plan outside and after public consultation has raised serious questions . What is most contestable is the introduction of projects and ideas that never figured in the master plan in the first place.
At what point in the process of finalising the Master Plan should the Government’s aspirations for urban planning be included? Is it to be prior to the preparation of the draft by the planning authorities or is to be done after the responses from the public are received? Is it imperative for the Government to take into account the wishes and demands of the people or can it make major arbitrary changes to the Plan?
At what point should the departments, involved in infrastructure provision, engage themselves with the Master Plan? Can they propose major projects that do not find a place in the Draft Plan? If so what sanctity does the Plan have?
Sixteen years after it was due, the Draft Master Plan for the Chennai Metropolitan Area was, last April (2007), placed before the public for comments, reactions and suggestions. The Draft Second Master Plan had been prepared by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA). During the mandated period of 60 days (which was extended to 90 ), several rounds of discussion with the public were held. The meetings were meticulously recorded and these as well as the written suggestions were compiled together for further study and integration into the Master Plan.
Public participation
There appeared to be a genuine attempt by the CMDA to be inclusive in its dealings with the public. A simplified version of the Draft Plan as well as a Tamil translation was made available. The Draft Plan was also put up on its website for easy access. With all its shortcomings, there was for the first time a sincere attempt at public participation in city planning.
The public and civil society for their part reacted fairly enthusiastically in what was essentially a technical presentation and gave suggestions on several issues. All in all the CMDA could be credited, up to this point, for widening the space for discussion on the Master Plan.
The CMDA then set up committees of experts from the public (hereafter referred to as Experts Committee) in each subject of city planning. Serious discussions and dialogue took place with this Committee over two months in a frank and open atmosphere. Here again, with all its inadequacies, this interaction was the first of its kind and highly encouraging to civil society groups involved in transparency and accountability in government. A welcome change appeared to have come into Government-public interaction.
But wait! It now looks like the whole consultative process was just a facade.
A mockery?
Recent newspaper reports make the public fear that the advice of the Experts Committee is sought to be nullified. The Cabinet Sub Committee on Master plan may take arbitrary decisions on several important issues based on its own wisdom. These may include “increasing the floor space index and relaxing height restrictions and building violations”. Once again the competence and expertise of the powers that be to effect such changes is highly questionable and especially since some of them contradict the High Court’s orders. What importance is the Government giving to the opinion of the public or is it just treating it with disdain? Is this not a mockery of the public participatory process?
Even when the discussions with the public were going on, major projects in the transportation section, not included in the Draft Plan, were being presented by a para statal agency, the Tamilnadu Urban Infrastructure and Financial Services Ltd (TNUIFSL).
In particular, two projects listed in the Transportation Section (and not found in the Draft Master Plan) are very worrying to NGOs working to save the Adyar Creek and Estuary and restore the wetlands. These projects were not discussed in the public hearings on the Master Plan. They have also not been placed before or received the assent of the Experts Committee (on Transport).
These are the elevated highways “From Light House to Besant Nagar across Adyar Estuary (10 km length) and on to ECR (along existing road links)” and “Along City Waterways (52.6km along existing links and 46.7 km new construction)”.
The Adyar Estuary and Creek are mandated to be preserved as a wetland area by the High Court. The project of TNUIFSL requires the narrowing down of the Adyar River and reclaiming land on the banks. Even the pristine bank of the Theosophical Society is not to be spared. Increasing the velocity of the river will destroy the spawning and nesting areas of marine and bird life of the river and restoration of wetlands will not be possible.
Equally disturbing is the proposal of the elevated highway from Light House to Besant Nagar across Adyar Estuary and on to ECR. In fact this highway is to run along the beach front up to Neelangarai where it will join the ECR. This will not only be environmentally destructive but also destroy the livelihood of the fishing hamlets and be a visual monstrosity.
Has the public been duped in the participatory process? Is the (Master Plan) wolf now stepping out of the (Draft) sheep’s clothes?
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Property Plus
Bangalore
Chennai
Hyderabad
Kochi
Malabar
Thiruvananthapuram
