Drama called planning Pune,full of chaos,suspense, secrecy,favoritism,allegations, mismanagement and corruption

Drama called planning Pune is full of chaos,suspense, secrecy, favoritism,allegations, mismanagement and corruption. So called confidentiality played key role in this entire planning process. Actually as per Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act ( MRTP) and Right To Information act (RTI) all the process  and documents related to planning process should be in public domain. However authorities kept Draft development control rules, Draft DP and  and Maps sealed.This secrecy was for common citizens only otherwise all these documents were made available for chosen few easily . I have filed a complaint with State Information commission (SIC) in November 2012 but SIC hasn't find time to hear it. Now even if they hear it , it will of no use at least for pune city.

Now,three  members out of 7 members of the planning committee appointed by the state government to hear suggestions and objections regarding the revision of  draft Development Plan (DP) old limit of pune City have alleged that the text in the Marathi version of their report submitted to the general body (GB) has been modified. They have said that only the English version of the report should be presented.

There might be many such issues in this report which they have neither endorsed/recommended, nor signed. If planning committee members have been alleging that changes were made without their knowledge, then it is a serious charge. The citizens must know the reality of this matter.In addition to the report and decisions signed and submitted by Planning Committee on  Draft development plan of Pune City for old limit, three members  i.e Mr.Sarang Yadwadkar , Dr. Sachin A. Punekar and Mr.A.M. Chauhan of the committee have submitted additional report.

These members’ have alleged that

1.The procedure followed by the planning committee while taking various decisions was not having the required broad perspective with respect to the planning norms that could be followed on larger level. Each decision with respect to various suggestions and objections taken by citizens; was taken independently without primarily studying the norms being fulfilled/not fulfilled at planning unit level.

2. As the decisions have been taken in completely fragmented manner, the correctness of each decision could not be assessed and the implications of the same on the city or on that particular planning unit could not be evaluated which is extremely vital for balanced and healthy growth of the city.

3. The information sought from the planning cell was rarely furnished in required format. In fact unfortunately there was undeclared noncooperation from the concerned staff on this front.

4. This report is primarily based on the hearings given to the citizens for their suggestions and objections and also on the contents of the Draft Development Plan components.

5. This report supersedes the individual decisions taken and signed by us and the joint

report as well.

Here is entire report submitted by three members 

THE QUESTIONABILITY OF THE Draft Development Plan

1. LOW RESOLUTION MAPS PUBLISHED ON PMC’S OFFICIAL WEB SITE:

This is a very major issue which received strong reactions from many citizens and NGOs.

Fig. 1.1: LOW RESOLUTION MAP ON PMC’S OFFICIAL WEB SITE

Fig. 1.2: HIGH RESOLUTION MAP AVAILABLE WITH PMC

It is evident from the above samples that none of the survey numbers or text is legible in the maps published for public on PMC’s official web site (Fig. 1.1) whereas the high resolution maps which are easily readable were available with the planning authority (Fig. 1.2). The reason behind not publishing these high resolution maps for the public is a mystery till date.

As low resolution maps were made available for the citizens; in which neither survey

numbers nor any text is legible, it was practically impossible to understand these maps and the implications thereof with respect to any particular property or even at larger scale. This certainly has resulted in miscommunication and misinterpretations at mass level.

Citizens had to refer to the maps published on the official website of PMC as the hard

copies of the maps made available for sale to public were also illegible due to scale.

Therefore it was extremely essential that the maps published on the website should have been high resolution for proper interpretation to register their suggestions and objections.

It is a duty of the Planning Committee to bring it on record that, by not publishing the “legible maps” which were available with the Planning Authority, the citizens/tax payers have been deprived of their basic right to comprehend the Development Plan correctly and to express their views on it subsequently. It also would be significant to note that low resolution maps were made available for public. Whereas, during the hearings and Planning Committee meetings high resolution maps were projected on screen. Thus the maps projected during hearings and meetings were different (at least in resolution and clarity) from those made available for public for study.

The only option to correct this injustice done to the citizens is to republish the high

resolution maps for clear interpretation and re-invite the suggestions-objections based on the same. Otherwise this will not be a DP of the people, by the people, for the people.

2. UPA SOOCHANA (AMENDMENTS) IN GENERAL BODY:

There were number of objections raised by citizens on this issue heard during the hearings.

1. Vide Resolution No. 588 the DP was presented by the Administration before General Body where 413 changes were suggested by the corporators by way of

“Upasoochanas” (amendments). Out of this, 276 changes were with respect to PLU and 137 were with respect to the Development Control Rules (DC Rules).

2. As there were serious objections by citizens with respect to these “Upasoochanas”, we sought legal opinion from the legal department of PMC. The legal department refused to provide their opinion on this matter for reason best known to them (Letter No. MPO/1272 Dt. 2/9/2014 from Legal Dept.).

The question is, once the DDP is prepared by the Town Planning Officer and his staff, keeping in mind technical requirements, why the General Body make hundreds of microchanges by way of “Upasoochanas” in the DDP? That too without ensuring that the planning norms are not affected adversely. Many changes suggested by corporators in the General Body vide Resolution No. 588; and incorporated by administration in the DDP are

questionable. For example:

Shyama Prasad Mukhergy Garden:

                                                  Fig. 2.1: 1987 DP Fig.

                                       2.2: ELU Map prepared by PMC

Fig. 2.3: 2007 DP prepared by Admin.          

  

Fig. 2.4: PLU after “Upasoochana”

At S. No. 22 of Erandawane, a garden is shown in 1987 DP (Fig. 2.1). The garden is

continued as shown in the ELU map (Fig. 2.2). Administration DP also proposes the entire land as reservation for garden (G-18) (Fig. 2.3). But it is shocking to see that a large chunk of the garden reservation is converted into commercial use C1-3 (Fig. 2.4). This change has taken place by way of “Upasoochana”. Numerous such socially and environmentally detrimental changes have been made in the DP which is not acceptable since they do not follow the planning norms. We therefore recommend that all such changes made by “Upasoochanas” which adversely affect the planning norms should be reverted.

3. REVISIONS/CHANGES MADE TO 1987 DP:

While evaluating changes made in the DP and considering the suggestions and objections made by the public, it became necessary to consider the changes made in the original 1987 DP the following observations were made:

1. The ELU shows that developments inconsistent with 1987 DP have taken place. This indicates that either legal changes have been made U/S 37 in 1987 DP or the

development is illegal. In absence of the maps updated up to the latest modifications, it is not possible to determine the legal status of these changes. For example CPG-52

(Fig. 3.1) now re-designated as CPG-39 (Fig. 3.4) shows two residential developmentswithout being reflected in the list of Sec. 37 modifications in Statement 4-1 of the DDP (page 40). This contradiction remains unexplained in the DDP.

2. PS-54 in the 1987 DP (Fig. 3.1) has been reduced from 0.78 Ha. to 0.35 Ha. Through subsequent modifications and has been partly developed as Primary School (Fig. 3.2). In the DDP it has been completely re-designated as Commercial (C1-2) (Fig. 3.4). The so called rationale furnished for this, is “Upasoochana” given in General Body. If continued as shown in the PLU, this would result in further erosion of an important public amenity of Primary School which is not acceptable.

3. Existing green space in 1987 DP (Fig. 3.1) at S. No. 36 Erandawane, also shown green in the ELU (Fig. 3.2) now mysteriously shown as residential (Fig. 3.3 and 3.4).

Additionally some existing roads also have been converted into residential in the DDP.

Fig. 3.1: 1987 DP Fig.  

                        3.2: ELU Map prepared by PMC

Fig. 3.3: 2007 DP prepared by Admin.

   Fig. 3.4: Draft DP as published

	Primary School reservation Road along both reservations	Access to PS from North	Children’s Play Ground	Road along both reservations
Fig.3: 1987 DP	PS 54 as original	Access Road from S. No. 34	CPG 52 as original	Continuous between two main roads
Fig. 4: ELU	Partly shown as Residential, partly as Primary School and partly shown without any zoning.	Road abutting PS converted to residential plots.	Partly converted to Residential zone and partly shown without any zoning.	Continuous between two main roads
Fig. 5: Admin. DP 2007 before Reso. No. 588	Area under existing school and area shown without zoning now shown as PS 39	No access road on North	Shown as CPG 41and extended on residential bldgs. Which were part of CPG 52.	Continuity of the road broken by new reservation H 7.
Fig. 6: Draft DP after Reso. No. 588	Entirely converted to commercial reservation C1-2 including area under existing school. Two roads now shown in the Side margins of the existing school to provide access to the rear part which is now converted to commercial	No access road on North	Shown as CPG 39 extended on residential bldgs. Which were a part of CPG 52.	Continuity of the road broken by new reservation H 7.
Final Result	 Original Primary School Reservation completely deleted.  Entire area under Primary School reservation converted to residential and commercial use.  9 M road is proposed along existing school completely jeopardising safety of the students	Road converted to residential plots.	 CPG reduced to 50% of original area.  Remaining 50% area converted to residential.  Building permissions issued on area under CPG.	Continuity of a good link road broken apparently for no reason.

The net effect of all these changes is severe erosion of public amenities, green spaces and potential legalisation of illegal development. The example given here is a very

representative sample of hundreds if not more such dubious alterations that have been

made in the 1987 DP while preparing the 2007 DDP.

Therefore it is recommended that every such change (reservation or otherwise) made in the final 1987 DP should be listed with justification for the proposed changes

Similarly any discrepancy between 1987 DP (with modifications) and the ELU must be listed and explained. Under any circumstances, further attrition of open spaces and public amenities must not be allowed in the DP.

4. INCORRECT EXISTING LAND USE (ELU) MAPS:

 Existing roads in the riverbed have not been shown accordingly in the ELU.

 Canal from SNDT College to Prabhat Road is a road and no longer a water body, yet it is shown in blue as a water body in the ELU map.

 Major features like the Rajaram Bridge are missing.

 In ELU, area under roads is shown as 15.99% (table No. 7-9) and in the Draft DP it is shown as 13.66% (Statement 20-7) i.e. reduced by 2.33%. After widening of almost all roads, this is obviously incorrect. Either the ELU or PLU or both are wrong.

 Similarly there is reduction in area under HTHS and water bodies from ELU to PLU. All such retrograde changes in ecologically sensitive features go against environmental and planning norms.

 Many roads and locations of buildings have been erroneously shown in the ELU.

Roads shown in ELU and in PLU do not match with each other. (e. g. Range Hill Road junction with Ganeshkhind Road shown below in fig. 4.1 and 4.2).

All these points raise serious questions on the authenticity, legitimacy and dependability of the ELU. It is doubtful, whether the ELU was prepared after proper data collection and survey of the city? It would have been in the interest of the citizens if the ELU was published by the Planning Authority for the people prior to preparing the PLU for suggestions if any (like what was done by Mumbai Municipal Corporation).

Fig. 4.1: ELU- GANESHKHIND AND RANGE HILL ROAD JUNCTION

Fig. 4.2: PLU- GANESHKHIND AND RANGE HILL ROAD JUNCTION

In many cases locations of buildings in ELU and PLU do not match with each other. At numerous places existing buildings are not shown whereas at many places nonexistent buildings have been shown in the ELU. This will create serious problems as the buildings that may be affected by road widenings cannot be clearly determined.

In many instances reservations have been placed or continued where desired development has already been completed [e. g. Swapnashilpa Society already developed as C2 and shown as residential in ELU (Fig. 5.1) has been shown as reservation C2-3 in the PLU (Fig. 5.1)]. It also would be pertinent to note that a building that does not exist has been shown on S. No. 18 in ELU map (Fig. 5.1) whereas in PLU maps the building is not shown at all (Fig. 5.2).

Fig. 5.1: ELU of Swapnashilpa Society

Fig. 5.2: PLU of Swapnashilpa Society

It is quite likely that dozens if not more such mistakes have been made in the DDP. It is impossible for the Planning Committee to identify and rectify all these mistakes. Citizens also may not realise such mistakes as the plans made available to the citizens were of very low resolution and therefore illegible as stated above. This will certainly lead to numerous legal complications if these mistakes remain in the DP.

It is obvious that an incorrect ELU will result in equally or more incorrect PLU. We

therefore are of the opinion that the process should be reinitiated from the stage of ELU. As the DP is going to be the road map of Pune for next 20 years, it would be better to lose few months than to lose the direction itself.

5. WHY TWO (OR THREE) SEPARATE DPs FOR THE SAME CITY?

It is not made clear in the report, how the two plans for the same city (old Pune and 23 merged villages) complement each other. Not having an integrated view of the whole city while making the plan for the old city is a major issue.

As an example, this DP proposes a tunnel, a bridge and huge road widenings to provide connectivity between Sahakarnagar and Kothrud. It is surprising to note that same connectivity is already provided in the DP of 23 villages with a tunnel hardly 1.3 Km. away from the tunnel proposed in this DP. Proposing two tunnels only 1.3 Km. away from each other, providing same connectivity, that too at the cost of irreversible environmental damage clearly proves that there is no integrity in the planning process of the two DPs.

It is now decided that 34 more villages are to be added to PMC limits. Does it mean that there would be a third DP prepared independently for these villages? Such a fragmented and un-holistic approach while preparing the DPs for a metro like Pune would certainly result in more chaos and mismanagement. It is therefore advisable to have a single DP for Pune (old and new limits) including all possible mergers in next 20 years at least.

In order to deal with the pressures, more particularly from the infrastructure of the

Metropolitan area, as well as to manage resources from it, the need to integrate all the

individual Development Plans at the Metropolitan level is vital, and is mandated as per the 74thConstitutional Amendment Act [Section 243ZE(1) and (3)]. This is to be done by the Metropolitan Planning Committee (MPC). There has to be a MPC as the apex body to monitor the integration of all DPs/developments in PMC, PCMC and fringe areas etc.

PROCEDURAL AND TECHNICAL ASPECTS:

1. RESERVATIONS PROPOSED ON PRIVATE AND LAYOUT OPEN SPACES:

In the DDP many reservations have been incorrectly placed on private/sanctioned layout open spaces which need to be removed. However removal of such reservations may result in planning norms not being met for public amenities and/or open spaces. To balance this short fall of open spaces and public amenities it becomes imperative, not to convert any open spaces or public amenities shown 1987 DP into commercial or residential user. This is more crucial when densification by way of increased FSI is proposed in a particular zone or in the city as it would result in more demand of public amenities and open spaces.

2. DETAILING AT ROAD JUNCTIONS:

While studying the DDP maps it is seen at many major junctions like Paud Phata junction, University Circle etc. major roads, existing flyovers, HCMTR and elevated Metro etc. are crossing each other. It would be practically impossible to plan these transport corridors one above the other at the same location. Broad detailing of all such junctions needs to be worked out and necessary realignment should be done in the DDP at this stage itself.

3. HIGH CAPACITY MASS TRANSPORT ROAD:

The idea of the HCMTR was originally meant to ensure a dedicated right of way for public transport. The alignment of the HCMTR was specifically meant as a “ring road” thus providing connectivity to all parts of the city without going through the city centre.

The failure of the city to implement the HCMTR, the growth of the city beyond the

original alignment and various impediments (legal or otherwise) make its implementation impractical. However the need to provide dedicated right of way to public transport has become even more necessary. The idea of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) can be considered a modern alternative to the idea of HCMTR. We therefore make the following

recommendations:

1. A city-wide BRTS network should be established that will meet the transport needs of the city which augments the currently proposed corridors.

2. It is quite possible that the alignment of the HCMTR as shown in the DP has become irrelevant and obsolete with respect to its original objectives. Hence we recommend that the feasibility of the entire HCMTR project needs to be re assessed through competent agency.

4. HILL TOPS HILLS SLOPES:

On some existing hill tops and hill slopes (HTHS), developments like parks are proposed. Some of the HTHS have been converted into residential zones. This is completely in contradiction with the Town planning norms that are required to be maintained, more particularly when such open spaces are practically missing in the core city. All these HTHS play crucial roles in the environmental and ecological balance of the city by:

 Purification of polluted air

 Allowing rain water to percolate to enrich depleting ground water table.

 Provide natural habitat to various birds and animals

 Maintain biodiversity etc.

Nature has endowed a surrounding of several natural hills and hillocks to Pune. These hills are offshoots of Western Ghats, a global Hot Spot of Biodiversity. They are blessed with myriad life forms. However, due to various anthropogenic as well as pressures, these hills are under tremendous distress. In order to protect the existing Biodiversity of hills, it is indeed important to conserve the hills.

There are total 12 different hills in Pune, out of which 3 are major hills. They are

1. Vetal hill complex- which includes Chaturshrungi, Law College, ARAI and MIT

Hills

2. Pachgaon Parvati hill complex- which includes Parvati, Hanuman tekdi (hill),

Waghjai and Taljai hills

3. NDA (National Defence Academy) hill complex- which includes NDA campus,

Chandni Chowk, Kothrud- Malwadi hills

The other hills are Katraj, Ganeshkhind, Fergusson College, Baner, Ramtekdi, Bibewadi- Kondhwa, Gultekdi, Yerwadeshwar and Dighi hills. It is imperative to maintain the HTHS of the above hills and their connectivity or corridor with the BDP of recently merged 23 villages in the PMC limit for easy migration of various faunal elements and to maintain the ecological integrity. In the DDP various developments such as Tunnels and HCMTR are proposed which are detrimental to this crucial aspect.

Environmental issues linked with proposed tunnels in DDP:

Vehicular emissions constitute a serious environmental concern particularly in confined spaces as tunnels. These emissions are characterized by the presence of various pollutants, which cause adverse effects and consequences on the existing biota in and around the hills. Tunnel air temperature is another factor which is significant environmental issue especially in long tunnels due to vehicular heat emission. Tunnel users may be subjected to unacceptable air quality inside the tunnel. Tunnel emissions affect the air quality near the points where emissions are dispersed. Other important environmental issues are noise pollution and vibrations. High volumes of vehicles generate large noise levels, which is above permissible limits. The tunnels affect the underground hydrological pattern of surrounding area by disturbing underground aquifers. The tunnels are proposed in the biodiversity rich natural heritage which also acts as important ground water recharge zone.

Further this will affect the habitat for the critically endangered Jartropha nana (Nana

Erand), a plant species which is strictly endemic to the Pachgaon Parvati and Vetal Hills where the tunnels are proposed. Considering all this it is indeed essential to delete these tunnels proposed through the hills.

Under no circumstances development should be allowed by any means on HTHS. All these precious lands must be kept open and virgin. If required all these HTHS should be reserved keeping in mind that these are the lands with no construction and commercial potential. No roads of any kind to be developed on hill top and hill slopes or river bed

5. PROVISIONS FOR LIG/SRA/SI PROJECTS:

As stated in the ELU, slums occupy 3% of the area of the city. Area allocation for EWS and Slum Improvement projects is barely increased in the DP. The provisions do not match with the stated vision of ensuring affordable housing to make the city slum free. Only 490 hectares is allocated for EWS/SI, yet it is stated in the housing plan (Table 10-10) that the need for 560 hectares for EWS and 450 hectares for Low Income Group (LIG), no provision has been made for this. The 20% EWS/LIG housing from 2000 Sq. M. residential schemes (rule 11.1.3) is unlikely to meet even 10% of the need.

The Housing study estimates only 2500 hectares as the need for MIG and HIG housing (even with the overestimated population), the existing area under MIG and HIG housing is already 3000 Ha. (3400 Ha. assuming 50% of the Mixed Land Use is residential), yet this has been increased to 4700 hectares. Clearly the focus has been on creating new residential areas for the richer section of society, instead of addressing the housing needs of the poor.

Furthermore a density of 550 tenements/Ha. for EWS housing would result in almost 3000 persons/Ha. (Table 10-1 average size of slum household is 5.4), which is unacceptably high and will result in multi-storeyed slum-like conditions. It is not at all desirable that 40% of the city’s population lives in such pathetic conditions. It should be noted that the 1987 Development Plan in fact says, (Section 6.2.6) “It has been proposed to thin out the slums in which the population exceeds the density of 300 tenements/Ha”.

We therefore recommend that, at least 650 Ha. should be allocated for EWS. Also the 450 Ha. estimated for LIG should also be clearly earmarked in the plan. Overall about 600 Ha. of land allocated for residential use should be remarked to meet this critical demand. No EWS/LIG reservation should be deleted from the DP.

6. PLANNING NORMS AND GUIDELINES

Planning norms and guidelines are the essence of any DP. The norms should reflect the vision of the plan, should be clearly stated and the PLU must reflect how the norms are being met. The corresponding UDPFI and NBC norms need to be mentioned. The table below, based on analysis of areas under various reservations [SEC-26-FINAL GAZETTE], shows that many of the norms have not been met.

Reservation	Categories	Current	Allocation	Norms as per Annexure E
type	included	Allocation	required as
		in DDP	per norms
		HA	HA
Playgrounds	CPG, PG,	137	477	0.4 Ha per 1000 population, 0.1 Ha
	G&PG,			per 1000 population in congested
	MPG,			area (60% need assumed to be
	PS&CPG,			fulfilled by Hilltop)
	HS&PG
Parks and	PK, G, NG	378	248	0.2 Ha/1000 population,
Gardens				0.1Ha/1000 population in congested
				area (60% need assumed to be
				fulfilled by Hilltop)
Bus	BST,	5	13	1 per 1 lakh population, each 4000
Terminus	BST&TP			sq m
Bus Depot	PMPML	20	13	1 depot per 5 lakh population, each
				2 hectare
Police	PSTN, PC	3	37	1 per 90000 population, each 1.5 ha
Station
Civic and	CCC,	35	34	1 per 1 lakh population, each 1ha
Cultural	CC&WT,
Centre	AQRM,
	AQSC,
	KLGM,
	MU&AG,
	SCP, YGC,
	FC
Post Office	PO	1	2	1 per 15000 population, each 85 sq
				m
Primary	PS, PS&CPG	28	118	1 per 500 students, each school 0.4
Schools				ha*#
Secondary	HS, HS&PG	29	216	1 per 1000 students, each school 1.6
Schools				ha*#
Dispensary	D	1	7	1 per 25000 population, each 1000
				sq m*
Maternity	MH,D&MH	4	13	1 per 25000 population, each 2000
Homes				sq m*

* - assumed that only 50% of population will be catered to by the PMC

# - student population from the Socio-Economic Survey

It is also noted that the land allocation for various uses in Sector I is less than the norms.

Sector I Planned Land Use	Current Allocation in DDP	Allocation required as
	HA	per norms HA
Grounds and playgrounds	4	20
Parks and Gardens	2	20
Bus Terminus	0.0	2.0
Police Stations	0.1	5.6
Civic and cultural Centre	0.1	5.0

Post Office	0.1	0.3
Dispensaries	0.1	1.0
Maternity Homes	0.4	2.0
Hospitals	0.1	1.0
Bus Depot	0.2	2.0
Total (not including PS and	7.3	59.0
HS)

The space for playgrounds, parks and gardens does not even meet the highly reduced standard of 0.04 Ha (40% of 0.1 Ha) per 1000 persons.

We recommend that it is essential that all planning norms should be met in the DP. Lands allocated for such public open spaces and amenities in the 1987 DP should not be de-reserved.

In this context it would be pertinent to recommend that all Agricultural lands which have

been shown as residential zones should be developed under T.P Schemes for faster and better implementation and also to maintain the standards norms.

7. 4 FSI FOR METRO:

With the intention of Transport Oriented Development (TOD), 4 FSI is proposed in the DDP up to 500 M. on each side of Metro corridor.

a)    The statement that the Metro alignment is “tentative” is problematic since any change in alignment at a later stage would lead to a shift of the Metro Influence Zone and the permissible 4.0 FSI. Additionally lands required for Metro stations would also change location. Any grant of extra FSI in the Metro Influence Zone would be subject to legal complications in case the Metro alignment is changed. The Development Plan published must therefore have finality with respect to all major components. The following, “NOTE: - METRO ALIGNMENT SHOWN IN THIS MAP IS INDICATIVE AND MAY CHANGE AND MAY CHANGE AS PER THE SITE CONDITION” must be deleted from DDP.

b)    This additional FSI is going to result in more densification in particular part of the city, which would lead to far more burden on the infrastructure in that area due to:

•      More generation of waste,

•      More generation of sewage,

•      Greater need for water,

c)    Need for more amenity spaces (police stations, fire brigades, burial grounds, schools, hospitals, markets etc.)

d)    Need for green/open spaces

e)    Additional requirement of energy due to high rise buildings etc.

Means to tackle with this additional burden on the existing infrastructure has to be

addressed in detail.

c)    As this additional FSI is primarily to encourage TOD, use of private vehicles must be discouraged and public transport and NMT needs to be facilitated by reducing public and private parking spaces, through imposition of maximum parking allowed in building bye-laws and reducing public parking spaces. The DCRs need to be modified accordingly for the Metro Influence Zone.

d)    Consumption of 4 FSI would not be possible on existing plots as they are too small to construct high rise buildings with specified side margins. This will create pressure for amalgamation of smaller plots to create larger plots. This situation may result in forcible acquisition/grabbing of smaller plots by land mafias.

e)    It is equally pertinent to mention here that the suggestions and objections on Metro project were separately invited and heard, though Metro is a major component introduced in this DP. It would have been rational if the hearings to the suggestion-objections on Metro were under the scope of this Planning Committee.

STUDIES NOT PERFORMED:

It is necessary to mention that following essential studies were not done properly:

1.    SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT: (Collection, Processing, Transportation & Treatment):

This is one of the biggest problems that the city is currently facing. Preparation of this DDP was an excellent opportunity to tackle this serious health crisis. It was necessary to study the waste generation data, spaces required for segregation and the final treatment and then envisage the future techniques and management including minimising waste generation, its segregation at source, transportation, processing and treatment of various types of solid wastes like biodegradable waste, plastic waste, paper waste, glass waste, metal waste, toxic waste etc. Accordingly spaces at right locations should have been allocated and reserved only for waste processing and different types of waste treatments.

This is more important when higher densification is proposed. The Development Plan proposes higher FSI which will result in far more densification of population in that particular area. This will result in more generation of garbage making the crisis far more severe than what it is today. Unfortunately enough attention is not paid to this issue which is directly related to the health of the city.

With respect to the proper disposal of animal carcasses, no consideration is given in the DP to the required space allocation.

Reserving some pieces of land merely for Municipal Purpose (MP) is not going to be enough. We need to quantify, identify and dedicate required lands for this purpose only; to avoid serious health concerns in the future.

It would be appropriate to highlight in this report that due to increase in the buildable potential of lands by way of increase in FSI and/or TDR, more and more people will be attracted to redevelop their old properties. In this possible spree of demolition, mammoth quantities of construction debris shall be generated. If the issue of proper disposal of this debris is not addressed in this DP, there will be very serious problem resulting in environmental damage and degradation.

2. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION:

The DDP does not contain a road network map showing hierarchy of roads. This has resulted in illogical and arbitrary widening and planning of roads. The correlation between proposed land use and the category of road is absent. Providing multiple junctions on main arterial roads at very close distances will defeat the basic purpose of facilitating smooth flow of traffic. Similarly allowing uses like Mangal Karyalayas, Theatres and Malls etc. that attract crowds should not be allowed on main arterial roads as they create impediments in the flow of traffic.

The public transport and Non Motorised Transport (NMT) network should have been similarly superimposed on the road network.

Commuter densities, on the road network also have not been worked out.

In many cases tunnels, flyovers, road widenings etc. have been proposed without any reference to road hierarchy/network and will certainly lead to congestion points and worsening of traffic woes.

The overall thrust of the DDP with rampant road widenings, flyovers, elevated roads, tunnels, roads on riverbeds and on hills appears to be in total contradiction to the vision

and goals set in the Comprehensive Mobility Plan for Pune which envisions emphasis on public transport, NMT and discouraging use of personal vehicles which is also as per the National Urban Transport Policy.

In fact, in chapter No. 6.1 of the Comprehensive Mobility Plan (CMP) it is mentioned, “A travel Demand model for Pune has been calibrated for evaluating existing travel conditions and forecasting future travel demand. The model analyzes the present and future land use patterns to estimate the origins and destinations of trips. It then assigns these trips to different travel routes and travel modes based on the type and quality of the transportation network. Travel Demand models can be used for testing different scenarios without actually implementing projects.” Further it is stated, “Several software programs are available for developing travel demand models. The Pune transport model has been developed using CUBE (a state-of-the-art Travel Demand Modelling software).”

We therefore direct that no tunnel, bridge, flyover and major road should be planned, proposed and constructed without study of the current and future traffic through such latest modelling technique.

3.    SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF ROAD WIDENINGS AND NEW ROADS:

The net outcome of the rampant road widenings proposed in the fully built-up part of the city in terms of demolitions and the resulting economic and social impact will be extremely unaffordable in all aspects and practically impossible to implement as has been the experience in the 1987 DP.

Total number of people and businesses to be displaced due to proposed road widenings has not been worked out. Therefore it is not possible to work out the provisions required for resettlement plans and its costs.

The proposed road widenings will also erode the green cover of the city. Many rare heritage trees will be the casualty of this so called development e.g.

•      Mammea suriga (Surangi) near Hotel Good Luck, FC Road, the only tree of the species in Pune.

•      Adansonia digitata (Gorakh Chinch) at the junction of Tilak Road and Bajirao Road and also on Ghole Road.

•      Salix tetrasperma (Walunj) in the riverbed at the junction of Karve Road and Chavan Bridge, the only tree of the species in Pune.

All such rare heritage trees (totalling to around 25) must be protected from the developmental tsunami. It is also equally vital to protect the existing biodiversity in the shelter of trees e.g. a colony of Flying Fox bats at Mrityunjay Temple along Karve Road.

Furthermore it is proved all over the world that more roads road widenings is not the only solution to the traffic woes. What is more essential is to provide efficient and dependable Public Transport system resulting in reduction of number of private vehicles and more disciplined traffic.

4. RIVERS AND FLOOD LINES ALONG RIVERS:

Pune is hardly few Km. downstream of 6 major dams (Khadakwasla, Panshet, Warasgaon, Temghar, Pawana and Mulshi). Khadakwasla, the nearest dam has maximum discharge capacity of 1,28,899 CuSecs. Thereafter minimum 25,000 CuSecs. are added in this flow by minor streams in free catchment area. To be realistic Pune is a “Flood Prone” city and it has been proved many times in the recent past.

The State Government of Maharashtra in its Circular No.: FDW-1089/243/89/Sin Vya (Work) Mantralaya, Dated 21/9/1989 has clearly mentioned about “Prohibitive Zone” and “Restrictive Zone” along all rivers. These zones are marked by “Blue Line” and “Red Line” respectively.

It would be significant to note in this context that while preparing the DP of 23 villages, as flood lines were not marked on the maps, riverside lands which actually submerge during floods are shown as “Residential Zones”. Many buildings have been constructed on these submersible lands with permissions issued by PMC. Today; people staying in these buildings are at an eternal risk of floods for no fault of them. It is mandatory to mark flood lines on the DP maps and identify the riverside lands as Prohibitive and Restrictive Zones as directed in the circular.

The DDP Report at page No. 307 says:

“14. River Regulatory Zone (RRZ) (i.e. Blue line & Red line) will marked on DP, after the maps are received from the irrigation department.

15. An encroachment in the submersible green belts of rivers and nallas is the main cause of this huge risk of flooding and they have to be removed immediately. Additionally, de-silting must be done periodically.

16. No development in the river beds is allowed. Only users such as circus volleyball and basketball courts etc have been made permissible without only type of permanent construction”

Water Resources Department has surveyed the riverbeds to identify the Blue and Red flood lines in Pune. Maps of these flood lines were given by Water Resources Dept. to PMC way back on 05/03/2011 vide their letter No. KID/Admin.1/1527/2011. In spite of repeated demands from Planning Committee members, flood lines are not marked on the DP maps. This is very serious issue affecting the safety of innocent citizens of a city which has already experienced a major devastation due to a dam break hardly 54 years ago.

It is our responsibility to point out that the DP maps are “incomplete” without flood

lines marked on it as directed/specified by Water Resources Department. It is a criminal negligence to avoid marking flood lines in the DP maps of a flood prone city like Pune. That too when the flood lines are already identified by Water Resources Dept.

The DDP shows 30 M. wide roads proposed on the riverbeds. Constructing such roads (even though elevated on pillars) would certainly result in drastic reduction in carrying capacities of the rivers, leading to more frequent and severe floods as well as complete destruction of biodiversity rich Riparian Zones. These riparian zones act as feeding, breeding and hiding places for numerous varieties of amphibians and waterfowls. Any construction whether private or public will certainly facilitate more human encroachments and invasive plants which would be an additional burden on the riparian ecosystem.

It also would be pertinent to note that the rivers in Pune flow West-East and the riverbeds are the major corridors supplying fresh air from Westerly hills to the entire city. If any roads are constructed in the riverbeds to shift the traffic on the riverbeds, it will disperse the air pollution into much larger areas of the city and water bodies too.

It is crucial to mention that there are approximately 37 minor and major tributaries (nallas) of the rivers. Most of these tributaries are severely encroached upon by human encroachments and soil capping. This has resulted in more frequent and severe flash floods. Removal of all such encroachments and maintaining uniform green belt along all water bodies is extremely vital as these are the major ground water recharge zones.

All these riverbed roads inside flood lines and all such encroachments on the riverbeds and its tributaries proposed in the DDP must be omitted expressly under any circumstances.

5. WATER SUPPLY:

It is a well-known fact that availability of any natural resource is always limited and we need to plan our growth accordingly. This fact appears to be overlooked with respect to “Water”. In metros the maximum allowable water requirement is 150 LPD. As on today, Pune is lifting about 329 Lt./Person/Day (LPD) water from Khadakwasla Dam. In addition to this, ground water is also extracted in huge quantities. This fact visibly highlights:

•      Excessive water is being lifted from the sources,

•      Massive leakages in the water supply system,

•      Over consumption of water,

•      Mismanagement of with respect to water demand and supply etc.

This issue has not been sufficiently addressed in the DDP. The availability of water has not been worked out in order to determine a ceiling to the maximum sustainable population of the city. There is not enough focus on reduction of water consumption by way of Water Demand Management. Inputs from the Water Resources Dept. and other concerned departments and organizations are absent in the DDP.

6. GROUND WATER:

It is experienced in last few years that the ground water table in the city is not only depleting but it is getting heavily polluted and unusable for drinking. This has happened mainly because of unrestrained soil capping and leakages from sewage pipes entering into water supply system. Uncontrolled soil capping has resulted in increased surface run-offs, leading to flash floods in rainy season. While preparing the DP it was essential to survey the underground aquifers from a competent agency and to identify the areas from where ground water is recharged. These areas should be identified, notified and marked as

“Ground Water Recharge Zones” and must be protected from soil capping, sewage leakages, soil pollution etc, by appropriate building control rules, especially for basements. Similarly there are zones where water does not percolate into the ground. Therefore there is no point in encouraging/forcing rain water harvesting systems while issuing the building permissions. Instead of this it would be more useful and effective if “Community Based Rain Water Harvesting Systems” are encouraged at right locations. Sufficient focus has not been given by the Planning Authority in this direction.

In order to enable percolation of storm water into the ground to recharge the ground water table while enjoying the convenience of concretized surfaces, we recommend the use of

HPCC (High Performance Pervious Concrete) for construction of roads, parking lots, side margins, pavements etc.

With respect to the private swimming pools, the water is sourced either from municipal supply or from ground water sources. Either way; such swimming pools create heavy burden on natural resources which is a public property. We therefore recommend:

•      Construction of private swimming pools needs to be discouraged.

•      Heavy development charges should be levied while allowing the construction of such pools.

•      The foot print of the swimming pools and allied structures should be included in FSI.

•      Heavy annual cess should be levied on all private swimming pools in proportion to their volumetric capacity.

•      The water being used in the pools should be compulsorily recycled at regular intervals to minimise intake of fresh water.

The following activities are important in ensuring sustainable management of ground water

resources in the context of Pune’s water security:

1.    Identifying status of existing groundwater resources through participatory mechanisms, focusing mainly on “sources”. An exercise involving citizens, educational institutions like colleges and urban utilities should be undertaken. If required, industry and other such stakeholders maybe even invited to invest their CSR funds into a public-private-partnership effort on “aquifer mapping and groundwater management”.

2.    Assessment of the groundwater resources through a participatory “aquifer mapping” approach coupled with systematic studies by institutions with appropriate capacities should be specifically undertaken. This exercise should include the identification of natural recharge areas, groundwater discharging zones such as springs and seeps and quantification of aquifer characteristics, namely transmissivities, storativities and groundwater quality. Such Groundwater Profiling should be initiated across Pune city.

3.    Profiling stakeholders, including users, tanker operators, drilling agencies and developing mechanisms for registering water sources could be undertaken as part of the database on Pune’s water resources (apart from the scientific data emerging from “2” above.)

4. It is only after the first three steps that mainstreaming - at least part of the private groundwater sourcing into the public water supply system – be considered. As an order of progression, ascertaining quantitative and quality-related groundwater security must form part of the Pune’s water Security Plans. This must also include appropriate approaches, through a public programme, to groundwater recharge which is allied to the protection, conservation and upkeep of water bodies
5.  In-situ waste-disposal of any kind should be avoided at certain places keeping in mind the connection of such sites with key aquifers. In other words, ground water must be considered during waste-disposal, sewage and sullage management and design of sewerage and sewage-treatment
6. Developing a framework of regulatory norms around Groundwater Use and protection of aquifers by preserving natural recharge areas becomes important provided the above steps are carefully initiated. Similarly, it is also important to acknowledge and understand changes in river flows and quality and the precise relationship between aquifers, aquifer systems and the river flowing through city.
7. Finally, developing an institutional structure required for mapping the aquifers, and initiating groundwater management through collaboration between various types of stake holder institutions must be included as an integral part of Governance.

7. SEWAGE TREATMENT:

Some of the country’s most polluted rivers are flowing through the city. This is mainly because of excessive sewage generation and highly inefficient and incomplete sewage treatment. Industrial effluent and untreated domestic sewage in large quantities is discharged directly into the rivers and the rivers are no more rivers but they have become “Sewage Canals”.

It was vital to provide special focus on this issue, especially with respect to presently required sewage treatment capacity, sewage generation and treatment capacity for projected population, spaces required at different locations for installation of new sewage treatment plants and also to minimise sewage generation etc. Unfortunately this issue has not received the importance it deserves in the DDP. Not a single reservation for an STP is found in the DDP, despite being claimed, “New sites have been reserved for Sewage works in the draft Development Plan.” at Section 20.3.5 at page 346. This certainly will result in further degradation of rivers and injustice to the people living on downstream side of Pune.

INORGANIC PLANNING:

It would be significant to mention in this report that in Sangamwadi area a very different road pattern is observed like a sanctioned layout (Fig. 6). It is obvious that such pre-determined land use pattern is created and planted in the DP in the interest of some private organisation. This issue needs to be examined and investigated up to its roots.

Fig. 6: ROAD PATTERN PROPOSED AT SANGAMWADI

We therefore recommend that all such virgin agricultural lands should be developed as Town Planning Schemes for faster and effective implementation.

OTHER POINTS:

PRIORITISATION OF AMBITIOUS PROJECTS PROPOSED:

There are many ambitious and capital intensive projects like Metro Rail, BRTS, HCMTR and Mono Rail proposed/declared in Pune. Ultimately the citizens will have to bear at least the major financial burden of these projects. It would be prudent to decide the chronological priority of all these projects and fine tune it with cash flows projected in future, so that these infrastructural projects would be completed as per decided time frame.

RESERVATIONS TO BE REVERTED TO BUILDABLE STATUS DUE TO

CANCELLATION OF ROAD WIDENING IN SECTOR I:

Many small properties in Sector I were converted into practically unbuildable plots as very large frontages of these properties were getting affected by massive road widenings proposed in the DDP. Therefore many such properties have been reserved in the Draft DP for parking etc. particularly on major roads like Lakshmi Road and Tilak Road.

As all road widths in Sector I need to be retained as per 1987 DP as a policy decision, suchproperties do not become unbuildable. As the area of such properties, even after cancelling the road widenings is so small that it cannot be used as a sizable parking lot. We therefore recommend that the respective reservations should be deleted and the zones of all such properties should be shown as per the zone of the surrounding properties.

TREE COVER POLICY FOR PLANTATION UNDER DCR:

The urban flora of Pune city is much diverse which represents both indigenous as well as exotic species. However, exotic species are in dominance which rarely supports the native biodiversity. On the contrary local native species of plants support the biodiversity in more sustainable manner. Considering this it is recommended that local species should be encouraged in plantation programmes under DCR. List of such native plant species need to be planted for getting sanction of Building Permission/Commencement Certificate (DCR Regulation No. 6.7.1) or for Eco-housing project is mentioned below.

Sr.	Botanical Name	Vernacular Name	Family
No.
1	Acacia catechu	Khair	Mimosaceae
2	Acacia leucophloea	Hivar	Mimosaceae
3	Acacia nilotica	Babhul	Mimosaceae
4	Acacia polycantha	Pandhari Babhul, Son-	Mimosaceae
		babhul
5	Aegle marmelos	Bel	Rutaceae
6	Albizia lebbeck	Shirish	Mimosaceae
7	Albizia procera	Kinai	Mimosaceae
8	Anogeissus latifolia	Dhavda	Combretaceae
9	Azadirachta indica	Kadunimb	Meliaceae
10	Bauhinia racemosa	Aapta	Caesalpiniaceae
11	Bombax ceiba	Kate Sawar	Bombacaceae
12	Boswellia serrata	Salai Dhup	Burseraceae
13	Bridelia retusa	Asana	Euphorbiaceae
14	Buchnania cochinchinensis	Char, Charoli	Anacardiaceae
15	Butea monosperma	Palas	Fabaceae
16	Capparis grandis	Pachunda	Capparaceae
17	Cassia fistula	Bahava, Amaltas	Caesalpiniaceae
18	Cochlospermum religiosum	Ganer, Son-sawar	Cochlospermaceae
19	Cordia macleodii	Dahivan	Boraginaceae
20	Cordia myxa	Bhokar	Boraginaceae
21	Dalbergia lanceolaria	Phanashi	Fabaceae
22	Dalbergia latifolia	Shisham	Fabaceae
23	Dichrostachys cinerea	Durangi babhul	Mimosaceae
24	Diospyros melanoxylon	Tembhurni	Ebenaceae
25	Dolichandrone falcata	Medshingi	Bignoniaceae
26	Erythrina suberosa	Buch Pangara	Fabaceae
27	Ficus benghalensis	Vad	Moraceae
28	Ficus racemosa	Umbar	Moraceae
29	Ficus religiosa	Pimpal	Moraceae
30	Gardenia enneandra	Dikemali	Rubiaceae
31	Garuga pinnata	Kakad	Burseraceae
32	Gmelina arborea	Shivan	Lamiaceae
33	Grewia tiliifolia	Dhaman	Tiliaceae
34	Haldinia cordifolia	Haladu	Rubiaceae
35	Heterophragma quadriloculare	Waras	Bignoniaceae
36	Holoptelea integrifolia	Vavla	Ulmaceae
37	Lagerstroemia parviflora	Chota Bondara	Lythraceae
38	Lannea coromandelica	Bhavat, Moya, Shimati	Anacardiaceae
39	Limonia acidissima	Kavath	Rutaceae
40	Madhuca indica var. latifolia	Moh	Sapotaceae
41	Mangifera indica	Aamba	Anacardiaceae
42	Miliusa tomentosa	Hoomb	Annonaceae
43	Mitragyna parviflora	Kalamb	Rubiaceae
44	Nyctanthes arbor-tristis	Parijatak	Oleaceae
45	Ougeinia oojeinensis	Kala Palas	Fabaceae
46	Phoenix sylvestris	Shindi	Arecaceae
47	Phyllanthus emblica	Aawala	Euphorbiaceae
48	Pongamia pinnata	Karanj	Fabaceae
49	Pterocarpus marsupium	Bija	Fabaceae
50	Radermachera xylocarpa	Khadshingi	Bignoniaceae
51	Santalum album	Chandan	Santalaceae
52	Schleichera oleosa	Kusum, Koshimb	Sapindaceae
53	Schrebera sweitenioides	Mokha	Oleaceae
54	Semecarpus anacardium	Bibba	Anacardiaceae
55	Sterculia urens	Kahandal	Sterculiaceae
56	Stereospermum suaveolans	Padal	Bignoniaceae
57	Syzygium cumini	Lendi Jambhul	Myrtaceae
58	Tectona grandis	Sag	Lamiaceae
59	Terminalia bellirica	Behda	Combretaceae
60	Terminalia elliptica	Ain	Combretaceae
61	Trema orientalis	Ghol	Ulmaceae
62	Ziziphus jujuba	Bor	Rhamnaceae
63	Ziziphus xylopyrus	Ghot-bor	Rhamnaceae

CONCLUDING STATEMENT

To conclude, there are numerous procedural and technical lacunae in this Draft Development Plan like:

a)    Readable maps not published for citizens,

b)   Lack of coherence, clarity and transparency,

c)   Numerous serious errors in ELU maps,

d)   Failure to meet statutory planning norms,

e)   Flood lines not shown along the rivers,

f)    Studies required for Traffic and Transportation, Solid Waste Management, Water Supply and Water Demand Management, Sewage Generation and Treatment, Ground Water Resources etc. are not done and/or reflected in the DP,

g)   No required focus on conserving Biodiversity on hills and rivers,

h)   Encouragement should be given for plantation of native plant species,

i)     Complete lack of integration with the DP prepared for 23 villages.

All these deficiencies in this DDP will lead to chaotic and unsustainable development of Pune for the next 20 years. We are of the opinion that in the interest of the city, citizens and the environment the DDP needs to be revised. We therefore make the following recommendations:

1.          The ELU needs to be corrected after detailed on site surveys and data collection,

2.          The base map for the ELU and PLU must be identical,

3.          All relevant missing studies for traffic and transportation, ground and surface water resources, river hydrology, solid waste, energy conservation etc. need to be conducted and duly incorporated in the DP,

4.          We also recommend that while doing this, various experts from the city should be actively involved as there is no dearth of experts in the city.

5.          All transport proposals in the DP should be strictly based on the Comprehensive Mobility Plan

6.          The PMC should ensure detailed consultations and vetting of all proposals with concerned authorities and departments such as Forest, Water Resources, Police, Defence, RTO and Archaeological Dept. etc.

In short as stated earlier, the Development Plan of the city should be, “of the people, for the people, by the people” to make the city safe, healthy, sustainable and beautiful.

Subscribe for Free

To receive free emails or free RSS feeds, please, subscribe to Vijay Kumbhar's Exclusive News & Analysis

RTI KATTA

RTI KATTA is a platform to empower oneself through discussions amongst each other to solve their problems by using Right to Information act, Every Sunday at Chittaranjan Watika, Model Colony,Shivaji nagar, Pune, between 9.30 to 10.30 A.M.

Vijay Kumbhar

RTI Resource Person, RTI Columnist

Phone – 9923299199

Email – kvijay14@gmail.com

Website – http://surajya.org        

Facebook -  https://www.facebook.com/kvijay14

Twitter -  https://twitter.com/Vijaykumbhar62

Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/kvijay14