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.
|
|
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.
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.)
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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
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.
RTI Resource Person, RTI Columnist
Phone – 9923299199
