The Hindu Business Line : Some `Plan' speaking!

The Master Plan devised by Chennai (formerly Madras) Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) is meant to help regulate development through control over land use and DCR (Development Control Rules). The land-use plan designates the purpose for which any piece of land may be used. The limitations over use or change of use must comply with DCR, which prescribes planning parameters such as minimum plot extent, frontage, floor space index (the quotient obtained by dividing the total plinth area on all floors by the plot area), plot coverage (the extent to which the plot is covered by a building and expressed as a percentage) and set-back spaces on all four sides which will vary depending upon the special characteristics of each area.

The Master Plan has divided Chennai Metropolitan Area (CMA) into several divisions, taking into account the type and intensity of development, level of available infrastructure and land value.

Banned area

This refers to the aquifer recharge area banned for any development, which is bounded by the Chennai city limit in the north, the Chennai Metropolitan Area limit in the south, Buckingham Canal in the west and the seashore in the east, excluding the plots in approved layouts.

In the banned area, excluding CRZ (Coastal Regulation Zone) - III area, in approved layouts developments will be subject to compliance with DCR parameters.

Coastal Regulation Zone II

The land falling within 100 metres on either side of the Buckingham Canal within CMA limits, the lands situated within 100 metres from the Adayar river between the seashore and Maraimaldiigal Bridge, and Coovam river between the seashore and Chetput Railway Bridge and also the lands along the seashore falling within 500 metres from the High Tide Line (HTL) within CMA limits, excluding lands under CRZ - III, are classified as CRZ-II area.

Coastal Regulation Zone III

As far as CMA is concerned, the land along the seashore falling within 500 metres from the HTL in the villages of Kottivakkam, Palavakkam, Neelangarai, Injambakkam, Sholinganallur and Uthandi are classified as CRZ III.

In CRZ - II area, buildings shall be permitted only on the landward side of the existing road or roads proposed in the approved coastal zone management plan or on landward side of the existing authorised structures. The buildings shall be subject to existing Local Town and Country Planning Regulations, including FSI.

Enforcement cell

In order to curb unauthorised/ deviated constructions, the CMDA Enforcement Cell was formed in 1985-86. Enforcement is authorised under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. The functions of the Enforcement Cell include detecting unauthorised/ deviated constructions, issuing `stop work' notices, checking for approved plan, and issuing demolition notices if there is no reply to the `stop work' notices.

Unauthorised buildings

The land-use map and DCR lack the dynamism needed for growth. The rules do not anticipate or provide for growth, and instead of shaping events they only react to them.

A committee constituted by the Tamil Nadu Government in 1997 to suggest ways to curtail unauthorised/ deviated constructions had observed that in Chennai city alone about 3 lakh (approximately 50 per cent)buildings would be violative of DCR and suggested a regularisation scheme, besides relevant changes in laws and the administrative machinery.

The Regularisation Scheme was introduced in 1999 through the addition of Section 113-A to the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act.

However, buildings constructed on government porambok land or others' land, coastal regulation zone violations, developments which have no access from public road, development on inner/outer ring road, national highway/MRTS, and special and hazardous industry in non-conforming zone will not be regularised.

The Supreme Court approved the 1999 Regularisation Scheme on the understanding that it would be a one-time measure only. However, there have been subsequent regularisation schemes.

The Madras High Court has held that unauthorised constructions or deviations made after the commencement of the 1998 Act cannot be regularised or rectified.

The draft second Master Plan for MMA with 2011 as the horizon year was published in 1995. The approach to the preparation of the plan is said to be in tune with the liberal economic and industrial policies of the central and state governments.

The draft was made available to the public for suggestions. Several meetings were held with professional associations, consumer groups and others.

The High Court stayed its implementation on a petition filed by a consumer group. Subsequently the stay was vacated. The second Master Plan is expected to be ready soon.

One of the significant changes made in the DCR relates to additions in the general provisions under the caption `Information Technology Park', to accelerate growth in the IT sector. The incentive offered is 50 per cent increase in FSI; there is no need to apply for change in land use provided the site size is 2,000 sq metres or more and the site abutting the road has at least 18 metres width.

There are some grey areas in the plan in its current form and some rules defy logic.

* Under Section 19 (b) while defining `special building', it is stated that any construction in the second floor as an extension to an individual ground and first floor building, which is three years old, shall be construed as a special building.

What is the logic for the three-year period? What changes in the environment or infrastructure can be expected in that time?

* A building with more than four units is a special building. No special building is permitted on a plot abutting a road that is less than 10 metres. Ironically, a large plot abutting such a road can be sub-divided and each division can have four units. Many promoters show four units (kitchen is taken as one unit) while physically providing more units.

* Many structures constructed on riverbeds blocked the water flow during the recent rains, and the resulting floods caused loss of life and property. This could have been avoided had the buildings complied with the DCR.

Planning norms should be continuously reviewed to suit the changing living conditions and mindset of the people

Can we hope that the outdated/illogical rules will be modified in the new master plan, keeping in mind the welfare of present and future generations?

The author is former National President, Institution of Valuers, Chennai.

More Stories on : Real Estate & Construction

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
India may sign broad pact with ASEAN

`India, Russia to work on new economic pact'

Law takes its course on what stood on a watercourse

Transfer troubles

Some `Plan' speaking!

Just the right time for REITs?

What's the standard?

India seeks FDI that can generate employment — Assures to put 'best foot forward' to help investors