CITY
PLANNING is a fairly complex process since it must be conceptualised
in several different `contexts' including its planning area, climate,
geography, and so on. City planning also seeks to marry quantitative
elements with the qualitative elements of city life. Like most
Indian cities, Chennai city adopted a centralised `top-down' planning
process as provided for in the Town and Country Planning statute.
Chennai city developed its First Master Plan in 1975 to guide
and determine city development. Since City Master Plans are dynamic
processes and not `products', they are reviewed every five years
and modified to adapt to the changing contours of a city.
However, no review was ever carried out in Chennai and the city
grew in all directions. In 1995, nearly 20 years after the First
Master Plan was developed, the Chennai Metropolitan Development
Authority (CMDA) brought out a Draft Second Master Plan (SMP).
The CMDA later argued that they were engaged in collecting background
data and studies on urban growth in Chennai from 1988-1995, and
this data formed the basis for the Draft SMP.
Chennai residents were provided 60 days to scrutinise comment
and respond to the proposed master plan. The CMDA had copies of
the Draft SMP available at Rs.1,000/- per copy and Detailed Development
Plans (at the ward / neighbourhood level) at a further cost of
Rs.500 per Detailed Plan. Interestingly,
Detailed Plans were only available for less than 1/5th of the
city, and so interested persons were forced to limit their scrutiny
and comments to the larger macro plan for the city. The draft
SMP was also printed in English only and the CMDA did not organise
any public meetings or hearings to discuss the document.
This lacuna was debated and discussed by various organisations.
It wasoverwhelminglyfelt that the proposed master plan lacked
simplicity. . The plan did not carry mechanism to encourage or
evaluate public reaction and participation. .
Around the same time, there were a series of articles in Chennai
newspapers pointing out inadequacies in process and content of
the Draft SMP. A Public Interest Litigation was filed by CAG asking
the Madras High Court to direct the CMDA to (i) provide more time
to study and evaluation of the document and (ii) separately reach
out into the general citizenry and seek inputs on the Draft SMP.
The Madras High Court accepted CAG's arguments and stayed the
notification of Draft SMP. This stay order continued till 2001,
when the PIL was eventually dismissed. Much of this could be avoided
if the top-down planning process was given up and instead avenues
for participation were opened.
In 1999-2000 CMDA sponsored the first of its flamboyant Regularisation
Schemes, arguing, "50% of Chennai buildings are unauthorised".
Simply put, the CMDA scheme asked owners of buildings that were
built in violation of the approved plans to pay one-time penalties
and get their illegal structures, regularised. The Scheme did
not discuss the CMDA's own role in allowing 50% of the city to
become illegal or how the payment of penalties will per se recover
the lost community spaces or impacts of violations.
CAG challenged the Regularisation Scheme before the Supreme Court,
arguing that for example, the failure to provide parking or fire
safety measures cannot be condoned on payment of penalties since
the impacts of these violations are felt by the society at large.
The Supreme Court agreeing with CAG came down heavily on the
CMDA, observing that "[This] reveals administrative failure,
regulatory inefficiency and callousness... Regularisation may
enrich State coffers, but this gain is insignificant to the loss
of the public... Such a pattern retards development."
In late 2005, the CMDA began discussing about a new Master Plan
they were working on. However, this document is said to still
be in the draft stage and the CMDA has not yet shared its details.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh launched the Jawaharlal
Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) on December 3, 2005.
At the launch, the Prime Minister observed that: "Our vision
of urban development has so far been unidimensional. This must
change. We have thus far focused more on space and less on people.
We need to have an integrated framework, in which spatial development
of cities goes hand-in-hand with improvement in the quality of
living of ordinary people living there."
The JNNURM promises to inter alia ensure that all cities will
establish citywide frameworks for planning and governance. The
Government of India is committed to providing large financial
assistance to such cities that reform their planning and governance
to carry out construction of infrastructure projects important
to the city.
One of the first requirements for cities to do in order to be
eligible for JNNURM funds is to develop a City Development Plan
(CDP) a broad vision document that lays down the larger aspirations
of the city.
The JNNURM also envisages the development of a Community Participation
law and an Information Disclosure law as part of a larger agenda
for urban governance reform.
However, much to our disappointment, the CMDA has developed and
submitted the Chennai City CDP in April 2006 without any public
knowledge and in an almost clandestine manner.
The Chennai Plan is currently "under appraisal" at
the Ministry of Urban Affairs, Government of India.
What concerns is that citizens of Chennai are unaware as to what
kind of vision the CDP has proposed?
How does the new vision address issues like building violation,
public transport and public participation. It would be worth reminding
that in 2000 CMDA declared that 50 per cent of Chennai buildings
were unauthorised and initiated the regularisation scheme.
The Supreme Court came down severely on CMDA on this and found
it as an administrative failure, regulatory inefficiency and callousness.
Alternative approach
It is important that the Government in Tamil Nadu encourage
CMDA to adopt an effective alternative approach to city planning.
What the city needs is to synthesise the `expert-driven' plan
with a city plan that adopts a micro approach, which is drawn
up by citizens.
Citizens are today more informed about the benefits of good governance
process improved transparency, participatory decision making and
strong accountability processes.
The author works with CAG, Chennai.
What the Acts say...
Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.
Section 27(1) - "... [T]he local planning authority shall
publish... in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, and in leading
newspapers of the region of the preparation of the detailed development
plan and the place or places where copies of the same may be inspected,
inviting objections and suggestions in writing from any person
in respect of the said plan... "
Section 27(2) - "... [T]he local planning authority shall
allow a reasonable opportunity of being heard to any person...
who has made a request for being so heard and make such amendments
to the detailed development plan as it considers proper... "
Right to Information Act, 2005
Section 3 - "... [A]ll citizens shall have the right to
information"
Section 6 (1) - "A person, who desires to obtain any information
under this Act, shall make a request in writing or through electronic
means... to the Public Information Officer... of the concerned
public authority... specifying the particulars of information
sought by him or her"
Section 6 (2) - "An applicant making request for information
shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information
or any other personal details except those that may be necessary
for contacting him" .
