Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Workshop Report of
CONNECTING MOSAICS – 2016 Exploring India’s Culture of Spatial Planning
Land Use Planning and Management Project – GIZ
08-09 June 2016 I Bhubaneswar, Odisha
Report on Connecting Mosaics 2016 workshop under LUPM
2
Table of Contents
List of Abbreviations………………………………………………………………………………....................3
Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………………….4
Background and Objective of the workshop…………………………………………………..............6
Day 1: Introduction, Presentations and Group Works………………………………….……………...8
Group Work 1: Industrial Development in Gujarat………………………….......……………14
Group Work 2: Residential Development in Goa…………………..……………………………..16
Group Work 3: Industrial Development Linked with Housing……………………..……….18
Group Work 4: Industrial Development in Tamil Nadu………………………………………….20
Panel Discussion in Fish Bowl Format…………………………………………………………………….22
Day 2: Reflecting on Planners’ Profession- Presentations ……………………………...……….…24
Panel Discussion in Fish Bowl Format…………………………………………………………………….28
Conclusion……………………………………...…………………………………………......................29
Annexure 1: List of participants………………………………………………………………………………......30
Annexure 2: Agenda…………………………………………………………….....…………………………………....32
Report on Connecting Mosaics 2016 workshop under LUPM
3
List of Abbreviations
APMCHUD Asia Pacific Ministerial Conference on Housing and Urban Development
CEPT Centre for Environmental Planning & Technology
CSDS Centre for the Study of Developing Societies
DoLR Department of Land Resources
GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH
GoI Government of India
H&UDD Housing and Urban Development Department
ICPP Inclusive Cities Partnership Programme
LUPM Land Use Planning and Management
MoHUPA Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation
MoRD Ministry of Rural Development
NURHP National Urban Rental Housing Policy
PMAY Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana
SPV Special Purpose Vehicle
ULB Urban Local Body
URDPFI Urban and Regional Development Plans Formulation and Implementation
Report on Connecting Mosaics 2016 workshop under LUPM
4
Executive Summary
GIZ- Land Use Planning and Management (LUPM) project has partnered with Department of
Land Resources (DoLR), Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD), Government of India with an
objective to apply instruments of integrated spatial planning and land use planning in Indian
states. It is vital to understand existing spatial planning processes, institutional structures,
and legal framework to recognize the challenges and identify possible solutions. In this
regard, a two-day workshop ‘Connecting Mosaics 2016’ was organised by GIZ- Land Use
Planning and Management (LUPM) in close partnership with Inclusive Cities Partnership
Programme (ICPP) in Bhubaneswar, Odisha on 8-9 June, 2016.
The main objective of the workshop was to understand the practice and
conceptualization of Spatial Planning in India & the existing challenges. Also, to
understand the existing roles and contributions of the planners profession, its key
actors and related academia in Spatial Planning.
The workshop was well received by the participants. It was attended by the Director
(Housing), Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation; Joint Secretary to Government
of Odisha, Revenue and Disaster Management (R&DM) Department; Member Secretary, State
Planning Commission Government of Tamil Nadu; Chief Town Planner, Town & Country
Planning, Government of Odisha; Member Secretary, Town & Country Planning Department,
Government of Goa; Planning Member, Rourkela Development Authority, Government of
Odisha; Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat; Academic think
tank from Centre for Environment Planning and Technology (CEPT), Ahmedabad; NIRMA
University, Ahmedabad; School of Planning & Architecture, New Delhi, Xavier Institute of
Management, Bhubaneswar, IIEST, Shibpur; and experts.
Day 1
On the first day of the workshop there were a wide range of disparate presenters, and the
convergence – and occasional divergence – made for educative interaction. In the inaugural
session of the workshop dignitaries and experts from divergent backgrounds made
presentations on Juxtaposing Human Settlements with Spatial Plans by Mr. Satinder Pal
Singh, Exploring the Culture of Spatial Planning in India by Mr. Georg Jahnsen, State of
Spatial Planning in India by Mr. Vidyadhar Phatak and Framework for Spatial Planning in
Odisha by Mr. Sangram Mohapatra.
Mr. Satinder Pal Singh emphasized that cities are key to tackling the problems of urban
poverty, social inequality and climate change and if managed efficiently they can become
sustainable and inclusive. Also, it is crucial to evaluate whether the investments and
programmes are addressing the spatial distortions. Mr. Georg Jahnsen presented a Swiss
artist work to emphasize that individual elements does not signify anything, it’s the
connections and relations within the elements in the system that make the difference. He
also emphasized the need to delve into aspects of spatial planning processes, practices,
shortfalls and strategies to overcome it. Mr. Vidyadhar Phatak presented the evolution of
spatial planning in India and the three important elements Scale, Purpose and Tools. Mr.
Sangram Mohapatra reflected on the impacts of inefficient planning by highlighting the
Odisha experiences of POSCO, Kalinga Nagar and Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas
(PESA) Act.
In the technical sessions four group work exercises where a fictional situation was given for
deliberation and share their outcomes. The keys areas deliberated by each group in their
Report on Connecting Mosaics 2016 workshop under LUPM
5
visual exercise are landscape of participation, planning process, framework for interaction
and challenges. Some of the challenges identified by the groups are under utilisation of
land, coastal regulations, institutional capacity of the agencies, political will, mapping of
resources, accountability, environmental clearances, land acquisition, consensus building,
and interdepartmental coordination. An open forum discussion in fish bowl format was held
to discuss the above issues. Some of the suggestions obtained from the discussion are:
Planning process needs to be transparent and consultative
Setup mechanism for intermediate review and assessment of plans
Measures to curb market speculations
Resolve the discrepancies in land revenue records
Increase financial investment in urban sector
Recommend guiding factors for preparing spatial plans
Prepare regional level spatial plans (district level)
Day 2
On the 2nd day, the technical session focused on the theme “Reflecting on Planners’
Profession”, where presentations were made on Planning Education in India by Mr. Utpal
Sharma, A Historian’s Perspective of Planning Profession by Mr. Awedhendra Sharan,
Reflections on Culture of Spatial Planning in India by Mr. Saswat Bandyopadhyay and Spatial
Planning leveraging on ‘JUGAAD’ way of thinking by Ms. Aparna Das.
Mr. Sharma informed that most planning programs are still based on the western countries
planning ideologies. The need to redefine the curricula is being felt increasingly and there
is a conscious effort to try and plug planning education to the urban agenda. Mr. Sharan said
in public participation process we are looking for affirmation and not contestation and the
academic institutions must focus on teaching about listening. Mr. Bandyopadhyay shared his
experiences from various projects across the country, where laxities and gaps stress the
need for regional level spatial planning. Ms. Das shared her experiences, which emphasize
the role and importance of the planning profession that centres on technical skills, ethical
values and accountability.
An open forum discussion in fish bowl format was held to discuss the above topic. Some of
the suggestions obtained from the discussion are:
Transform the conventional approach in academia to recognise relevant areas and
the hierarchy of the planning profession. Academia shall improve the understanding
of students about
o resource management
o consultative and participative approaches
o economic drivers
Spatial Plans shall be comprehensive and build synergies between various sectoral
plans
In the concluding session, Mr. Jahnsen highlighted that the enemy of spatial planning is the
neglected area between two cities. Planning process shall consider the entire area of the
country to be dealt at different levels.
Report on Connecting Mosaics 2016 workshop under LUPM
6
Background
The Department of Land Resources of the Ministry of Rural Development and GIZ are jointly
implementing the “Land Use Planning and Management” project in the framework of the
Indo-German Technical Cooperation with an objective to apply instruments of integrated
spatial planning and land use planning in Indian states. In this context, it is vital to
understand existing spatial planning processes, institutional structures, and legal framework
to recognize the challenges and identify possible solutions.
A Master Plan in India typically covers a time horizon of about 20 years, presenting a road
map from the present state of the city to its future with spatial details. The process begins
with the projection of population of an urban area and estimating the demand for residential
space. The requirements of commercial and industrial spaces are based on projections of
the economic prospects of the city. The transport patterns follow the land use pattern and
the space requirement for transportation and natural resources is typically a residual.
Only about 24 percent (1890 out of 7935 towns) of Indian Cities have Master Plans. These
plans aim to promote growth, guide & regulate present and future development of towns
and cities. They are envisaged to act as an instrument to work out land and infrastructure
requirements in harmonious and sustainable manner to perform all their economic and social
functions efficiently and effectively.
Master Plans in India are criticized because either they have not been well-conceived; or
have not incorporated inclusion of economically weaker sections of society in planning for
space, or they were finalized in a top down fashion with little consultation with
stakeholders. Also the regulatory approach in implementing Master Plans combined with
compulsory land acquisition for enforcing the intended land use is a drawback. Further, the
stringent land use and density norms with uniform FSI between residential and commercial
areas are not allowing the densification of focal areas of the City. The key instruments of
Background and Objective of the Workshop
Report on Connecting Mosaics 2016 workshop under LUPM
7
urban planning such as a land policy, land use and zoning regulations, infrastructure and
transport work in isolation.
Master Plans restrict themselves to physical planning of a city and its immediate periphery,
and have not been able to pay attention to the challenges of metropolitan and regional
planning. Metropolitan Planning Committees and District Planning Committees which were
proposed way back in 1992, have been formed in some states but they have not been
effective as regional planning agencies. Unauthorized development in peri-urban areas
indicate that the master plans were unable to anticipate demand and consequently plan for
services where demand for land was high.
Another major challenge in urban planning is capacities both at the local government level
to envision and prepare a master plan and a city development plan, and at the state
government to provide legislative and administrative support for facilitating the process of
planning at local and regional level. This requires setting up and strengthening municipal
cadres in the states which provide the basis for training and building human resource
capability. Also, the academic institutions and planning agencies has key roles in addressing
the gaps in capacities and professional challenges encountered in the preparation of spatial
plans.
A two-day workshop ‘Connecting Mosaics 2016’ was organised by GIZ- Land Use Planning and
Management (LUPM) and Inclusive Cities Partnership Programme (ICPP), during June 8-9,
2016 at the Trident Hotel in Bhubaneshwar. Participants included the the Director (Housing),
Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation; Joint Secretary to Government of Odisha,
Revenue and Disaster Management (R&DM) Department; Member Secretary, State Planning
Commission Government of Tamil Nadu; Chief Town Planner, Town & Country Planning,
Government of Odisha; Member Secretary, Town & Country Planning Department,
Government of Goa; Planning Member, Rourkela Development Authority, Government of
Odisha; Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat; Academic think
tank from Centre for Environment Planning and Technology (CEPT), Ahmedabad; NIRMA
University, Ahmedabad; School of Planning & Architecture, New Delhi, Xavier Institute of
Management, Bhubaneswar, IIEST, Shibpur; and experts. The list of participants and agenda
for the workshop are enclosed as Annexures 1 and 2.
Objective
The main objective of the workshop was to understand the practice and
conceptualization of Spatial Planning in India & the existing challenges. Also, to
understand the existing roles and contributions of the planners profession, its key actors
and related academia in Spatial Planning.
Report on the Connecting Mosaics 2016 workshop under LUPM
8
Inaugural Session
On behalf of GIZ, Ms. Aparna Das, Senior Advisor, ICPP welcomed all the delegates and
participants to the two-day workshop on “Connecting Mosaics” - Exploring the Culture of
Spatial Planning in India. The inaugural session was facilitated by Ms. Das, GIZ and the two
day workshop was moderated by Mr. Darryl D’Monte, Journalist. At the outset, Ms. Das
presented a brief introduction about GIZ and the Land Use Planning and Management project
(LUPM), the organiser of the workshop. The LUPM project is partnered with Department of
Land Resource (DoLR), Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD), Government of India. Ms. Das
informed that participation of DoLR in this workshop could not materialise due to prior
commitments. Ms. Das welcomed Mr. Satinder Pal Singh, Director (Housing), Ministry of
Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation (MoHUPA) and explained MoHUPA’s interest in Urban
and Regional Planning in the context of Habitat III and as member of Asia Pacific Ministerial
Conference on Housing and Urban Development (APMCHUD).
The expectations and formats (fish bowl and Pecha Kucha) for the two day workshop were
briefly explained to the participants. Ms. Das welcomed and invited all the dignitaries Mr.
Satinder Pal Singh, Director (Housing), Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation
(MoHUPA), Mr. V.K. Phatak, Ex. Chief Planner, Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development
Authority and the Project Director, GIZ-LUPM, Mr. Georg Jahnsen to the dais and the
workshop was inaugurated with lighting of the lamp. Mr. Darryl D’Monte, the moderator of
the workshop requested all the participants to briefly introduce themselves.
Day 1: Introduction, Presentations and Group Works
Report on the Connecting Mosaics 2016 workshop under LUPM
9
Juxtaposing Human Settlements with Spatial Plans
by Mr. Satinder Pal Singh
Mr. Satinder Pal Singh, Director
(Housing) in his address, welcomed all
the participants and presented on
Juxtaposing Human Settlements with
Spatial Plans. In his presentation he
mentioned that being the second largest
urban system in the world, India is at
crucial stage in its urban transition as its
urban population is growing at a pace of
2.76 percent and for the first time the
net increment to urban population
surpasses the net increment to rural
population. He highlighted that India is
entering into a different phase in
demographic trajectory. Mr. Singh
opined that at this juncture we need to
identify the gaps in our processes, whether the investments and programmes are addressing
the spatial distortions or they are exacerbating the spatial distortions.
Mr. Singh emphasized that there is a need for radical paradigm shift in the way the Cities
and human settlements are planned, managed, developed and governed. The National
Urban Housing and Habitat Policy 2007 advises preparation of spatial plans at various levels
but is limited to urban areas only. Further, Mr. Singh opined that often housing for urban
poor is neglected in spatial planning process resulting a shortage of 18 million as estimated
by the technical committee on housing shortage in 2012. To address the housing shortage
government has come up with several initiatives such as Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY)
Scheme, Smart City Mission, National Urban Rental Housing Policy (NUHRP), prepared a
template for preparation of State Affordable Housing Policies, and adopted Real Estate
Regulatory Act etc.
The MoHUPA is working on New Urban Agenda for Habitat III, which advocates integrated
urban spatial strategies to develop compact, integrated and well connected cities. Also, the
Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD) launched RURBAN mission to develop a cluster of
villages that preserve and nurture the essence of rural community life with focus on equity
and inclusiveness without compromising with the facilities perceived to be essentially urban
in nature. In his concluding remarks, Mr. Singh stated that cities are key to tackling the
problems of urban poverty, social inequality and climate change and if managed efficiently
they can become sustainable and inclusive.
Report on the Connecting Mosaics 2016 workshop under LUPM
10
Setting the Context: Exploring the Culture of Spatial Planning in India
by Mr. Georg Jahnsen
Mr. Georg Jahnsen, Project
Director, LUPM has set the context
for the workshop by presenting the
work of a Swiss artist John Tinguely
who creates fascinating self-
moving machines using metal
objects from various objects such
as a car, washing machine, type
writer and a gramophone. The
artist created this by redesigning
the relationships and linkages
between different elements.
Individual elements does not
signify anything, it’s the
connections and relations within
the elements in the system that
make the difference. Mr. Jahnsen quoted the essence behind the creation of the machine
i.e. systematic planning and with these words he welcomed all the participants to the
workshop, which focuses on systematic planning only at different level and framework. Mr.
Jahnsen familiarized the participants to Land Use Planning and Management (LUPM) project
within GIZ- Indo German Environment Partnership for Urban and Industrial Development
cluster framework. Mr. Jahnsen opined that there are believes that Urban and Industrial
development leaves no opportunity for environment, however, spatial planning through
intelligent design of various functions can bridge these diverging ideas.
Mr. Jahnsen broadly defined spatial planning as any construction on the ground that effects
the spaces and redefines the land. In a city, land and space are linked and connected with
each other. Each element in a City is mosaic embedded in a bigger quarter for example floor
plan of building has several mosaics which form a building these form a neighbourhood,
quarter, region etc. He further quoted that Christopher Alexander, a planner and a writer
in his book ‘A Pattern Language’ described the idea of connected patterns that are
connected at various levels and the author states that the connection of spatial patterns is
similar to poetry. Mr. Jahnsen emphasised that a spatial planning at various levels can only
be managed through a big public structure of cooperation. This workshop provides the
opportunity to take a closer look at this cooperation system in India and to understand the
culture of spatial planning in India. In his final remarks, Mr. Jahnsen welcomed all the
experts and requested to utilise this opportunity to delve into aspects of how spatial
planning is done? How different states practice spatial planning? What experiences are good
and where there is room for improvement? What strategies will be useful to bring the culture
of spatial planning to peri-urban and rural areas?
Report on the Connecting Mosaics 2016 workshop under LUPM
11
Key Note Address: Spatial Planning in India
by Mr. Vidyadhar Phatak
The Key note speaker Mr. Vidyadhar
Phatak, Ex. Chief City Planner, Mumbai
Metropolitan Region Development
Authority in his opening remarks has
stated that land and space does not stop
at the boundary of a municipality. The
three important elements of spatial
planning are Scale (nation, state or
region and local), Purpose (resource
conservation & use, infrastructure led
and externality management) and Tools
(eminent domain or acquisition for
public space, police power to control
nuisance). Mr. Phatak presented the
land use planning process and structure
of Japan, which has a National Land Use
Planning Act that guides the preparation of land use plans at three levels (national,
prefectural and municipal). Similarly, in India the National Commission on Urbanisation in
1988 devoted a chapter on spatial planning and acknowledge the need for a similar scale of
spatial planning structure. Also, the Urban and Regional Development Plans Formulation and
Implementation (URDPFI) guidelines of 2015 envisage a similar structure of plans
(perspective plans, regional plans, development plans and local area plans). An issue for
consideration is whether these kind of plans can operate in an institutional vacuum or not.
Mr. Phatak demonstrated disharmony in one of the key elements of spatial planning
‘purpose’ with few examples of Damodar Valley Corporation Act (for manging flood control,
power generation and irrigation), zoning maps for agro climate, agro ecology, Delhi-Mumbai
Industrial Corridor Plan, which have linkages to spatial planning but does not serve the
purpose of spatial planning as there is no harmonisation among these plans.
Mr. Phatak enlightened about the institutional evolution of spatial planning dating back to
early 19th century with City Improvement Trusts followed by 1915 & 1920 Town Planning
Acts of Mumbai and Madras, town and country planning acts of 1950s, urban development
and metropolitan development authorities acts of 1960-70s and 74th constitutional
amendment in 1994 which led to the preparation of metropolitan regional plans of
Hyderabad, Bengaluru, Mumbai, Delhi NCR and Chennai. Spatial planning in a region has
linkages with plans of various departments which are independent but not synergized.
Despite the fact that there are conflicts and challenges in the preparation of Spatial Plans,
Mr. Phatak opined that most of the Master Plans in India are very prescriptive and overtime
become non-implementable. In the last part of presentation Mr. Phatak presented the
spatial planning history, process and institutional framework of Mumbai Metropolitan
Regional Development (MMRD) plan.
Report on the Connecting Mosaics 2016 workshop under LUPM
12
Framework of Land Use Planning in Odisha
By Mr. Sangram Mohapatra
Mr. Sangram Mohapatra, Joint
Secretary, Revenue and Disaster
Management (R & DM)
Department, Government of
Odisha in his address presented
the background of land use
planning and highlighted the key
issues and challenges w.r.t. land
use planning in the state of
Odisha.
Prior to the independence Odisha
was fragmented into three
administrative zones, which has
been merged after independence.
Odisha does not have its own
revenue code and is administered
based on the laws followed in Bihar, West Bengal and of British era. The prevailing land
acquisition act has been amended to address transparency, rehabilitation and resettlement
aspects.
Mr. Mohapatra reflected on the impacts of inefficient planning by highlighting the cases of
POSCO where major portion designated as forest land is sand dunes and not suitable for
industrial development, Kalinga Nagar known for steel manufacturing hub is located in
region which is designated as forest but no forest exist in that area and last case that was
highlighted was Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas (PESA) Act that restricts
development in 13 districts. In spite of not having land use policy Odisha has a regulatory
administrative mechanism to regulate industrial corridors, which restricts development of
industrial areas along the water bodies. Mr. Mohapatra also informed that revenue land
records are old and under Digital India programme land survey and digitisation has been
initiated in nine (9) districts and expected to complete by December 2016. He further
emphasized that Government of Odisha is interested in partnering with GIZ to ensure
adequate policies, process and tools are in place.
Report on the Connecting Mosaics 2016 workshop under LUPM
13
Technical Session I: Status of Spatial Planning in India
Going forward, the moderator Mr. Darryl D’Monte invited Mr. Georg Jahnsen to explain about
the technical session. Mr. Jahnsen explained the participants that the technical session is a
group work session where a fictional situation (see below) will be given for deliberation and
share their outcomes. The participants are divided into four (4) groups consisting of experts
from different backgrounds to work on the fictional situation and share their outcomes with
the other groups, which would lead to the panel discussions. The keys areas identified for
deliberation in each situation are landscape of participation, planning process, framework
for interaction and challenges.
Report on the Connecting Mosaics 2016 workshop under LUPM
14
Participants:
Mr. V.T. Mandora Deputy Secretary Govt. of Gujarat
Mr. Prakash Modi Project Officer Govt. of Gujarat
Mr. Ashok Kumar Barman, ACS Joint Secretary Govt. of Assam
Mr. Ram Mohan Mishra Planning Member, RDA Govt. of Odisha
Ms. Kajori Mishra Professor Xavier Institute
Moderators:
Mr. Gerog Jahnsen Project Director GIZ-LUPM
Mr. Ramachandra Panda Technical Expert GIZ ICPP
The objective of the group work is to expand industrial corridor along the peripheral areas
of a city in the State of Gujarat. After exhaustive deliberations on the following questions:
Who all needs to be involved in the planning process? What kind of participation is
required?
What are steps, timelines and milestones?
What are linkages or cooperation required at various levels (national, state and
local)?
What are current challenges and bottlenecks in the planning process?
Group Work 1: Industrial Development in Gujarat
Report on the Connecting Mosaics 2016 workshop under LUPM
15
On behalf of the group Mr.
V.T.Mandora presented
that the group has
identified stakeholders at
three levels national, state
and local/ regional level.
At regional level area
development and district
authorities, at state level
Forest, Industries, Urban
Development, Panchayat
Raj & Rural Development,
Water Resources,
Electricity, revenue,
housing departments and
at national level Ministries
of Environment, Railways,
Finance, National Highway
Authority, Coastal
Regulations Zone etc. as
the crucial stakeholders.
The process involved in the
expansion of the industrial
corridor includes creation
of special purpose vehicle
(SPV), engaging
consultants, preparation
of layout, consultations
with various stakeholders,
ensuring Public and
private funding and
approvals from various
authorities.
Report on the Connecting Mosaics 2016 workshop under LUPM
16
Participants:
Mr. Saswat Bhandopadhyay Professor CEPT
Mr. Subhendra Mishra Chief Town Planner Govt. of Odisha
Mr. P.K. Ghosh Retd. IAS Expert
Mr. Ashok Kumar Member Secretary, SGPOA Govt. of Goa
Mr. Sovanic Roy Professor IIEST
Moderators:
Mr. Naveen Kumar Potti Technical Expert GIZ-ICPP
Mr. Kasinath Anbu Technical Expert GIZ ICPP
The objective of the group work is to expand residential zones along the peripheral areas
of a city in the State of Goa. After exhaustive deliberations on the following questions:
Who all needs to be involved in the planning process? What kind of participation is
required?
What are steps, timelines and milestones?
What are linkages or cooperation required at various levels (national, state and
local)?
What are current challenges and bottlenecks in the planning process?
Group Work 2: Residential Development in Goa
Report on the Connecting Mosaics 2016 workshop under LUPM
17
On behalf of the group Prof. Saswat Bhandyopadhyay presented that the group identified
the various relevant stakeholders from the demand side, supply side, facilitators, regulators
and also the affected people. Broadly it covers private individuals, migrants, religious
institutions, industrial estates, urban poor, hoteliers, public agencies, developers, builders,
financial institutions, tourism industry etc. The most affected people are the farmers and
the surrounding land owners.
The group considered the existing legal
framework that is relevant to the
development of residential areas in the
State of Goa. Government of Goa has
town planning act, municipal act, town
planning schemes, forest act, revenue
act, heritage conservation, mining act,
fisheries act, land acquisition act etc.
Further, the group deliberated on the
processes, this involves baseline
profiling and mapping, assessments of
growth, consultations, review of
existing land use and land records,
exploring connectivity & regional
linkages, realigning planning area,
developing structure plan, zoning
regulations, local area plans, housing
layout plans for the proposed area are
the broad recursive steps.
Finally, the group discussed on the
challenges faced in this process which
are under utilisation of land, coastal
regulations, understanding the
significance of spatial planning and
institutional capacity of the agencies
involved in the process.
Report on the Connecting Mosaics 2016 workshop under LUPM
18
Participants:
Mr. Satinder Pal Singh Director (Housing) MoHUPA
Mr. Utpal Sharma Director NIRMA University
Mr. Awadhendra Sharan Professor CSDS
Ms. Sutapa Pati Professor XIMB
Moderators:
Ms. Aparna Das Senior Advisor GIZ-ICPP
Mr. Arpan Mazumder Jr. Technical Expert GIZ ICPP
The objective of the group work is to expand industrial development along the peripheral
areas of a city. After exhaustive deliberations on the following questions:
Who all needs to be involved in the planning process?
What kind of participation is required? What are steps, timelines and milestones?
What are linkages or cooperation required at various levels (national, state and
local)?
What are current challenges and bottlenecks in the planning process? Development
in Goa
On behalf of the group Prof. Utpal Sharma presented that the group approached the exercise
by assuming that the two industrial pockets indicated in given plans are either identified by
the state government or by the state industrial department. The group also opined that
industrial development cannot happen in isolation and residential and infrastructure needs
to serve the proposed industrial shall be an integral part of the development. The group has
identified the stakeholders involved, the planning process, framework for interaction and
the challenges in the process and implementation.
Group Work 3: Industrial Development linked with Housing
Report on the Connecting Mosaics 2016 workshop under LUPM
19
The key stakeholders involved are
industrial workers, Department
of Industries, Development
Authority, Industry owners, local
villages and the urban local body
(ULB).
Some the key steps included in
the planning process are
projections and provisions for
future, expansion of municipal
boundary, provision for planned
infrastructure, mandatory
provision for housing for workers
(rent) and affected by land
acquisition and regular
monitoring of industries.
The main challenges identified
are scale of industries, political
will, interaction between private
partners and government,
mapping of resources,
accountability, and management
of effluents and revitalization of
land after industries.
Report on the Connecting Mosaics 2016 workshop under LUPM
20
Participants:
Mr. V.K. Phatak Ex. Chief Planner MMRDA
Mr. S.K. Kulshrestha Independent Consultant
Mr. Sugato Dutt, IFS Member Secretary Govt. of Tamil Nadu
Ms. Sanjukta Bhaduri Professor SPA, New Delhi
Moderators:
Ms. Tanaya Saha Technical Expert GIZ-LUPM
The objective of the group work is to expand industrial development along the peripheral
areas of a city in Tamil Nadu. After exhaustive deliberations on the following questions:
Who all needs to be involved in the planning process?
What kind of participation is required? What are steps, timelines and milestones?
What are linkages or cooperation required at various levels (national, state and
local)?
What are current challenges and bottlenecks in the planning process? De
Group Work 4: Industrial Development in Tamil Nadu
Report on the Connecting Mosaics 2016 workshop under LUPM
21
On behalf of the group Prof. Sanjukta Bhaduri presented that the group assumed that the
proposed industries are
chemical industries. The
group has identified the
stakeholders, processes
and challenges in the
development of
industries.
The group has identified
various stakeholders
from the state and local
level. The policy level
decisions in conjunction
with inter departmental
coordination are
essential prior to the
start of the planning
process. Collection of
information database
such as projected
population and the economic activity, land availability and utilisation etc. are crucial for
analysis purposes. Baseline assessment of land availability and utilisation, social impact and
environment assessment needs to be conducted. Prof. Bhaduri also mentioned that
consultative process need to strive for building consensus rather than considering as a
procedural requisite.
The anticipated challenges are Environmental clearances, resistance to land acquisition,
consensus building, interdepartmental coordination, pollution control and waste disposal.
The group has reached consensus on the need for planning, interdepartmental coordination
and adequate monitoring & evaluation for smooth preparation and implementation of
development.
Report on the Connecting Mosaics 2016 workshop under LUPM
22
At the conclusion of all the presentations by the working groups the moderator Mr. D’Monte
invited the presenters from each group to be panellists for a discussion in a ‘Fish Bowl’
format. He further explained the format in which participants need to come to the dais to
ask a question or present their opinion. Some of key points are highlighted below:
Mr. Roy stated that the planning process needs to be transparent. Also, mentioned
that economically feasible and locally acceptable technologies have a prominent role
in addressing infrastructure needs.
Mr. Sharan said that large and complex planning projects must include a mechanism
for intermediate review and assessment.
Ms. Das mentioned that Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) are the reflection of a
parallel system that empowers to surpass the established participatory processes for
development. It creates confusion among public on whether to approach the
executive wing or the local elected representatives for their concerns. Also, she
asked the participants what should be the scale of spatial planning?
Mr. Bandyopadhyay opined that it is the fear that exists among the administrative
and political wing that decentralisation would lead to the misuse of power.
Mr. Dutt mentioned that it is important to address the scarcity of land and sudden
market speculations, which fails the regulatory system.
Ms. Bhaduri mentioned that discrepancies in land revenue records leads to
complications in the planning process and adequate mechanisms to resolve these
situations are not in place.
Ms. Saha asked the participants where to start for preparing a coherent land use
plan?
Mr. Phatak emphasised that it is necessary for the planners to think unconventionally
and question themselves whether can we plan for the unknown to allow new things
to evolve?
Mr. Sharma stated that government shall seriously consider increasing financial
investment in urban sector.
Mr. Jahnsen stated that we should look how to transform urban areas using simple
land use planning with district as a unit. Spatial plans shall clearly indicate the merits
of planning and de-merits of not planning.
Open Discussion in ‘Fish Bowl’ Format
Report on the Connecting Mosaics 2016 workshop under LUPM
23
Mr. Bandyopadhyay stated that it is necessary to understand what are the outcomes
expected from the plan, which needs to be communicated to the public. Also, it is
essential to understand what is real need for having a spatial plan and what basic
things would it provide?
Mr. Sharma stated that if plans are prepared based on a logic then it could be
convinced at the political and executive wings. He suggested that micro regional
plans can be more effective and easy to implement.
Mr. Mishra & Mr. Ashok Kumar opined that more emphasis on public participation
need not be given as majority are self-centric and do not understand the objective.
Also, mentioned that the decision making power shall not be with the people who
are not experts in the field.
Mr. Ghosh explained that a plan is prepared for the welfare of the citizens and if it
could be communicated in layman terms it would be easy for the administrative and
political bodies to take decisions.
Ms. Bhaduri highlighted the need to comprehend what can be achieved through
spatial plans through adequate diagnosis of the requirement.
Ms. Das acknowledged the importance of the guiding factors for preparing spatial
plans and requested the experts to suggest the guiding factors for a city to prepare
spatial plans?
Mr. Roy referred unorganised growth of peri-urban areas is becoming a concern of
public health & welfare and suggested it could be considered as a guiding factor.
Ms. Saha queried about the stake of planners in the planning process and the sanctity
of the plans as the time consumed by process exceeds the plan period.
Mr. Ghosh asked like grid-iron pattern developments can collage pattern could be an
option.
Mr. Kulshrestha opined that the lack of ownership of the plans and administrative
jurisdictions are barriers of preparing regional level spatial plans. He believes that
the upcoming National Policy on Land Use would address most the concerns that
were raised.
Mr. Jahnsen opined that a spatial plan that considers the region as a whole, instead
of focusing on the urban and rural divide is the need of the hour.
Report on the Connecting Mosaics 2016 workshop under LUPM
24
The second day of workshop started with summarizing the first day proceedings by the
moderator Darry D’Monte. The last technical session of the workshop “Reflecting on
Planners’ Profession” started with setting the context followed by presentations in ‘Pecha
Kucha’ a Japanese format meaning chit chat. The presentations were followed by an open
discussion in ‘Fish Bowl’ format.
Setting the context: Planning Education in India
by Mr. Utpal Sharma
Mr. Utpal Sharma, Director, NIRMA
University has set the context of the
session by presenting about the
planning education in India. As per the
Mckinsey Global Report (2011), the
Ministry of Urban Development
estimates that India needs 30,000 to
40,000 planners across its cities in
India and presently the number is
merely 5,000. The paradigm shift in
planning after independence has given
the platform for several institutions to
decide on their approach for the
academic curriculum. Now, the time
has come to revisit the academic
curriculum and professional requirement. The transformation of physical settlement
patterns from rural, which was 95 percent post-independence to urban (33 percent, 2011
Census) showcases the need to emphasize on urban issues. The urban agenda of the world
has also been changed - from provisioning of water and sanitation to environmentalism,
sustainable urban development, to liveable, smart and intelligent cities presently.
Day 2- Reflecting on Planners’ Profession, Presentations & Open Discussion
Report on the Connecting Mosaics 2016 workshop under LUPM
25
The early urban planning definition was focused on physical design, enforced through strict land use regulations. Now new approaches identify institutional shift from governmental control to good governance facilitating wider scope for planning. Earlier planning was considered as a multi sector (engineer, geography, architecture, economics and sociology) profession where more number of disciplines are involved towards producing a more contextual solution. Now, it is believed that inclusion of expertise in fields of business development, finance, etc. is necessary to bridge the gap between contemporary planning issues and idealistic principles in planning. In most planning schools in the country, the orientation and contents of their programs have been shaped by the planning ideologies that were essentially western in origin. Most curricula are a mix of theory and practical knowledge which tries to hone the communication and soft skills apart from technical and analytical skills. The need to redefine the curricula to meet the growing industry needs is being felt increasingly and there is a conscious effort among the planning academia to try and plug planning education to the urban agenda. Mr. Sharma presented the new curriculum for the planning programme at NIRMA University which offers choices to students in choosing multiple electives to prepare themselves for the professional needs.
A Historian’s Perspective of Planning Profession
by Mr. Awadhendra Sharan
Mr. Awadhendra Sharan, Professor,
Centre for the Study of Developing
Societies (CSDS) has presented his thoughts
and perception on planning profession from
an outsider perspective. Mr. Sharan
defined spatial planning as manging
spatially defined territories and people.
Broadly, it covers economic situation,
environmental and political challenges.
This is mainly based on logic of governance
versus logic of survival and the between
these two aspects is increasing
substantially. While emphasising on
technological aspects he stated that it is
necessary to understand the relationships
setup between different types of settlements.
Mr. Sharan stated that many political scientists refer that 70 percent of cities are beyond
the plans and in this situation it essential that planners introspect on their role and actions.
Mr. Sharan presented the views of authors Paratha Chatterjee and Rahul Malhotra on
distinction between arena of civil society laws versus arena of political society and
distinction between a static city and cities in motion and how they co-exist and how to deal
with it.
Further, he suggested that it essential to look at resource transfer between city and peri-
urban areas. Earlier experts debated on regional planning issue of how to determine the
optimum size of a satellite town? Whether it should be based on cost of service delivery or
on cost & time for mobility. To this Julian Whitely has added another parameter of aesthetic
appeal. Also, presented the views of Arjuna Padhya Roy and Dipesh Chakraborthy on
participation. While rationalising about orientation to future it is important to consider
Report on the Connecting Mosaics 2016 workshop under LUPM
26
aspirations of individuals and strengthen the capacities of individuals. Summarising this he
said what we are looking in participation is affirmation and not contestation. Mr. Sharan
opined that the academic institutions must focus on how to teach about listening than
speaking.
Reflections on Culture of Spatial Planning in India
By Mr. Saswat Bandyopadhyay
Mr. Saswat Bandyopadhyay, Professor,
Centre for Environment Planning and
Technology has narrated a story from
his experiences on the culture of spatial
planning in India using visuals. He
narrated the story with the example of
Lake City, Bhopal where the catchment
area of the lake has decreased from 60
sq.kms to a small area due to
urbanisation. He highlighted the laxities
of various departments in preserving
the water body and the lack of regional
land use plan to oversee the growth
surrounding the lake.
Similarly, he presented various examples of Regional Environment Management Plan of Joda
and Barbil of Odisha where mining is a major concern and no department has a vision for
the region. He also cited examples of laxities in industrial areas of Sanand and Changodar
clusters near Ahmedabad, Kalpasar Development Area, Matheran etc. Finally, highlighted
some of the key questions to be considered:
Spatial Resolutions – Taluka? District? Special Regions? State?
Institutional Ownership - Land & Revenue? Urban Development/Town & Country
Planning? Rural? OR a Neutral entity such as Home or SAD?
Prioritization of Areas- Hazard Prone? Natural Resources and Diversity? Higher
Anthropogenic Foot prints?
Theme – Environment? Natural/Common Property Resources? Hazard oriented?
Connectivity and linkages? Economy and Market?
Anticipated/ Targeted Users- Demand Side orientation of the SEP
Plan Implementation and Monitoring Framework
Institutional Capacities of both Demand Side and Supply Side agencies?
Report on the Connecting Mosaics 2016 workshop under LUPM
27
Spatial Planning leveraging on ‘JUGAAD’ way of thinking
by Ms. Aparna Das
Ms. Aparna Das, Senior Advisor, Inclusive
Cities Partnership Programme of GIZ has
narrated her story with visuals from
personal experiences. She mentioned the
word ‘Jugaad’ is a particular way of
thinking that makes things happen. As a
professional planner she introspected on
what should I deliver? A professional
planner executes the roles of technocrat,
negotiator, advocacy, generalist, activist
etc. Among the visuals shown in the
presentation, a picture depicting India
Pakistan partition was presented to
narrate the impact of a line on a
geographical space.
Ms. Das further shared the experiences of in-situ upgrading projects in Bhopal to showcase
the ignorance of planners, architects and decision makers of the impacts of their decisions.
The proposal was to redevelop the existing slum into vertical buildings and rehabilitate the
slum dwellers into these vertical buildings. The proposal did not consider or consult to
understand the impact on livelihoods and their families.
Similarly, Ms. Das presented another example where informal settlements sprung around
water bodies, used them as disposal system in the long run. The water bodies are either
polluted are extinct, which is because of the negligence from the regulatory body
responsible to protect them. Ms. Das presented the above instances to emphasize the role
and importance of the planning profession that centres on technical skills, ethical values
and accountability.
Report on the Connecting Mosaics 2016 workshop under LUPM
28
At the conclusion of all the presentations the moderator Mr. D’Monte invited the presenters
to be panellists for a discussion in a ‘Fish Bowl’ format. He further recapped the format in
which participants need to come to the dais to ask a question or present their opinion. Some
of key points are highlighted below:
Prof. Sharma opined that studio based learning approach provides a platform to
explore slum redevelopment or housing etc. There is a need for bigger planning
schools to break the conventional approach and teach more relevant topics.
Mr. Sharan believes that there is a gap between science of planning and experience
of living, which needs to be filled. Also, community and nature should be brought
together in the planning process.
Mr. Bandyopdhyay opined that the social needs are changing and the time has arrived
for planners to introspect on the following - how planning profession is being
perceived and relevant? What are the measures of successful plan? What are the
limits of spatial plans?
Mr. Roy mentioned that it is important for the students to understand the possible
alternative scenarios available in physical planning and the impacts of each scenario.
Further mentioned that it is important to consider the ecosystem of planning both
physical and institutional.
Ms. Saha mentioned that it vital to have the soft skills that help in implementation
of plans. Also, it is important to understand where do planners get confined and
when an intervention is required.
Ms. Das stated it is necessary to understand the hierarchy of the planning profession.
Mr. Barman informed that Government of Assam has constituted Village Land
Management Conservation Committees to oversee many aspects including spatial
planning and preservation of wetlands.
Mr. Mishra opined that planners are the recommending bodies and do not take
decisions on the plans, hence a planner cannot be held responsible for the failure of
a plan.
Mr. Ashok Kumar elevated the issue of environmental impact that is created by the
new capital region of Andhra Pradesh. Mr. Sharma contrasted by specifying that
Open Discussion in ‘Fish Bowl’ Format
Report on the Connecting Mosaics 2016 workshop under LUPM
29
urban population occupies only one percent of the land and transforming an
agricultural land into an urban area is inevitable for growth of urban areas.
Ms. Bhaduri opined that resources are becoming scarce and they need to be managed
efficiently and effectively. For which, academic institutions should also focus on
resource management in their curriculum.
Ms. Bhaduri also opined that synergies between various plans prepared by various
departments should be sustained.
Mr. Kulshrestha opined that urban is not the only component of the mosaic
representing India. Hence, a comprehensive thought process is required.
Mr. Phatak believed that many opine that real estate sector and developers are
enemies of planning but need to understand the economic drivers and their needs.
Mr. Anbu opined that planning schools impart European and American planning
methods and techniques, but they do not teach how to bring balance between
consultative approach and participative approach.
Mr. Ghosh explained that in most instances at the time of project/plan negotiation
if the politicians and administrators are properly educated about the negative
impacts of their decisions, it can definitely play a crucial role on their decision
making.
Concluding Remarks:
Mr. Jahnsen in his concluding remarks recited the lines of Mr. Phatak “land does not stop at
the boundary of a City” and Mr. Bandyopadhyay “planning stops at the doorsteps when it
starts to get interesting”, which emphasize the need of spatial planning at larger scale.
Further, he quoted the thoughts of a German Urbanist who opined that the enemy of spatial
planning is the area between two cities, which is neglected, though being the potential area
for growth. He further opined that the thought of visualising country as green carpet and
placing cities on the carpet is incorrect. Planning process shall consider the entire area of
the country to be dealt at different levels.
Mr. Jahnsen thanked all the participants on behalf of GIZ for attending the Connecting
Mosaics workshop and contributing to the stimulating discussions and sharing their
knowledge and thoughts on Spatial Planning in India.
Report on the Connecting Mosaics 2016 workshop under LUPM
30
ANNEXURE 1
List of Participants:
S.No Title Participant
Name Designation Organisation
1 Mr. Satinder Pal Singh Director (Housing) Ministry of Housing & Urban
Poverty Alleviation (MoHUPA), Govt. of India
2 Mr. Sangram
Mohapatra Joint Secretary
Revenue & Disaster Management Department (R & DM), Govt. of
Odisha
3 Mr. Subhendra Mishra Chief Town Planner &
Director Town Planning H & UD Department, Govt. of
Odisha
4 Mr. Souvanic Roy Professor IIEST, Shibpur
5 Ms. Kajori Mishra Dean Xavier University & XIMB
6 Ms. Sutapa Pati Professor XIMB
7 Mr. Utpal Sharma Director NIRMA University
8 Mr. P.K. Ghosh Retd. IAS Independent Consultant
9 Mr. Saswat
Bandyopadhyay Professor CEPT University, Ahmedabad
10 Mr. Ashok Kumar Member Secretary,
SGPOA Town & Country Planning Department, Govt. of Goa
11 Mr. Vidyadhar Kumar
Phatak Ex. Chief Planner
Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority
12 Dr. S.K. Kulshrestha Urban Planner Independent Consultant
13 Mr. Ram Mohan Mishra Planning Member, RDA RDA, Govt. of Odisha
14 Ms. Sanjukta Bhaduri Professor School of Planning &
Architecture, New Delhi
15 Mr. Sugato Dutt, IFS Member Secretary State Planning Commission, Govt.
of Tamil Nadu
16 Mr. Awadhendra
Sharan Associate Professor CSDS, New Delhi
17 Mr. Ashok Kumar Barman, ACS
Joint Secretary Govt. of Assam
Report on the Connecting Mosaics 2016 workshop under LUPM
31
18 Mr. V.T. Mandora Deputy Secretary Revenue Department (RD), Govt.
of Gujarat
19 Mr. Prakash Modi Project Officer Revenue Department (RD), Govt.
of Gujarat
20 Mr. Georg Jahnsen Project Director Land Use Management Project,
GIZ
21 Ms. Aparna Das Senior Advisor Inclusive Cities Partnership
Programme, GIZ
22 Mr. Naveen Potti Technical Expert Inclusive Cities Partnership
Programme, GIZ
23 Ms. Tanaya Saha Technical Expert Land Use Management Project,
GIZ
24 Mr. Kasinath Anbu Technical Expert Inclusive Cities Partnership
Programme, GIZ
25 Mr. Ramchandra Panda Technical Expert Inclusive Cities Partnership
Programme, GIZ
26 Mr. Arpan Mazumder Jr. Technical Expert Inclusive Cities Partnership
Programme, GIZ
27 Mr. Darryl D' Monte Moderator FEJI
Report on the Connecting Mosaics 2016 workshop under LUPM
32
ANNEXURE 2
Land Use Planning and Management Project National Workshop on
Theme: “Connecting Mosaics - 2016” Exploring India’s Culture of Spatial Planning
Date: 8th and 9th June, 2016 | Venue: Trident Hotel, Bhubaneshwar, Odisha
Workshop Objective: Understanding the existing practice and challenges of Spatial Planning in India and thereby understanding the roles and contribution of professional planners, key actors and the related academia in Spatial Planning.
Agenda Day 1: 8th June, 2016
9:30 – 10:25 hrs Registration
10:25 – 11:30 hrs: Inaugural Session
10:25 – 11:30 hrs
Lighting of Lamps.
Opening of Session by Moderator Mr. Darryl D’Monte & Ms. Aparna Das, ICPP – GIZ
Address by Mr. Satinder Pal Singh, IPS, Director (Housing), MoHUPA, Government of India.
Setting the Context by Mr. Georg Jahnsen, Project Director, GIZ-LUPM.
Keynote Address by Mr. Vidyadhar K. Phatak, Former CTP, MMRDA.
11:30– 11:45 hrs Tea Break
11:45 – 13:00 hrs: Technical Session 1 – Status of Spatial Planning in India, Practical Examples
11:45 – 12:00 hrs “Introduction to Group Work” by Georg Jahnsen and Darryl D’Monte.
12:00 – 13:30 hrs “Group Work” (4 Groups).
13:00– 14:00 hrs Lunch
14:00 – 16:00 hrs: Technical Session 1 continues…
14:00 – 14:30 hrs “Group Work” (4 Groups).
14:30 – 16:00 hrs Group Work Presentations ( 4 Groups)
16:00– 16:15 hrs Tea Break
16:15 – 17:45 hrs: Technical Session 2
16:15 – 17:45 hrs Panel Discussion “Fish Bowl”.
19:30 hrs Dinner
Report on the Connecting Mosaics 2016 workshop under LUPM
33
Day 2: 9th June, 2016
10:15– 10:30 hrs Summary of Day 1 by Darryl D’Monte
10:30 – 11:15 hrs: Technical Session 3: Reflecting on Planners’ Profession (Presentations in “Petcha Kucha” format)
10:30 – 10:45 hrs Setting the Context: Prof. Utpal Sharma, Director, NIRMA.
10:45 – 10:55 hrs Presentation by Prof. Awadhendra Sharan, Centre for Study of Developing Societies (CSDS).
10:55 – 11:05 hrs Presentation by Prof. Saswat Bandyopadhyay, H.O.D., Environmental Planning, Centre for Environmental Planning and Technology (CEPT).
11:05 – 11:15 hrs Presentation by Ms. Aparna Das, Sr. Advisor, GIZ-ICPP, New Delhi.
11:15 –11:30 hrs Tea Break
11:30 – 12:30 hrs Panel Discussion (“Fish Bowl”) moderated by Darryl D’Monte
12:30 – 13:00 hrs: Concluding Session
12:30– 13:00 hrs Concluding remarks and Vote of Thanks: Darryl D’Monte and Georg Jahnsen
13:00 onwards Lunch