area planning zone-f, delhi · media‘s view on mixed use news track was done for different...

Area Planning, Zone-F, Delhi

DEC 2006 0 Mixed use and Commercial Aspect

Area planning Zone-F, Delhi

A Report on MIXED USE AND COMMERCIAL USE

ASPECT

by: Students of 3rd year, 5th semester, Bachelor of Planning (2004-08),

Department of Physical Planning,

School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi -2



1. INTRODUCTION:

Since, we were to explore the implication of Ional Development Plan across the uses we

took up the contemporary example of mixed land use and commercial use to study the

equity and efficiency across the uses as envisaged by the Zonal Development plan.

Keeping this vision in mind the aim of the study strictly confines within the following

words:

1.1 Aim

The aim of the Studio Exercise was to study the concept of equity across uses.

1.2 Objective

Under the above stated aim broadly the objectives of the exercise were:

1) To understand the concept of mixed land use.

2) To study change in mixed land use policies over a period of time.

3) To determine the extent and nature of mixed land use.

4) To assess the availability of planned commercial area.

5) To identify the implications of modified mixed land use regulations at zonal level and

also to find the possible options for the same.

1.3 Limitations

As it is a curriculum based academic exercise and there were certain constraints. These

constraints make the study an indicative one, under the following considerations:

1) The Study area chosen have typology variation in terms of residential use, but not all

types of residential developments are in the study area.

2) A limited number Limited surveys were done due to logistics and time constraint.

1.4 Methodology

Figure 1.1 shows the methodology adopted for the study. Basically, it is divided in

three parts the first one was Literature and Background study: aimed towards

developing an understanding of the historical setup of mixed use and commercial use

through master Plan, Zonal Plan etc. Background study also comprised of study of recent

development like the 7th September notification on mixed use, 15th September notification

for the modification in the Master Plan Delhi 2001 by Government of Delhi and The



Tejendra Khanna Committee Report Published by Ministry of Urban Development on Mixed

use. To understand the recent public perception both residents and traders and the

Media‘s view on mixed use news track was done for different national level newspapers.

Under the purview of the above told different studies the implications were also analysed

on the Zone F considering the Zonal Development Plan 2001 and the streets identified by

the 15 th September notification regarding modification in Master Plan 2001.

Study area was delineated considering the different type of residential development like

Planned Plotted, Group Housing and Urban village to catch the variation.

The Second stage focused mainly on primary Data collection and Survey of the area

which was done at the community level (population 1 lakh).

At the third stage a detailed analysis of the primary data as well as the secondary data

from the literature search was done and the issues regarding the mixed use were

identified. Detailed proposal at the policy level and site level was outlined in the fourth

stage. The proposal also looked into the requirement of long term and short term

solutions at different levels.

1.5 Study Area Delineation Criteria

The study area includes Vasant Vihar, Munirka Village, Munirka enclave, Vasant Kunj

pocket B and C and Masoodpur Village as major locations. The delineation of study area

was done on the basis of following criteria’s:-

a) Availability of Zonal plan and previous studies – the previous study on

concept of equity and efficiency across users, was also done for the same area.

Also, the availability of the zonal plan for the area persuaded the delineation of

the study area.

b) Population size at community level – 1 lakh as per MPD 2001. 1.5 Lakh in

our case.

c) To cover colonies of each tier- one of the intent in delineation of study area

was to cover colonies of each tier (namely tier 1, tier 2 and tier 3) .this can be

substantiated with the evidence that Vasant Vihar and Vasant kunj pkt c

belonging to tier 1, Vasant kunj pkt b and Munirka enclave belonging to tier 2

and Masoodpur village and munirka village belonging to tier 3.



STAGE I STAGE II STAGE III STAGE IV

BACKGROUND STUDIES

DATACOLLECTION

DATAANALYSIS

PROPOSALS

IDENTIFICATION OF STUDY AREA

PRIMARYDATA

SECONDARYDATA

INVENTORYSURVEY

BUILDING USE

PLANNEDCOMMERCIAL

PARKING

QUESTIONNAIRESURVEY

RESIDENTSRWA'S

TRADERSTRADER'S ASSO.

PROFESSIONALS

REAL ESTATE

DATACOMPILATION

POSSIBLEOPTIONS

COLLECTION OF MAPS

WORKSTUDIES

PRILIMINARY ANALYSIS

AREA LEVEL

EXTENT OF MISUSE

NATURE OF MISUSE

AVAILIABILITY OF PLANNED COMMERCIAL AREA

IMPLICATIONS

PEOPLE'S PERCEPTION

FINAL ANALYSIS

SUB-ZONAL LEVEL

EXTENT OF MISUSE

NATURE OF MISUSE

AVAILIABILITY OF PLANNED COMMERCIAL AREA

IMPLICATIONS

PEOPLE'S PERCEPTION

IMPLICATIONS

POLICYLEVEL

CASE STUDYLEVEL

MONITORINGLEVEL

POSSIBLE OPTIONS

POLICYLEVEL

CASE STUDYLEVEL

MONITORINGLEVEL

POLICY LEVEL

CASE STUDY LEVEL

MONITORING LEVEL

LITERATURE SEARCH

MPD 1981, MPD 2001 (MLU PROVISIONS)

WORKSTUDIES MPD 1981, MPD 2001 (MLU)

TKC REPORT

NOTIFICATIONS

COURT CASES RELATED TO MLU

MEDIA TRACK RELATED TO MLU

MIXED USE/COMMERCIALIZATION CONCEPT

CHANGE IN MIXEDUSE POLICIES OVER TIME

ISSUE IDENTIFIED

CHANGE IN PLANNING PROCESS

CHANGE IN FRAMEWORK

MONITORING ISSUES

GROUND REALITY VS POLICY PROVISIONS

Figure 1.1 Methodology of the study

Area Planning Zone-F, Delhi

DEC 2006 4 mixed Use and Commercial Use aspect

d) Congruent sub zonal boundaries –areas being congruent to the sub zonal boundaries

(F 12 and F 13) were selected as part of the study area. E.g. Vasant Kunj pocket D being a

tier 1 colony was not included within the study area as it lies in J zone, thus not being

congruent with the sub zonal boundary of F 12 and F 13.

1.6 Context (Spatial and Planning)

In terms of the spatial context to the study area there are basically 5 sub zones (namely F-6,

F-5, F-11, F-15 and F-14) and northern part of J zone, entrapping the study area in all the

four sides. Sub zone F-6 located in the north – west direction with respect to the study area

has predominant land use of residential and public semi public. Major locations in the area are

West End, Shanti Niketan, South Moti Bagh and Delhi University south campus t hus,

establishing a functional relationship with the study area. This is mainly due to in migration of

students in the study area for cheap accommodation. Major planning proposal for the sub

zone is of re-densification of South Moti Bagh, as per the zonal plan for F zone.

0 100 200 300 400 500 M100

VILLAGE KISHANGARH

MEHRAULI

VASANT KUNJ

MASUDPUR

RESERVE FOREST

MOTI BAG SOUTH

SHANTI

NEKATAN

WESTEND

R.K.PURAM VILLAGE MUHAMMADPUR

VASANT VIHAR

MUNIRKAF 13

F 14

F 6

IIT

JNU F 11

F 5

F 12

ZONE J

ZONE G ZONE D

national inst. of health

and family welfare

c

c

LS

LS

LS

LS

LS

LS

LS

LS

LS

LS

LS

LS

LS

LS

LS

DC

LS

RESERVE

FOREST

RESERVE

FOREST

MM

MM

Sr.

Sr.

Sr.

Sr.

C

C

C

C

SC

U

ERER

ER

ER

ER

D.

basant gaon

jiya sarai

F 4

F 15

Figure 1.2- Context Area



Sub zone F- 5 located in the north of study area has a predominant land use of residential

and commercial. Major locations within the area are R.K Puram, Mohammad pur Village and

Bhikaji Cama Place (District Center). The district center within the sub zone attracts the

workers, seeking employment opportunity, from the study area.

Like the planning proposal for South Moti Bagh, there is a similar proposal of re –

densification of R. K Puram.

Sub zone F- 11 and 15 located in the east, have predominant land use of residential and

public semi – public. IIT campus, Mehrauli, Kishangarh Village and South Central Ridge are

major locations within the sub zone. In regards to the planning proposal, there is a proposal

of conversation of the ridge as per the MPD 2001. The functional implications of the two sub

zones are in the form of local market activities (at Mehrauli), due to relaxation of norms in

urban village and city level implication of the ridge, in sustenance of the ecosystem.

The sub zone of F- 14 located in the west of the study area, includes Mahipalpur Village as

the major location. The predominant land use prevailing in the sub zone is of residential and

commercial. The sub zone offers employment opportunity at local level and attracts

customers due to the competitive prices prevailing in the market.

Lastly, the northern part of J zone located in the south of the study area includes Vasant Kunj

Pkt D. Thus predominant land use prevailing in the area is of residential. As per the DDA

scheme for Vasant Kunj, there is a proposal of high end residential in the area, which is

attracting service sector (construction).

In regards to the mixed use, it is observed that within the context area it is almost non

existent in areas like R.K. Puram, South Moti Bagh and housing complex within the IIT

campus area (areas having government/institutional housing). While at the same time it’s

prevalent in an inevitable magnitude in areas such as Mehrauli, Shanti Niketan etc (urban

villages).

1.7 Introduction to the Sub Zones (F12, F13)

Sub zones of F 12 and F 13 comprise the study area. The total area of F 12 is 707.8 Ha and

has a total population (proposed as per zonal plan) of 52,433 persons. The major ocations

within the sub zone are of munirka, JNU, Vasant kunj sector B and masoodpur.



GOVERNMENT/INSTITUTIONAL HOUSING

PLOTTED HOUSING

GROUP HOUSING

URBAN VILLAGE (PLOTTED HOUSING)

VILLAGE KISHANGARH

MEHRAULIVASANT KUNJ

SEC B

MASUDPUR

RESERVE

FOREST

MOTI BAG SOUTH

SHANTI

NEKATAN

WESTEND

VILLAGE

MUHAMMADPUR

VASANT VIHAR

MUNIRKA

IIT

JNU

DC

basant gaon

VASANT KUNJ

SEC C

SOUTH

CAMPUS

MAHIPALPUR

ZONE J

ZONE G ZONE D

0 100 200 300 400 500 M100

Fig. 1.3 Housing Typology in and Around Study Area

Sub zone F 13 has total area of 780.4 Hectare with a total population (proposed as per zonal

plan) of 97,500 persons. The major locations within the sub zone are of Vasant Vihar, Vasant

Kunj sector C, Vasant Enclave and Basant Gaon.

1.8 Introduction to the Study Area

The study area is comprised of Vasant vihar, Vasant kunj pocket C, pocket B, Masoodpur

Village, Munirka village and Munirka Enclave.

Vasant Vihar located in the northern part of the study area, was established in the year 1965.

The area evolved as a low density planned plotted housing for the higher income group. It is

about 240 Ha in area. The area falls under the category of tier 1 colonies and was proposed



with a population of 21,750 persons. The existing population in the area is around 22,000

persons. The plot size range prevailing in the area is 150 to 400 square meters.

Vasant Kunj pocket C located in sub zone F 13 was established in 1985 as part of the Vasant

kunj scheme by DDA, under which a low density, planned DDA flats with HIG and MIG as

focused groups under SFS was envisaged. The area spreads over 154 Ha. It falls under tier 1

category of colonies and was proposed with a population of 26,400 persons. The existing

population is around 28,000 persons. A plot size range of 25 – 150 sqm is prevailing in the

area.

Vasant kunj poket B located in sub zone F 12 was established in 1985. In the vein of Vasant

vihar pocket B, pocket C also evolved as part of the Vasant kunj scheme by DDA. It is

aboutCC 222 Ha in terms of area. As per MCD the whole of Vasant kunj falls under the

category of tier 1 colonies, but as per the primary surveys conducted as part of the study, it

was revealed that pocket B falls in tier 2 colonies category. The area was proposed with a

population of 36,850 but as per the existing condition the population of the area is around

38,000. A plot size range of 25 – 250 square meters is prevailing in the area.

Masoodpur village lying adjacent to the Vasant kunj pocket 5 in the south is an urban village

which evolved 450 years ago, during Qutub’s period. The name masoodpur, in literary terms

mainly signifies “a place like heaven”. The urban village spreads over an area of 10 Ha with a

population of 25,000. It falls under the tier 3 category of colonies. The housing typology

prevailing in the area is of plotted housing with a plot size range of 75 – 1,000 square

meters.

Munirka Village evolved 650 years ago, by settlement of a migrant from Haryana. It was

predominantly agricultural in nature before urbanization. The urban village spreads over an

area of 74 ha with a population of 1, 00,000. It falls in the category of tier 3 colonies. The

housing typology prevailing in the area is of plotted housing with a plot size range of 75 to

1000 squaer meters.

Munirka Enclave adjacent to Munirka village is in the sub zone F 12. The area was established

in 1990 as a planned DDA flats under SFS. It is about 5.2 HA in terms of area. It is tier 2

colony with proposed population of 2,500 (existing population = 2,500 persons). The plot

size range prevailing in the area is of 25 to 150 square meters.



DISTRICT

PARK

VV BUS

DEPOT

VASANT

LOK HOTEL

BASANT LOK

CGH

COMPLEX

CGH

COMPLEX

JJC

VASANT VIHAR

VASANT KUNJ

SECTOR C

VASANT KUNJ

GRAND HYATT

OPEN SCRUB

HILL VIEW

APTT

INTERNATIONAL

HOTELS

COMPLEX

OPEN

SCRUBS

SECTOR D

MAHIPALPUR M

EHRAULI RD

ABDUL GAFFAR KHAN MG

NE

LS

ON

MA

ND

ELA

RD

OLO

F P

ALM

E M

G.

RANGPURI

PKT E

PKT F

BASANT GAON

BASANT APTT.

JJC

RBI OFFICERS

COLONY

STONE

QUARRIES

VASANT ENCL

STONE

QUARRIES

R.K. PURAM

WEST END

PKT A

PKT B

PKT D

PKT C

MUNIRKA

MUNIRKAAPPTS.

MUNIRKAENCLAVE

SECTOR - BVASANT KUNJ

MASOODPUR

Figure 1.4 Study area 0 100 200 300 400 500 M100



2. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE Considering that we allowed the mixed use only in the notified walled area as a special

provision in the Master plan of Delhi-1981 in 1962, which was followed by a much liberalised

criteria proposed in the revised 2001 Plan. Also as per MPD 2001 specific areas were

identified in the different Zonal Plan- 2001 it becomes necessary to study the change in the

policies and norms over the time.

2.1 Introduction (Mixed Land Use)

Till 1990 a number of residential areas were intruded by commercial activity, this led to the

formulation of policy of mixed use, considering its environmental impact and socio-economic

need of the society.

Policy of Mixed Use was formulated on the basis of following concepts:

Mixed Land Use will enable small entrepreneurs, professionals, artisans, etc. to carry on their

vocations in their homes without having to compete in the commercial land market. It will

also cut down unnecessary commuting to work centres. Apart from generating additional

income, official recognition of mixed land use will put a stop to illegal and unauthorized

change of land use.

2.2 Studies Done While Revising First Master Plan

At the time of revising the first master plan the studies and surveys carried out for residential

developments bring out the following facts which proved that the formulation of policy of

mixed use is necessary:

The census of mixed use activities indicated that there was larger extent of mixed use in

Rehabilitation plotted housing (including resettlement housing, village housing which is to the

extent of about 12% as compared to 1.7% in Group housing and 2% in regular residential

plotted areas developed after 1962)

Most of the families involved in Mixed Use were of lower and low-middle income group. In

rehabilitation plotted housing it is about 89% and a little higher in resettlement housing.

Mixed Land Use in case of lower income communities was mainly in the form of retail shops for

immediate needs of the community while in case of higher income groups it is mainly for

professional consultancy and other offices. In rehabilitation plotted housing, retail shops and

service shops are around 85% whereas it is 10% in plotted housing developed after 1962.

Mixed Land Use was mainly in owned houses. The survey findings have revealed that the

percentage of mixed use in owned houses is about 82% in rehabilitation plotted areas.

Mixed Use activity was mainly carried out on the ground floor which is above 90% in any type

of residential development.



The surveys have revealed that mixed use was very prominent in the form of linear

commercial development, which amounts to about 75% of the total authorised and

unauthorised shopping.

2.3 Policies on Mixed Land Use (MPD-2001)

As per the master plan 2001; on a single premise or in an area, mixed residential and non-

residential activity is recommended to be dealt in the following manner:

Central old built-up areas (which actually have a tradition of mixed land use) should be dealt

differently than other areas. Mixed land use should be permitted selectively, carefully taking

into consideration its community need, provision of traffic and parking which would be

generated. In case of new developments, planned mixed residential and non-residential

activity should be introduced right at the time of the preparation of the layout plans.

2.4 Development Code - Mixed Land Use Regulations (MPD-2001)

Identification of streets/area for permitting mixed use activity:

At the time of preparation of Zonal Plans, in areas other than the Walled City, Karol Bagh and

other Urban renewal areas, streets of mixed use activity shall be identified by:

Conducting a traffic study to see whether after permission of mixed use activity, there will be

no adverse effect in the traffic circulation in that area/street. There should be an evaluation of

its impact on the municipal services and environmental needs of the area.

Mixed use permitted in a street/area should be subjected to the following conditions:

The commercial activity allowed shall be only on the ground floor, to the extent of 25% or

50sqm, whichever is less. The establishment shall be run only the resident of the dwelling unit.

Following activities shall not be allowed:

(a) Retail Shops - Building materials, firewood, coal

(b) Repair Shops - Automobiles repair, cycle rickshaw repair, tyre resorting, battery charging

(c) Service Shops - Flour mills (more than 3kw power load), fabrication and welding

(d) Nursing Home

(e) Guest house, Boarding House and Lodging House

(f) Storage, go down and warehousing

(g) Manufacturing units

(h) Junk Shop

Professional Activity: Professional activity shall be allowed in residential plots and flats on

any floor on the following condition; Part of the premises shall be permitted to be used up to

a maximum of 25% of FAR or 100 square meters Whichever is less, for non residential but

non nuisance activities for rendering service based on professional skills.



2.5 Intended Mixed Land Use At the time of layout preparation of a residential area, clusters of plot shall be reserved for

intended mixed use for shops and household industries at ground floor and the residence on

the remaining floors.

2.6 Additions/Alterations in the Development Code (MPD-2021)

The plots reserved for intended mixed use shall face 18 meters. ROW roads and above with

common Parking areas to be earmarked in the layout plans. The commercial activity is

allowed to the 100% of the ground floor coverage. The following activities may be permitted

within a residential premise on plot of a minimum of size of 209 square meters. (160 square

meters. in Special Area, villages and Rehabilitation Colonies.) Facing a minimum road width of

18 meters ROW (13.5 meters. in Rehabilitation Colonies and 9 meters. in 'Special Area' and

villages).

(a) Pre-primary school (Nursery/Montessori School, Crèche etc.)

(b) Nursing home

(c) Guest house

(d) Bank

(e) Fitness Centre (Gymnasium, yoga, meditation centre)

Banquet Halls which do not cause hindrance to the general public and provide for parking can

be permitted on mixed use streets, where commercial activity is permissible, subject to the

following conditions:

Banquet Hall shall be permitted in residential and commercial use zones with a minimum plot

size of 333 square meters, facing minimum 18 metres, right of way of roads (13.5 metres in

Rehabilitation Colonies and 9 metres in Special Area).

2.7 Monitoring No framework for monitoring is given for mixed use in MPD-2001, while MPD-2021 gives the

following framework for the monitoring of mixed land use:

Component of monitoring - No. of mixed land use streets

Period of monitoring - 1 Year

Phase wise Description - As per Zonal Development Plans



3. STUDY OF TEJENDRA KHANNA COMMITTEE REPORT

3.1 Introduction - Background / Circumstances for Setting up of Committee In view of the courts orders issued to the MCD to deal with the unauthorized construction and

misuse of premises as per the master plan policy, a demolition drive was started by the MCD. In

the context of the on going MCD’s demolition drive there were various representations made by

CM, Delhi , members of parliament and other peoples representatives highlighting – “the

magnitude of the problem is so large that it may not be possible to address all violations in

foreseeable future” , though there were no survey data to support these representations. Thus,

in sight of the representations made it was suggested within the MOUD that there is a need to

devise an appropriate strategy to deal with the problem, for which a comprehensive

examination of the whole issue based on empirical data is required. The following issues were

sighted:-

o Magnitude of the problem is huge

o Misuse of power by field functionaries

o Perceived nexus between builders, MCD officials and local level politicians

o Discrimination of law- applicability to unauthorized construction with respect to unauthorized

colonies.

o All violations cannot be treated equally

Thus, the committee was set up on 14th Feb 2006 in accordance to the memorandum passed by

the MOUD. The committee comprised of the 5 member (including 2 technical experts) and one

secretary.

3.2 Terms of reference of the committee

The terms of reference of the committee were as follows: -

1) Assessment of magnitude of violations

2) Categorization of violations - based on nature & extent

3) Identification of causes for violations

4) Suggest feasible strategy to address the problem

5) Recommend policy guidelines & development control for Lal Dora areas.

6) Measures to prevent future recurrence

7) Any other matter incidental to terms of reference



3.3 Methodology followed by TKC (as identified by us)

INPUTSFROM GENERAL PUBLIC(HEARINGS,

COMMUNITY MEETINGS)

EMINENT PEOPLE ( CM, IMPORTANT

OFFICIALS THROUGH MEETING.

CONSIDERATIONS

SAFEGAURDING PUBLIC INTEREST,

TRANSPARENCY,

EQUITY,

PRACTICAL AND

ACHIEVABLE GOALS

ANALYSISCATEGORIZATION OF VIOLATIONS

MAGNITUDE ESTIMATION

IDENTIFICATION OF CAUSES

PROPOSALRECOMMENDATIONS

- CHANGE IN POLICY

- SUPPORTING INSTITUTIONAL SETUP

- PROCEDURE

- MONITORING

PUBLIC NOTICE (INVITATION OF OBJECTION &

SUGGESTIONS)

Figure 3.1: methodology followed by TKC

At the first stage the committee essentially took inputs and also outlined the consideration, guiding

the committee. Inputs from both the general public and eminent people were taken, despite the

fact that these inputs were invited before setting up of any basic framework.

The committee claims to have received around 1500 written representation and conducted 20

sittings and 86 hearings of the representative groups, though the committee has not given any

basis of responding to some selected representations. Furthermore, the committee seems to have

been giving more emphasis to representations made by groups and views of the individuals seem

to have been evaded, inconsiderate of them being technically viable.



3.4 Considerations Guiding the Committee were:

Safeguarding the public interest –like all other committees the primary objective of all

public policy making and implementation of those policies.

Transparency and equity - public policies and regulation should be transparent,

comprehensible to common people and should be equitous in nature i.e. they should further the

interest of all stake - holders (including the economically weaker section)

Practical and achievable goals - policies and regulations should anticipate future needs of

people and cater to them adequately. The solutions should be simple to understand, may be

based on ground practicality and not the ideal conditions.

Monitoring - the enforcement machinery should function independently and should be

insulated from extraneous pressures. With its performance closely monitored

3.5 Analysis

3.5.1 Categorization of violations

The committee basically classified the violations under to heads, namely:

1) unauthorized construction

2) misuse of premises

Hereafter, only misuse of premises is considered under scope of work. Misuse of premises is

further classified in the following manner:

1) Misuse of residential premises (partly/ wholly) for commercial use. Further sub

division on basis of following criteria’s:

- Use of residential premises (partly/ wholly) situated along major roads.

- Situated along roads in the immediate proximity of designated market centres or otherwise

- situated in Lal Dora or extended Lal Dora, without any reference to any minimum road width

stipulation

- running of commercial activities on all floors in certain areas even though they have not yet

been declared commercial and still fall under the category of " mixed land use "

- running of shops from premises having plot size less than 100 square meters and road length

less than 9 meters.

2) for institutional use

3) use as banquet halls

4) use of industrial plots vacated ( drive against pollution) as the above mentioned

uses: The major observation regarding the classification of misuse of premises is that



household / small scale industries and also the misuse of premises at the resettlement

colonies have not been considered.

3.5.2 Magnitude of violations

In regards to the magnitude estimation of the misuses of premises, the committee has

given only two statements:

1) 75 – 80 % of Delhi’s inhabitants are misusing residential premises. This seems to be one

of the assumptions made by the committee, as there is no availability of any survey data

to back this statement.

2) Furthermore, the committee states that “regarding commercial activity at district level (in

district centre) - only 16% of the proposed commercial space has been provided by DDA)

source: - CMD, HUDCO. The fact to be highlighted here is that though the committee

claims that only 16% of the proposed commercial spaces at district level have been

provided, but this cannot be entirely used as basis for misuse of premises, since the

commercial space at district level constitutes only 20 % of the total commercial area at the

city level.

3.5.3 Identification of possible cause for violations

The possible causes for violation (misuse of premises), as identified by the committee can

be classified under the following heads:

1) lack of approved commercial / institutional space: In this regard the committee

has sighted three examples:

a. At district level, of the 96.13 lacs s q uare meters (22 district centres) proposed

commercial/institutional space only 5.18 lacs square meters (16%) floor area has been

provided. (Source: presentation by C.M.D, HUDCO) as stated before, this constitutes

only 20% of the total commercial area.

b. Secondly, the committee states that against a target of developing 5.75% of land

(Developed) under commercial use (as per MPD 1981), and level of 3-4% for urban

extension (as per MPD 2001), the actual development has been only .98% (i.e. only

20% of target).there is availability of no survey data to back this statement.

c. Lastly, the committee states that growing divergence between ground situation and

base-line data used by the DDA. is highlighted by the fact that no detailed house to



house civic survey was carried out while preparation of MPD 2001 or the MPD 2021

update. Even though they are envisaged under section 7 of DD act, 1957. Although

there are work studies for MPD 2001 available, thus making it false to state that no civic

surveys were carried out for preparation of MPD 2001.

2) Steep pricing/ allotment through auction

The committee states that pricing policy of the DDA for a particular land use depends

heavily on the percentage of that particular use. Pricing is inversely proportional to

percentage. Since the percentage of commercial area has been reduced, the prices in

turn have increased beyond the capacity of the small trader.

Furthermore, the policy of allotment through auction goes against the principle of equity

(as it gives undue advantage to richer / more influential trader), and also stimulates

unnatural increase in price.

3) Locational attributes of the spaces

As per the committee, top-down planning process followed by the DDA does not focus

underlying objective of catering to the 'felt needs' of the people living and working in a

particular area. The planning process followed by DDA does not facilitate genuine public

participation. The participation is formal and that to after the stage of draft preparation.

To genuinely include the people’s objections and suggestions, the participation should be

at conceptualization stage.

3.6 Recommendations (resulting from analysis)

Chiefly, a more flexible land use policy is being proposed, with the justifications that Delhi is

home to a vast variety of people with different socio-economic status, needs and aspirations;

as such a 'one size fits all' solution cannot be justified. Also, traditionally our towns and

villages have maintained the practice of mixed land use within their areas of habitation.

The recommendations given by the committee in view of the misuse of premises can be

classified under following heads:

1) policy level recommendations

2) procedural recommendations

3) recommendations supporting institutional setup

4) recommendations relating to monitoring



3.6.1 Policy Level Recommendations

The committee states that since different people have different needs, it is proposed to

classify residential colonies into categories and adopt land use policies with varying flexibility

for each. Thus the colonies are divided into 3 groups - tier I comprising of category A & B, tier

ii comprising c& d and tier iii comprising of the remaining. The classification is based on the

classification of 2025 colonies falling within the jurisdiction of MCD into categories A to G done

by the Dharmarajan Committee.

For tier iii colonies the committee has recommended a more flexible land use policy , by

prescribing no minimum plot size or width of road for permitting of non residential use.

Furthermore, it suggests that in these areas for commercial activity on roads less than 6m

wide, Entire Street be designated as pedestrian shopping street. It is recommended that all

persons living in such colonies are deemed free to carry out non-residential activities provided

it does not cause inconvenience to general public.(to be decided by regulatory authority.) the

committee presumes that the market forces and consumer choice will restrict commercial

activity to high accessibility streets without need for any regulations.

For tier ii colonies a limited flexible land use policy is recommended. The owner has to justify

any proposed change of land use, to the RWA and the regulatory authority. For cases where

premises has been under non- conforming use prior to 1.1.2000, the change should be

allowed to continue if not found detrimental to public interest by the regulatory authority.

For tier i non- residential use has been limited only to the extent of professionals. It is

recommended for any other existing/ proposed non- residential use, the resident can apply to

the authority, but the conditions for permitting would be much stiffer. Furthermore, any

permission granted would be conditional and can be challenged by concerned local citizen

groups.

Apart from this, commercial and institutional utilization of buildings abutting national

highways, arterial/ sub-arterial roads, and metro corridor may be considered keeping in view

their relative unsuitability for residential use. Its is also recommended by the committee that

non- residential uses functioning from residential areas of pre-MPD 1981 be allowed, except in

cases of serious public inconvenience noticed by the regulatory authority.



3.6.2 Procedural Recommendations

The procedural recommendations by the committee can be enlisted as: For all non- residential

uses in tier ii and i colonies, a self- declaration be should be filed by all such users by a certain

cut- off date with the proposed D.U.R.A. (Delhi Urban Regulatory Authority).

o Initial scrutiny, by joint regulatory team comprising of MCD/ D.D.A representatives &

professional Town planners.

o Based on recommendations of the team & hearing of citizen groups, NGO’s & RWA’s a

speaking order prepared by D.U.R.A to grant permission if so decided.

o Permission may be granted on temporary/ permanent basis as deemed fit by the authority.

o Permission is granted subject to suitable betterment fee and conversion charges.

o If permission not granted, the party may be given 3/ 6 months to close down the activity.

o Major chunk of funds collected to be used locally for betterment and not entirely credited to

the authority.

3.6.3 Recommendations Supporting Institutional Setup

The committee using the change in role of DDA as the basis, has recommend the setting up

new institutional units such as the Delhi Vision Group, Delhi Urban Regulatory Authority, Delhi

Real Estate Commission, High Power Enforcement Agency, Special Empowered Task Force.

Regarding the change in role of DDA the committee recommends that DDA’s regulatory role

under section 11a [chapter iii-a o f DD act, 1957] should be transferred to Delhi Urban

Regulatory Authority. Further DDA should engage itself in developing lap's in consultation with

people, preparation of village level plans for urban villages and in updating of master plan every

5 years. The committee has also emphasized on increase in effectiveness of NCRPB.

3.6.4 Recommendations Relating to Monitoring

The committee on grounds of the monitoring has recommended setting up 24 hr central control

room for monitoring, where daily action taken report would be released. It has emphasis on

accountability and use of technology for monitoring e.g. using of remote sensing maps and

furthermore it has emphasized on fast judicial services. The recommendations such as



setting up of 24 hr central control room and use of remote sensing maps seem to be impractical

solutions regarding monitoring.

3.7 Summing Up

The committee seems to be having been lost in the whole gamut of issues and thus its

recommendations seems to be emphasizing public views rather than balancing technical

professional expertise. For e.g. there seem to be no cost benefit analysis done in regard to the

recommendation related to the policy in tier i, ii and iii colonies. In other words, no gauging of

impact in terms of cost and benefit on allowing of a flexible land use policy in tier iii colonies,

where the infrastructure is already scarce.

Furthermore, the committee recommends setting up of a new institutional unit – DURA, which

would be functioning as independent body and would be insulated from extraneous pressures.

With its performance closely monitored. Disregarding the fact that DDA was also set up with

same objective, thus highlighting that procedural reforms are required instead of setting up of

new institutional units.

The committee was set up insight of the issue of misuse of power by field function, where as

there are no recommendations made in this regard.

The recommendation by the committee need to be specific, measurable, achievable, realistic

and time bound.



4 NOTIFICATIONS ON MIXED LAND USE

With Tejendra Khanna committee set up to look under the matter and finally directed towards

proposing feasible policies. At the same time Ministry of Urban Development issuing

Notification for Changes in the Mixed Use policies of MPD 2001 it became necessary to study

the situation and solutions applied by different government agencies. The study of different

notifications was aimed towards getting a view of the proposed solutions derived by Ministry to

deal with the scenario.

4.1 The notification issued on 28th march 2006

The Union Urban Development Ministry issued a notification on 28th march putting its stamp of

approval on the much talked about new mixed land use policy proposed by the Delhi

Development Authority (DDA) by amending the draft Master Plan for Delhi-2021. The move

came as a big relief to large sections of the Capital's citizens faced with threat of demolition and

sealing of their properties.

The amended plan envisages mixed land use permitting commercial activity on the ground floor

of residential plots, operation of banquet halls in residential, commercial and industrial areas,

and allowing establishments like pre-nursery schools, nursing homes, guest houses, banks and

fitness centers in such areas. The changes in the Master Plan were cleared by DDA on March

24. The official notification now states that mixed use streets will be identified based on traffic

and parking studies.

``On the basis of identification of mixed land use streets in zonal or local plans, mixed use may

be permitted on the ground floor in residential plots facing streets and roads of minimum 18

meters Right of Way (Right of way in regular residential plotted development, 13.5 meters in

rehabilitation colonies and 9 meters in special areas and villages. Further mixed land use could

also be identified and notified by the local body concerned and DDA in consultation with

residential welfare association.''

The notification allows professionals like doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers, chartered

accountants and designers to work from their residential premises. Professional activity would

be permissible on any floor subject to a maximum of 25 per cent of the floor area of the

dwelling unit or not exceeding one floor in case of plotted development. It also permits banquet

halls in residential areas on condition that they would be on plots of 330 square meters or more,

facing a minimum of 18-metre Row roads and 13.5 meters in rehabilitation colonies and 9

meters in special areas.



More modifications were done on 21 July 2006 and 7 September 2006 in which the policy was

made more liberal to permit the non residential activity in the residential areas (annexure I).

More streets and more activities were were permitted in the residential areas. The new concept

of differentiated approach was introduced based on categorization of colonies from A to G as

adopted by MCD for Unit Area method of property tax assessment. This policy was introduced to

frame different policies for areas having different behaviors e.g. the planned areas, resettlement

areas, urban villages etc.

4.2 Issues that arise from the series of modifications to MPD 2001

It has been observed that the series of modifications to the MPD 2001 were lesser a result of

the rational approach to planning but more due to the stakeholders’ pressures and an attempt

to nullify the mistakes made earlier. It was a complete inefficiency on part of the local bodies in

implementing and monitoring the Master Plan 2001 policies which resulted in the excessive

illegal developments and eventually lead to the illogical modification the Master Plan 2001.

Some of the issues that can be highlighted from the introduced modifications are:

1) Repetition of the MPD 2021 policy in the 28 march 2006 notification:

The modifications that were introduced on 28 July were the same as proposed in the MPD

2021.Draft Master Plan 2021 was made in view of perspective of 2021 with the objections and

suggestions looked upon in the 2021 context. It is still a mystery how could the policies that

were framed for the time keeping in view the course of events in the next 20 years be

implemented in the current state of events.

2) Criteria for identification of mixed use streets:

The criteria for identification of mixed use areas e.g. environment concerns, community needs,

Congestion, parking sufficiency etc is defined vaguely and not in the measurable terms. The

ground implementations of these utopian terms are not feasible.

3) No measurable criteria for permissibility of non-residential activities in residential

areas:

Master Plan does not define criteria in terms of which an activity can be termed permissible or

otherwise. It does not define the reason of some activities that were permitted before the

modifications and the reason for inclusion of some others after the modifications. It is still a

question to be raised that why the activities those are included now were not included earlier?

Why the change in the approach?

4) The reason for and the procedure of the introduction of the concept of

Commercial streets and areas in the mixed use chapter:



First of all the concept of commercial streets and areas in the Mixed use chapter and the reason

for the same itself is questionable. And more so the procedure for implementation for the

policies is arbitrary e.g.:

There are anomalies with the clause 10.12.1 which are still to be defined clearly:

1) Criteria for defining a property as commercial is not defined.

2) Criteria of road width less than 24m is an inappropriate regulation.

3) Reason for taking "70%" or “80%” as a criterion for selection.

4) The concept o f ‘may be notified’ needs more detailed explanations for the implementation

procedures.

5) Criteria for defining an area as contiguous.



5. Concurrent Developments in the Court Case and Media

As the Court was issuing orders for sealing the not permitted establishment and government

was trying to tackle the court orders through different ways, considering the chaos between the

traders association, resident associations and different organisation. To get the feel of the

problem and different radical solutions from different view ports of the society, tracking of

Media reports through newspaper, magazines, and news was as important as the study by

primary surveys. For a feasible framework and a more viable solution we tracked all the

newspapers throughout the year for the different articles on the mixed use fiasco. In such a

situation a good study should include

5.1 Issue regarding the case

The issue regarding the filing of the case was misuse of residential premise for commercial use

leading to conflicts between land use policy of Master Plan, political setup & executive bodies.

5.2 Developments (case)

1985 M.C. Mehta filed a court case in the Supreme Court bringing to light the parking problems

caused due to misuse of residential premise as commercial. This case brought to light the fact

that in various residential localities misuse in name of mixed land use was going on. Also the

adverse impact on environment was brought to focus by this case.

In 1994 a case was filed by Green Park residents in the High Court of Delhi against the misuse

of premises in their locality for commercial purposes causing them inconvenience and the

apathy of MCD with respect to this. In April 1995 MCD admitted its fault and admitted misuse is

going on. However till 2000 no effective action taken. The Parliamentary Consultative

Committee’s concern towards increasing misuse of premises was reflected in the letter sent by

MoUD to DDA, MCD, NDMC and NCT Govt which raised the issues relating to misuse and

unauthorized construction.

- All illegal construction should be demolished

- cost of demolition to be recovered from illegal builders in 15 days

- Property on lease to be treated accordingly

- DDA flats allotment to be cancelled if illegal construction

- Reconstruction on demolished parts to be fixed

- Illegal construction in rural area to be 'nipped in bud'

- In case of stay orders obtain higher court orders

- Senior officers to carry out physical surveys, & report to supervising officer

- Monthly report to MoUD, on 5th of each month

- Flying squad to be constituted for surprise checks



In May 2002, High Court gave orders that no sealing can be done by MCD.

Till 2003 no action taken by any Authority was taken against misuse. On 22 July 2004, MCD

declared a scheme to facilitate registration of shops by granting ad-hoc. This was only a

temporary solution of providing non-misuse status to unplanned misuse. This scheme however

did not continue as Court put a stay order on this Scheme and declared the press release

nullified.

On 29 Nov 2005, MCD filed petition in SC to be allowed to seal misused premises. This petition

was granted in 16 Feb 2006 by SC and sealing of those residential premises which were

misused was to commence.

M.C.D filed a petition seeking powers to seal buildings being misused for commercial purposes

in residential areas on 23-12-2005. According to a survey carried out by M.C.D. it was found

that 78-80% of the Delhi is unauthorized and have illegal construction. Since extent of misuse

was huge as reported by the media and the survey report conducted by M.C.D.,

commercialization was found to be beyond demolition and thus regularization should be done as

per some of the politicians, in case of sealing politicians would loose their vote bank among

traders. The politicians were relying on the mixed use provisions of master plan 2021. Delhi high

court dismissed the M.C.D’s sample survey of 80% of Delhi’s illegal construction on 17-1-2006.

M.C.D. carried out the survey and found out that there are 18,328 illegal properties in Delhi and

the H.C. ruled on 6-2-2006 that demolition should start by 16th February. Since this issue of

sealing and demolition grew to a very large extent and was hyped by media, ultimately a

meeting was called by the Prime minister which was attended by three more ministers including

Tejendra Khanna and formulated a commission which divided the illegal construction to minor

and major illegal construction. Ultimately Tejendra Khanna Committee was set on 14-2-2006 by

MoUD to deal with the illegal construction in Delhi.

S.C. empowered MCD to seal premises misusing residential for commercial use. Monitoring

Committee was set up on 24-3-2006 to overlook implementation of sealing process and court's

orders. Centre moved to S.C. on 12-4-2006 seeking 6 month moratorium on sealing. S.C. replied

that it will not allow any let-up against violators of the master plan. In order to save the traders

so that the vote bank of the politicians would not reduce parliament passes Delhi laws (special

provisions) act on 20-5-2006 giving a year's moratorium to illegal commercial set ups from court

mandated sealing & demolition drive. Constitutional validity of Delhi law (special provision) bill

questioned. Writ petitions were filed. MoUD withdrew certain categories of unauthorised

development from the protection of Delhi laws. Ultimately public notice was released by DDA

inviting objections on modifications proposed to master plan on 21-7-2006 with respect to



mixed use on recommendation of T.K.C. report. Apex court ordered that de-sealed premises to

be re-sealed from 16 Sept. 2006. Apex court rebuked MoUD over moving legislation to nullify

court orders. D.D.A. made amendment to the mixed land use policy of M.P.D. 2001 on

recommendation of T.K.C. and mix use notification came on 7-9-2006. Constitutional validity of

notification issued on 7 sep 2006 under question in court and the respondents were directed to

produce material on basis of which amendment decided upon. Ultimately mix-use notification on

15-9-2006 2204 roads and streets were notified and it was interesting to note that majority of

the streets/areas where M.C.D. was to carry out sealing drive.

Sealing started on 17-9-2006 commercial premises in upmarket colonies were sealed. Traders

protest turned violent. At last Sc ruled that there should be temporary exemption to shops on

2204 roads.

Sealing to restart after November 1, 2006.22 categories of traders were allowed in residential

and have to register by December 31, 2006. No further notifications without court's approval.

Traders protest against resumption of sealing drive from nov.1

MoUD speed up process of notifying MPD 2021 as solution to sealing so as to not confront sc.

MCD approached Supreme Court to seek modification order regarding 7 & 15 Sept notified

streets. (18-10-2006) supreme court extended the date of filling affidavits by traders up to

jan.31, 2007. Traders bundh called for 3 days Traders organised bandh (30-10-2006) CAIT

called for a 3 day "Delhi bandh" starting from oct.30 asking for postponement till Jan 31,2007

MCD conveyed to monitoring committee regarding its inability to resume the sealing drive from

nov.1 stating that it could lead to major law and order problem. (2-11-2006) sealing became

impossible due to sensitive law & order situation: gom. No confidence motion moved against

government on issue of sealing in parliament.

MCD to S.C.: difficult to resume sealing. Law & order problem cited. Monitoring committee

postpones sealing for 1 more day. (8-11-2006) sealing drive was resumed on decision of

monitoring committee. Traders protest by organising bandh.



6 IMPLICATIONS AT ZONAL LEVEL ( ZONE –F) Keeping in mind that the primary concern of the studio exercise is to study the Zonal

Development Plan as a tool towards Making better planned environment. Implications,

of the notification after the implementation were needed to be studied. This part of the

study deals with the changes that will occuer after the implementation of the 15th

September notification propsing the modification in the master plan 2001

6.1 Master Plan Considerations(On Mixed Use)

Master plan allows on restricted mix use and in areas where it is not detrimental to environment

and its quality of life.

Various studies were conducted Typology of residential vs. % of mix use Typology of residential vs. % of income up to RS. 1500/m Typology of residential vs. % of type of activity under mixed use. Typology of residential vs. % of ownership in mixed use. Typology of residential vs. % of mixed use at G.F.

Compatible - incompatible retail/service shops & industries in plotted housing areas. On basis of

above survey analysis, provisions of mixed land use is decided in master plan.

6.2 Major Modification to Mixed Land use Policy:

6.2.1 Policy and Provisions:

o MPD 2001 introduces Mixed Land use and formulation of balanced policy, (which were based

on civic surveys) and considering its environmental impact and socio economic need.

o ZDP further details by identifying the Stretches for mixed land use also provide provision for

Identification of new areas by Local body.

o This setup is challenged by a modification to master plan, which deviates its zoning

(segregated land uses) policy to some kind of piece meal planning, which is non- implement

able at zonal level & challenge the planned character of plan.

6.2.2 Development Code:

o Categorization of mixed land uses premises and delineation of areas along with introduction

of condition (modified development code for mixed land use areas) for permitting mixed

land use.

o New modification relaxed development to a extent that it leads to change in character of

plan which is not in conformity to DDA act and segregated zoning in principle.



MASTER PLAN 2001ZDP 2001 MASTER PLAN 2021MODIFICATION MPD 2001

OBJECTIVE

DEVELOPMENT NORMS

MONITERINGFRAME WORK

TYPE OF SURVEYS DONE OR BASE SURVEY DATA

BASIS OF CLASSIFICATION

MASTER PLAN 1962

TO CONSERVE THE HISTRORICAL SETTING OF WALLED CITY.

TO RESTRICT THE GROWTH OF MIXED LANDUSE

TO STOP DEMOLITION DRIVE & FOLLOW COURT ORDER.

TO AVOID CONFLIT AND CREATE SPACE FOR UPTREND COMMERCIAL & REAL ESTATE MARKET.

ABSENT PRESENT BUT NOT OPERATIONALISEDPRESENT BUT NOT

OPERATIONALISED

PRESENT BUT NOT OPERATIONALISED

PRESENT AND EXPECTED TO GET

OPERATIONALISED

DONE DONEDONENONE BUT SAMPLE SURVEY OF MCD IS CONSIDERED.

NONE

CLASSIFIACTION ON PROPERTY TAX COLLECTION ZONE.

TO RESTRICT THE GROWTH OF MIXED LANDUSE

MIXED LANDUSE PROVISION OVER THE TIME (1962-2021)

SHIFTING OF INDUSTRIESPESDISTRIAN STREETSMIX USE IN WALLED CITY ONLY.

CATEGORISATION OF MIXED USE INDENTIFICATION OF STREETPERMITTED/NON-PERMT.

UPTO 25% OR 50sqm ,ON GROUND FLOOR

STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE

CLASSIFICATION ON HOUSING TYPOLOGIES.

UPTO 100% OR 100sqm ,ON GROUND FLOORPARKING 2ECS@100sqmCOMMERCIAL ON 18m WIDE.

UPTO 25% OR 50sqm ,ON GROUND FLOORPARKING 2ECS@100sqmCOMMERCIAL ON 18m WIDE.

Table 6.1: Mixed land use policy provision over time

6.3 Provisions for Mixed Land Use:

6.3.1 As per Zonal Development Plan (Zone f) 2001

1. Identification filtration of mixed land use area under urban renewal scheme.

2. Category I -areas where only professional offices as per master plan 2001 stipulation are

to be permitted. No retail shop no house hold industry will be allowed in these areas.

a) All co-operative group housing building.

b) res. schemes dev. by DDA.

c) CHS by DDA and government.

3. Category II - identification of areas and allowing commercial activities on ground floor

only. Building by- laws, F.A.R. and Ground coverage, as per residential norms. Conversion

charges to be stipulated as per MPD - 2001.

a) New Delhi south ex -II in front of ring road.

b) Kalkaji main road.

c) Malviya nagar main market road.

d) Road between Govindpuri and Govindpuri extn.

e) Shop, plots forming part of the competent authority.

4. Category III: provision of mix land use in Areas like rehabilitation colonies, regularized

unauthorized colonies and urbanized villages. Till the formation of schemes, residential use to

be followed as per norms of MPD-2001.



41 non conforming nursing homes and 50 guest houses to be dealt as per the policies in MPD -

2001.

6.4 Conclusions:

6.4.1 Policy and Provisions:

MPD 2001 introduces Mixed Land use and formulation of balanced policy considering its

environmental impact and socio economic need. ZDP further details by identifying the

Stretches for mixed land use. Also provides provision for Identification of new areas by Local

body.

6.4.2 Development Code:

Categorization of mixed land use premises and delineation of areas along with introduction

of condition for permitting mixed land use.

6.5 Provisions for mixed land use (MoUD notification 7th sept. 2006):

1. The extent of non-residential activity seen as being necessary or desirable by the residents

themselves.

2. Varies from area to area based on the socio-economic status.

3. Also based on the past pattern of development in that area.

4. While certain colonies may need non-residential activity as an integral part of their

livelihood, some others may wish to preserve the residential character of their colonies and

neighbourhood.

5. Hence it is proposed to follow a differentiated approach in the application of the mixed use

policy in Delhi. The differentiated approach would be based on categorization of colonies

from A to G as adopted by MCD for Unit Area method of property tax assessment.

The minimum ROW for identification of a street or stretch of road as mixed use

street will follow:

In A&B Colonies: 18m ROW in regular plotted development, if there is a specific

request of the RWA concerned.

In C&D colonies: 18 m ROW in regular residential plotted development, 13.5 m

ROW in rehabilitation colonies and 9 m ROW in Regularised-Unauthorised colonies, resettlement

colonies, Walled City, Special area and urban villages; in consultation with RWA concerned.



In E,F&G Colonies:3.5 m ROW in regular plotted development, 9 m ROW in

rehabilitation colonies and 6m ROW in Walled City, Regularized-Unauthorized colonies,

resettlement colonies, Special areas, and Urban Villages.

i) Streets of less than 9 m (or 6 m in E, F & G category colonies) ROW in Regularised-

Unauthorised colonies, resettlement colonies, urban villages, Special Area and Walled City, if

notified for mixed use, shall be declared as Pedestrian Shopping Streets (PSS) and will not be

open to motorized transport.

ii) In newly developed residential areas, mixed use as specified above shall be permitted only on

residential plots abutting 18 m. ROW roads.

iii) In villages that are declared as urban and get integrated into the process of development,

mixed use shall be permissible in areas/ stretches identified in the local area plan/ lay out plan

prepared for such integration.



6.6 Street Identification and Implication (Notification7th Sept):

Following are the streets identified as commercial streets as per the notification tabulated

below:

Continued on the next page…



Tab

le 6.2: Streets in Zone -F

CONCLUSIONS:

1. The objective of mixed land use discusses lesser intra zone movement with new proposal.

But expertise development of markets like Munirka (wood and metal work, Shahpur Jaat -

designer cloths), contradict such consideration.

2. With Unauthorized colonies, regularized colonies, and urban villages suffering the pre existing

infrastructure crunch under residential use norms. Proposing intense use like mixed land use

with more intense norms is debatable.

4. Road widths in different colonies with different socio economic character have different

intensity of automobile and pedestrian use, in such a situation only road width or type of colony

or property tax category cannot be taken as a firm ground for policies.



6.7 Major Issues Regarding Mixed Land use

Considering the type of colonies as per the property tax categorisation of MCD and classifying

the streets coming in those different tiers of colonies

TIER (HOUSING TYPOLOGY)

TIER I(PLANNED COLONIES,A B

TYPE)

TIER II(TIER C & D TYPE)

TIER III (TIER E,F &G TYPE)

NUMBERS OF STREETS

IDENTIFIED

1 6 26

Table 6.3: Tier wise no. of Streets

6.7.1 Conclusions:-the major conclusions from the categorization are:

o About 79% of the streets are of tier 3, about 18% lie in tier 2, where as 3% area in tier

1.

o Out of streets under tier 3, about 62 % of the streets are peripheral roads of urban

villages.

o around 12% of the identified stretches are less than 6 m wide

o 48% of streets are between to 9 - 16 m in width.

o 27% of streets are between to 16 - 30m in width.

o About 21% streets are wider than 30 m.

6.8 Implications at zonal level:

6.8.1 Policy level impactions are

o Provision of mixed land use has been done without taking in consideration the various

important factors such as infrastructure requirement, parking space and balance across

uses.

o Gradually, increasing, extent (walled city to planned colonies) and magnitude of mixed

use over the last few master plans, had be one of the causes of such problem.

o It i s not the availability of commercial space but the location & less cost for space

(residential land use...mostly plotted) than encourages mixed land use. That to in high

income group.

o Regularization of these unplanned commercial establishments would cause an imbalance

in overall land use structure of zone and city at large.



6.8.2 Implementation level implications are:

o Inadequate planning controls and implementation mechanism may lead to unintended

growth at zonal level.

o Implementation of mixed land use policy, just to regularize the vast majority of violators

(pay a amount for a violation), would encourage future violations and make this thing a

norm.

o Such an approach could lead to "inspector raj" and would result in corruption (this could

lead to filtration of property to high end society & is not equitable at all.)

o Since no ground surveys are their, which have the existing extent & nature of mixed use.

Therefore it is impossible to gauge 70% extent of mixed use in future to identify any

street as a commercial street.

o With respect to Tier III colonies, no minimum street width or plot size defined for mixed

land use. This may lead to total breakdown of infrastructure and services in these areas



7. NATURE AND EXTENT OF BUILDING USE: IN THE STUDY AREA

7.1 Classification based on housing typology The housing status at the study area level can be classified in three systems of housing

typologies on the basis of the MCD tax collection system:

1) Tier I : Vasant Vihar

2) Tier II: Vasant Kunj and Munirka Enclave.

3) Tier III : Munirka village and Masoodpur village.

The recent modifications in the mixed policy of the Master Plan of Delhi has had serious

implications on the status of the existing situation of the extent and nature of the non-residential

activity in the residential areas. The introduction of the modifications has not only increased the

number non-residential activities permitted in the residential areas but also had also increased

the types of the activities permitted.

Surveys have been carried out in the above areas to find out the extent and nature of mix-use.

7.2 Survey analysis

Tier- I: Vasant Vihar

Embassy

Residential

General Retail ShopsService ShopsPublic / Semi PublicOffice/ Bank

Fig: 7.1 extent and nature of misuse in Vasant Vihar

* No any street is identified in the final notification.

STREETS SURVEYED:- All streets.

STREET NO B/3

LSC block D

LSC block C

CSC

block E

CSC

CSC block A

block A

PURVI MARG

OL

OF

PA

LA

M M

AR

G

SECTOR - 8

( R K PURAM )

PASCHIMI MARG

C.S.C.

C.S.C.

L.S.C.

C.S.C.

L.S.C.

A - BLOCK

E - BLOCK

D - BLOCK

D - BLOCK

B - BLOCK

C - BLOCK

F - BLOCK

CBI COLONY

LOK SHABHA & RAJYA

SHABHA COLONY

INDIAN AIRLINES & AIR

INDIA HOUSING COLONY

CGH COMPLEX



Nature of Non-residential activity in

Vasant Vihar

Public /

Semi

Public

86%

Office /

Bank

14%

permissibility of non res. plots

permitted

29%

non-

permitted

71%

OWNERSHIPRENTED

4%

OWNED

96%

7.2.1 Extent and nature of Miss-use in Tier I (Vasant Vihar)

Observation There are total of 1265 plots in Vasant Vihar. Out of these 60 plots (4.58%) are with non-

residential activity. While looking for the permissibility of these premises 71 % of the plots are

not permitted among all non residential plots. There are 39 Embassies in this colony and it is the

major non-residential non-permitted use in residential premise. Special attention should be given

for relocating these Embassies. Among all the non-residential shops 10% are being operated by

the outsiders i.e. not by the colony residents.

Fig 6.2: Extent and nature of miss-use in Vasant Kunj

7.2.2 Tier II: Vasant Kunj

Observation There are total of 5277

DUs in Vasant Kunj. Out of

these 35 DUs (0.66%) are

w i t h n o n -residential

activity. 20% of these

premises are not permitted

among all non residential

plots. Among all the non-residential shops 96% are

45 M ROW

N.S

30 M ROW

NS

OC

F

PK

T 5

SE

C B

CS

DIS

P

PS

NS

NS

CS

PK

T 7

LS

DIS

PT

AX

I

PK

T 8

OC

F

NS

GD

G

OE

NK

A

WO

RLD

SC

HO

OL

BH

AT

NA

GA

R

INT

ER

NA

TIO

NA

L

SC

HO

OL

CH

PK

T 6

26 M

RO

W A

BD

UL G

AF

FA

R M

AR

G

GO

BA

R

GA

S P

LA

NT

VIL

L

MA

SU

DP

UR

PK

T 9

LIG

MA

SU

DP

UR

D

AIR

Y

FA

RM

O.C

.F

DIS

PE

NS

AR

Y

O.C

.F

P.S

PK

T 2

PK

T 3

PK

T 1

PK

T 4

CS

ES

S

ES

SP

S

DIS

PP

OLY

CLIN

IC

ES

S

LA

ND

ALLO

TT

ED

TO

M

CD

FO

R S

TP

CS

NS

CS

CH

LA

ND

ALLO

TT

ED

TO

S

OC

IAL W

ELF

AR

E

BO

AR

D

AR

EA

FO

R

SC

HO

OL

PS

ES

S

CS

ES

S

BA

WA

P

OT

TE

RIE

S

DT

C D

EP

OT

pro

posed

DD

A ls

c

OC

F

CS

NS

CS

ES

S

NS

PS

HS

HS

sun c

ity m

all

in

constru

ctio

n

( pro

posed )

HA

RIJ

AN

BA

ST

I

45 M ROW

jiims

75.0

M R

OW

ME

HR

AU

LI M

EH

IPA

LP

UR

RO

AD

PKT 8

PKT 6 & 7

SECTOR CPKT 5

PKT 4

24 M ROW

PKT 2

PKT 3

45 M ROWS

EC

TO

R D

PKT 1

SECTOR B

PKT 9

permissibility of non res. DUs

non-permitted

30%

permitted

70%

Nature of Non-Residential Activity in Vasant

Kunj

Service

Shops

15%

General

Retail

Shops

15%

Offices

31%

Public/

Semi public

39%



being operated by the outsiders i.e. not by the colony residents.

7.2.3 Extent and nature of Miss-use in Tier III (Munirka village)

Fig 7.3: Extent and Nature of misuse in Tier III (Munirka Village)

PARK

COMM

UNITY

HALL

GA

RA

GE

S-16

SER

VA

NT

S-32

GARAGES-16

SERVANTS-32

PARKVILLAGE PARK

PARK

LAWN

E.S.S.

N.S.

PUCCA CONS.

PUCCA CONS.

SCHEME BOUNDARY

PARKING

PROPOSED ROAD 9 m R/W

park park COMMUNITY

CENTRE

D.D.A. OFFICE

D.D.A. FLATS

CANARA

BANKTEMPLE

PRATAP MARKET

PARK

F-BLOCK

E-BLOCK

PARK

PARK

POND

TEMPLE

VACANT LAND

HILL A

REA

DDA

FLATS

DDA FLATS

R.K.PURAM

R.K.PURAM

MUNIRKA

ENCLAVE

MUNIRKA

VIHAR

Building use

(first floor) STREETS SURVEYED:1. Outer ring road Munirka Village - (commercial ROW 45m)

3. Nelson Mandela Road - (commercial ROW 30m)4. Internal Road Munirka Village - (commercial ROW 6m)

6. Internal Road Munirka Village (PSS ROW 4.5m) & Other internal streets Munirka Village



Nature of non-residential activity in Tier-III colony

46%

24%

4%

1%

4%

9%

1%

3%8%

RETAIL SHOP

BUILDING MATERIALSHOP

SERVICE SHOP

RESTAURANT

GUEST HOUSE

STORAGE, GODOWN,WARE HOUSING

PROFF. ACT.

PUBLIC/SEMI PUBLIC

OFFICES/BANK

Permissibility of non-

residential plots

permitted

23%

not

permitted

77%

OWNERSHIP (Tier-III)

OWNED33%

RENTED67%

Observation

There are total of 2100 plots (approx.) in Munirka

Village. Streets identified as commercial & mixed use

streets have approx. 100% non-residential activity on

ground floor. Only 26% of the total plots in the

village have some non-residential activity. 96% of the

non-residential establishments are operating from ground floor. According to 7th

September notification all the existing activities on commercial streets (street no. 1, 2, 3 & 4) are

permitted. 3.5% establishments are non-permitted on the streets identified as mixed use street

(street no. 5). All existing non-residential activities on PSS street (street no. 6) is permitted. 23%

of the non-residential activities are not permitted among all non residential establishments. 67%

of the shops are being operated by the tenants or by out-siders.

Conclusion: Max. % of mixed use activity is in tier-III colony & that is 26% which is approximately the

same as found out in the work studies of 1984. This % is much less than the given in TKC report

( %). Even according to 7th September 2006 notification the maximum % of non-permitted

activity is in tier-III colony (77%). The 7th September 2006 notification brings the discrepancy in

the permissibility of banks in residential premises, as according to the notification bank is a

pub/semi public activity while according to DMP-2001, bank is a commercial activity. Based on

the above observation that only 33% of the shops are being operated by the residents of village

and based on the view of concerned RWA; it can be easily said that the emergence of shops are

not due to the community need.



7.2.4 Extent and nature of Miss-use in Sub-Zone The extent of non residential activity is minimum in the tier I colonies and increases as we move to tier III colonies. The introduction of the modifications to MPD 2001 has brought some more activities in the permissible category. Therefore the number of permissible activities in the residential areas is lesser in number as compared to the ones as per the scenario before the introduction of the modifications to the MPD 2001.

Table 7.1 no. of miss use in different colonies

It has been observed that the extent of non-permissible activities is high even in the streets

notified for mixed use. Therefore the implementation procedure for the notification of the streets

for mixed use is still ambiguous.

7.3 THE LOOPHOLES IN THE NOTIFIED MODIFICATIONS:

The modifications to the existing Master Plan 2001 were introduced in 2006. But there are many

issues that arise out of the modifications done. Some of them are:

1) Criteria for identification of the streets for mixed use has not been specified clearly:

2) Criteria for the permissibility of an activity have not been mentioned.

3) The reason for and the procedure of the introduction of the concept of Commercial streets

and areas in the mixed use chapter.

4) Implementation of the policies and regulations.

1) Criteria for identification of the streets for mixed use: The procedure of the

notification of the Master Plan Roads for mixed use has not been done clearly. It has been

observed in the study area the outer ring road and nelson Mandela road can be notified as mixed

use as per the notifications but it is seen that these roads do not have any commercial activity to

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 TOTAL

Total number of plots 1265 10495 3200 14960

As per the MPD 2001 before the modifications

60 5%

27 0.02

860

#####

947

5%

Total number of plots with non residential activity

As per the MPD 2001 after the modifications

As per the MPD 2001 before the modifications

Total number of units with non-permissible activity

As per the MPD 2001 after the modifications

42 70%

8 30%

602 70%

652

69%



Figure 7.4 options and possible scenario towards commercialisation

The extent that it can be notified as mixed use roads. Even the infrastructure like the parking

space for the future mixed use areas is not specified. This policy will only encourage the

commercialization. In the urban villages some streets have been notified as mixed use streets.

There are some other streets as well where the character is similar to the ones notified. This

selective notification of the streets and the reasons for the same is still an issue to be

understood.

2) Criteria for the permissibility of an activity: Some activities are permitted in the mixed

use areas and some are not. The reason for classifying the activity as permissible or non-

permissible has not been specified. From the observations in the survey it has been observed

that as per the notifications even, the activities existing are non-permissible and still the streets

have been notified. The scope for inclusion of some more activities as permissible still needs to

be ventured out if community need is a criterion.

3) The reason for and the procedure of the introduction of the concept of Commercial

streets and areas in the mixed use chapter: First of all the concept of commercial streets

and areas in the Mixed use chapter and the reason for the same itself is questionable. And more

so the procedure for implementation for the policies is arbitrary.



According to 7th September notification, a street may be notified as commercial

(clause 10.12.1.b):

"Where more than 70% of the properties abutting roads of width less than 24m ROW, in

a stretch of at least 100m, in rehabilitation colonies, Regularized-Unauthorized colonies,

resettlement colonies, Walled City, Special Area and urban Villages and local commercial

streets declared under MPD 1962 are commercial"

There are anomalies with the clause which are still to be defined clearly:

1) Criteria for defining a property as commercial is not defined.

2) Criteria of road width less than 24 m are an inappropriate regulation.

3) Reason for taking "70%" as a criterion for selection.

4) The concept o f ‘may be notified’ needs more detailed explanations for the implementation

procedures.

Criteria for defining a property as commercial as given by master plan can be perceived in two

different ways:



Figure 7.6 extent of on residential activity stretch 1

STRETCH 1 ( MUNIRKA VILLAGE)

REMARKS

1 STREET STATUS( NOTIFIED/ NOT NOTIFIED)

NOTIFIED

2 LENGTH OF THE STRETCH 120 meters.

3 NUMBER OF PROPERTIES 42

1st floor

42 100%

2nd floor

8 19%

3rd floor

3 7% 4

PROPERTIES WITH COMMERCIAL ON :

4 t h floor

0 0%

Non-residential activity is mainly on the ground floor and only negligible on the upper floors

Option 1

8 19% The stretch cannot be notified as a commercial street.

5 NO. OF PROPERTIES AS COMMERCIAL AS PER : Option

2 0 0%

The stretch cannot be notified as a commercial street.

6 NO. OF PROPERTIES AS MIXED USE

42 100% The stretch can be notified as a mixed use street.

7 NON PERMISSIBLE PROPERTIES 28 67% Nature of use violates the mixed use provisions.

CONCLUSION:

1) The stretch is one of the most commercialized streets of munirka but still the commercial activity is limited only to ground floor. 2)This street cannot be notified as a commercial streets as per notifications. 3) The street is notified as mixed use but majority of activities are non-permissible.



STRETCH 2 ( MUNIRKA VILLAGE)

REMARKS

1 STREET STATUS( NOTIFIED/ NOT NOTIFIED)

NOT NOTIFIED

2 LENGTH OF THE STRETCH 100 meters.

3 NUMBER OF PROPERTIES 36 1st floor

35 97%

2nd floor

4 11%

3rd floor

0 0% 4

PROPERTIES WITH COMMERCIAL ON :

4 t h floor

0 0%

Non-residential activity is mainly on the ground floor and only negligible on the upper floors

Option 1

4 11% The sretch cannot be notified as a commercial street.

5

N O . O F PROPERTIES AS COMMERCIAL AS PER : Option

2 0 0%

The s r etch cannot be notified as a commercial street.

6 NO. OF PROPERTIES AS MIXED USE

35 97% The sretch can be notified as a mixed use street.

7 NON PERMISSIBLE PROPERTIES 21 58% Nature of use violates the mixed use provisions.

CONCLUSION:

1)The stretch is one of the most commercialized streets of munirka but still the commercial activity is limited only to ground floor. 2)This street cannot be notified as a commercial streets as per notifications. 3)The street can be notified as mixed use street as per the extent regulations but cannot be done as per the nature regulations.



7.4 CONCLUSION: 1) Even the highly commercialized streets of Munirka shows a trend of commercial activity only on the ground floor with negligible activity on the higher floors therefore the clause of commercialisation is not required in the existing scenerio. 2) The notification of streets as mixed use has been done selectively without strictly following the eligible criteria as two streets having same character have beed differently perceived as. 3) The provision of selection of streets of width less than 24 meters is inadequate. 4) Even the streets notified as mixed use streets have a high ratio of non permissible activities therefore the notification violates its own provisions.

7.5 PROPOSALS: 1) The clause of notification of streets as commercial should be removed from the Master Plan as it will only encourage more commercialisation. 2) Criteria for permissibility of an activity should be defined. 3) Implementation and Monitoring of the Master Plan should be more accurate as it has beed seen that even the streets with non permissible activities are notified as mixed use streets. According to 7th September notification, a street may be notified as commercial (clause 10.12.1.b): "In E, F and G category colonies, where, [If] 80% of residential plots are under mixed use, or if there are 300 shops, within a contiguous area of 1 hectare." There are anomalies with the clause which are still to be defined clearly: 1) Criteria for defining an area as contiguous. 2) Reason for taking “80%” as a criterion for selection.. Issues related to Clause 10.12.1.b

CLAUSE CLARIFICATION REQUIRED ALTERNATIVE SKETCHES IMPLICATION (ON CASE STUDY)

IMPLIMENTATION PROBLEM

An area or a street may be notified as a commercial area or street ; in E, F & G category calonies, where, [if] 80% of residential plots are under mixed use, or if there are 300 shops, within a contiguous area of 1 ha

- No clarification about the area that it would be net or gross residential area.

- Min. road width should be prescribed.

- Contiguity should be defined.

The hatched area may be declared as commercial area (internal street width < 4.5m).

- How to decide about contiguous area (i.e. along the major street or along the boundry of plots).- How & where to adjust for parking problems arose due to this clause- How to deal for the compensatory mechanism for loss of residential use area.

Commercial street

Commercial street

Commercial area



Figure 7.8 Munirka not permitted use 7.6Conclusion . Even according to 7th September notification the maximum % of non-permitted activity is

in teir-iii colony.

. Permissibility about 39 embassies present in Vasant Vihar in residential use premise is

neither clear in the master plan nor in any of the notifications.

. The 7th September 2006 notification brings the discrepancy in the permissibility of banks

in residential premises, as according to the notification bank is a pub/semi public activity

while according to MPD-2001, bank is a commercial activity.

7.7 Issues identified

Issues (directly related to final notification):

. Notification is about modification to master plan for mixed land use chapter, while it

basically deals with commercialisation of streets.

. If, dealt for commercialisation instead of concentrating to mixed use only, then criteria

for notifying a street as commercial should be provided in transparent manner.

PAR

K

CO

MM

UN

ITY

HA

LL

GARAGES-16

SERVANTS-32

GA

RA

GES-16

SERV

AN

TS-32

PAR

KV

ILL

AG

E PA

RK

PAR

K

LA

WN

E.S.S.

N.S.

PUC

CA

CO

NS.

PUC

CA

CO

NS.

SCH

EM

E B

OU

ND

AR

Y

PA

RK

ING

PRO

POSE

D R

OA

D 9 m

R/W

park

park

CO

MM

UN

ITY

CEN

TR

E

D.D

.A. O

FFIC

E

D.D

.A. F

LA

TS

CA

NA

RA

BA

NK

TEM

PLE

PR

ATA

P M

AR

KET

PA

RK

F-B

LO

CK

E-B

LO

CK

PA

RK

PAR

K

PON

D

TE

MPL

E

VA

CA

NT

LA

ND

HIL

L A

RE

A

DD

A

FLA

TS

DD

A FL

AT

S

R.K

.PUR

AM

R.K

.PUR

AM

MU

NIR

KA

EN

CL

AV

E

MU

NIR

KA

VIH

AR

Build

ing u

se

(first flo

or)

Area 'A'

Area 'B'

AREA DISCRIPTIONArea 'A'Total no. of plots = 84Plots under non-residential use = 76Percentage of mixed use = 90%

Area 'B'Total no. of plots = 71Plots under non-residential use = 56Percentage of mixed use = 80%



Issues (related to CASE STUDY):

. According to the notification a street may be notified as Commercial Street if 70 % of

the properties abutting road of width less than 24m ROW is in a stretch of 100m. Based on

this clause 3 streets in Munirka Village (2 internal with width,<4.5m) may be notified as

commercial street.

. Also according to the notification the area can be notified as commercial area, if 80% of

residential plots are under mixed use, or if there are 300 shops within a contiguous area of

1 Ha. Based on these clause 2 areas in Munirka Village (with internal streets of width less

than 4.5m) may be notified as commercial area.

7.8 Implementation of the policies and regulations.

It has been observed in the study area the outer ring road and nelson Mandela road can be

notified as mixed use as per the notifications but it is seen that these roads do not have

any commercial activity to the extent that it can be notified as mixed use roads. Even the

infrastructure like the parking space for the future mixed use areas is not specified. This

policy will only encourage the commercialization.

In the urban villages some streets have been notified as mixed use streets. There are some

other streets as well where the character is similar to the ones notified. Some streets have

been notified as commercial and some others as mixed. This difference in the streets

having same character is not mentioned.

From the observations in the survey it has been observed that as per the notifications even,

the activities existing are non-permissible and still the streets have been notified.

7.9 Analysis:-

Empirical data from primary survey was analyzed to give a comprehensive picture of non-

residential in study area. Data was categorized TIER wise and analyzed under various

parameters like nature & extent of non residential use. Permissibility of non residential use

and impact of commercial spaces on growth of non residential use was studied. Economic

reason behind this mixed-use is also analyzed.



Table7.4: - ANALYSIS OF NATURE & EXTENT OF NON RESIDENTIAL USE IN STUDY AREA.

7.10 Conclusion As one moves from TIER I to TIER III, extent and nature of non-residential use intensify.

TIER III areas are most vulnerable to non- residential use in residential premise not only to

cater to local need but also neighbouring area. Non implementation of targets, phasing of

development , amalgamation of shops, ill- phasing & pricing of DDA shops are few reasons

for inefficiency to planned commercial spaces in cater to need, thereby initiating non-

residential activity in residential premise. Tier I & II show low levels of non residential use

in their residential premise because of these reasons:-

a. Higher affordability

b. Design (in group housing) act as a restriction.

c. commercial space is developed

More rents in these areas are not favourable to open low end non residential activities.

7.11 Recommendations

Overall recommendation for dealing with the issue of non residential use had been as

follows:-

1) ALLOCATION: It must be done under section 57. Mixed land use is a localized

phenomenon; an overall generalisation is not justified. Therefore non residential use should

NATURE OF NON-RESIDENTIAL USE

EXTENT OF NON-RESIDENTIAL USE

PERMISSIBILITY OF NON-RESIDENTIAL USE

IMPACT BY COMMERCIAL SPACES

TIER I(VASANT VIHAR)

TIER II(VASANT KUNJ

-SECTOR B&C)

TIER III(MUNIRKA &

MASOODPUR)

Only 5% of the total show non-residential activity.of which 93% is embassy .

Only 1% of the total show non-residential activity.As it is a planned group housing,due to design

consideration.. scope of alteration is negligible

About 21% of the total show non-residential activity.

This TIER show higher non permissible use as foreign missionaries are

main non- residential activity in the area

although retail(42%) is same as other tiers but

service shops had almost doubled (25%)

spill over of other lower order commercial

establishments are found here(their by

making 70% largest no of non. permissible uses

in this zone.)

Out of total 5% non residential activity in TIER

I.About 70% were found to be non permissible.

these were basically foreign missionary

21% Non residential use in residential premise,shows 43%

non permissible activity.such high increase in these activity is primarily because

TIER III is most suspectible to unauthorised use(cheap

commercial space)

out of total non residential of 1% only 8% were found to

be non permitted.as about 45% of the non

residential premise i under professional offices.

Planned commercial space(adequate) but cater to

need of high commercial order,about 20% of shop -offies,12

%service,9-8 % disco & fitness centre.

due to amalgamation of shops

Due non integration of these TIER III area with rest.results in

self - sustaining commercial activity ,

which primarily has come up due to local need and also due to defeat in abutting residential

area.

Targets of planned commercial not fully your achieved.

mostly convenient shops for local use ,but mostly vacant(35

%) due to faulty pricing.

Resident (owner) enjoys the benefit of commercial rents for residential space

and user find them cheaper than established

commercial centre(a difference of 4 times in

property value)

ECONOMIC OF NON - RESIDENTIAL USE

Property value in TEIR I area,are not best for

local commercial need,in comparison to

other areas.

Mostly in form of professional

activity(which is not nuisance),which could

supplement their income.

it mainly comprises of professional activity 45

% and service 30%



be permitted case by case. Overall comparison at city & zonal level must be done

separately.

2) NATURE OF NON RESIDENTIAL USE: Criteria for permissibility should be universal and

workable at ground level. More activities must be allowed (under condition)

3) EXTENT OF NON RESIDENTIAL USE: Clause on Commercial Street should be re-

considered, as ground realities do not match with the earlier stated statement of 70%

commercialisation. Mechanism to compensation of residential use (because of non -

residential activities) needed to be derived properly. Norm & Standard to gauge mixed-use

must be reworked with its implication at ground level.

4) RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT: Regarding conservation of residential MPD 2001, guild

lines on shifting of industries, can be adopted in principle (in case of non residential use in

residential area.

5) COMMERCIAL: Disposal policy must be reviewed. Monitoring of planned commercial area

must be done & speculators must be regulated.

7.12 Implementation

Non residential use should be permitted case by case. Broad guidelines & framework fr

consideration must be formulated on ground realities. Criteria like min. road width & must e

worked in detail and mixed use & commercial must be clearly defined. People of the

effected area must approach to authority to grant of permission rather than declaring a

street commercial.



8. PLANNED COMMERCIAL

8.1 Introduction:

While studying the extent and nature of misuse, it was found that the extent increases as

we move down the hierarchy and it is largest in Tier III and the reason behind this was

unavailability of planned commercial areas. The study of planned commercial areas was

done to find the adequacy of development norms and problems if any in the

implementation and disposal policies for planned commercial areas at zonal and

community level for Zone F and sub zones F-12 and 13 of Delhi. The whole procedure for

the evaluation of the planned commercial area was done in mainly three parts starting

with:

1. Primary surveys, 2. Data compilation and, 3. Evaluation

A detailed flow chart of the process followed to reach to the issues and suggestions is shown in the figure below.

COMPILATION OF DATA

(all planned areas & unplanned areas separately)

Master Plan Delhi(1981 , 2001)

Zonal Development Plan-2001

(Zone - F)

âRequired Vs Proposed (population Vs space)

âPlanned by DDA( Status)

âStatus As per Primary Survey

Adequacy

Price

(Real Estate Values)

Affordablity & Willingness to

shift(Perception Survey)

Parking Facilities

èIn terms of No. of facilities

èIn terms of No. of Shops

Development Policies/Norms Implentation of Policies/Norms Disposal Policies

Adequacy (on Street/ off street)

ISSUES AND CONCLUSIONS

a) Development Norms:Adequacy, b) Implementation policies: Development and Cost Considerations, c) Disposal and Monitoring: vaccancy, amalgmation.

EVALUATION

SURVEYS DONE

(for 20 commercial areas)

- Building Use - Typology - Area of shops

- Trader perception of area(Traders and TWAs).

- User perception(Residents, Costumers, RWAs).

Figure 8.1: Procedure followed (for analysis and proposal):



Developed Commercial Spaces( Status)

45

63

90

66

43

82

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

COMMUNITY

CENTRE

LOCAL SHOPPING

CENTRE

CONVINIENCE

Shopping centre

Zonal

community

8.2 Evaluation: For the evaluation of the adequacy and to check whether master plan norms are

adequate or not a detailed study of the norms and standards in the Master plan for the

planned commercial areas in 1981 and 2001 was studied following are the main norms:

As given in Master Plan of Delhi 1981 Rate of required provision - 1 shop per 150 people

HEIRARCHY POPULATION NO. OF SHOPS Community centre 40,000 to 50,000 population 80-100 Local shopping center 12,000 to 15,000 population 15-20

Convenience S.C. 3,500 to 5,000 population 4 -6 Table 8.1 shops required at different levels for 1000 persons(1981)

As given in Master Plan of Delhi –2001 rate of required provision is 1 Shop per 60 People

HEIRARCHY POPULATION NO. OF FORMAL SHOPS

Community centre 1,00,000 370

Local shopping center 15,000 55 Convenience s.c. 5,000 24

Table 8.2 shops required at different levels for 1000 persons(2001)

8.2.1 Status of planned commercial areas in comparison to ZDP 2001:

Status of the planned commercial areas at the zonal level as well as community level

(Sub-zone F-12, 13) was studied from the Master Plan, Zonal Development Plan (Zone –

F) –2001, an the documents provided by DDA.

Status of Facilities :Developed (%)

SUCCESS RATE Zonal Community

COMMUNITY CENTRE 45 66

LOCAL SHOPPING CENTRE 63 43

CONVINIENCE Shopping centre 90 82 Fig 8.2: Chart and table 8.3 showing the percentage of Facilities Developed



Planned commercial spaces(Developed and

Planned )

60

98 96.5100 100 100

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

COMMUNITY

CENTRE

LOCAL

SHOPPING

CENTRE

CONVINIENCE

Shopping centre

Zonal

community

Developed and In Planning and Dev. Stage (%)

SUCCESS RATE Zonal Community

COMMUNITY CENTRE 60 100

LOCAL SHOPPING CENTRE 98 100

CONVINIENCE Shopping centre 96.5 100

Fig 8.3: Chart and table 8.4 showing the percentage of Facilities Developed or at Planning and Development stage 8.3 Observation: As per the status provided by DDA shows nearly all the CSCs (98 %) and LSCs (96 %) either

developed or planned area developed needs to be calculated (area is also the basis of

providing 58 LSCs in place of 87 In ZDP 2001) at the Zonal Level.

8.3.1 at Zonal Level:

STATUS PLANNED COMMERCIAL AREA ZONE F

9 3 822

1325

141

58

8770

5 3

263

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

COMPLETED PLNG. AND DEV.

STAGE

YET TO BE

PLANNED

PROPOSED MPD

2001

REQUIRED ZDP

2001 TYPE OF FACILITY

NO

. O

F F

AC

ILIT

Y

COMMUNITYCENTRE

LOCALSHOPPINGCENTRECONVINIENCEShopping centre

Fig. 8.4 Chart: showing the status of different hierarchy facilities at Zonal level



20 0

3 4 5

10

14

3

30

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

COMPLETED PLNG. AND

DEV. STAGE

YET TO BE

PLANNED

PROPOSED

MPD 2001

REQUIRED ZDP

2001

COMMUNITYCENTRE

LOCALSHOPPINGCENTRECONVINIENCEShoppingcentre

Fig. 8.5 Chart: showing the status of different hierarchy facilities at Community level( Sub Zone F-12, 13)

As per the status provided by DDA shows nearly all the CSCs (98 %) and LSCs (96 %) either

developed or planned area developed needs to be calculated (area is also the basis of

providing 58 LSCs in place of 87 In ZDP 2001) .considering that the floor area provided by the

DDA in the 57 CSC is 402 hectares and the area required for the 84 CSCs is also the same

hence the qualitative aspect in terms of catchment area needed to be considered.

Table 8.5: Status and the percentage of Facilities at different stages At Zonal And Community Level.

STATUS AS PER DDA ZDP 2001

AS PER DDA COMPLETED

PLNG. AND DEV. STAGE

YET TO BE PLANNED

TOTAL (100 %)

PROPOSED Z D P 2001

REQUIRED Z D P 2001 (holding capacity)

COMMUNITY CENTRE 9(45 %) 3(15 %) 8(40 %) 20 22 13

L O C A L S H O P P I N G CENTRE 25(63 %)

14(35 %) 1(2 %) 40 58 87

ZO

NE

F

CONVINIENCE Shopping centre 70(90%) 5(6.5 %) 3(3.5%) 78 263

COMMUNITY CENTRE 2(66 %) 1*(34 %) 0 3

L O C A L S H O P P I N G CENTRE 3(43 %) 4(57 %) 7 5 10

SU

B Z

ON

E 1

2 &

13

CONVINIENCE Shopping centre 14(82 %) 3(18 %) 17 30



S H O P S / 1 0 0 0 POPULATION (p lanned commerc ia l

area)

NO. OF SHOPS

HEIRARCHY

MPD 1981

MPD 2001

EXISTING (2006)

REQUIRED (1981)

REQUIRED (2001)

EXISTING (2006)

INADEQUACY (as per 2001)

TOTAL 4.5 12.5 5.5 348 2937 1289 1648

COMMUNITY CENTRE 2.0 3.7 2.6 155 870 621(3*) 249

LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER 1.3 3.7 1.6 101 870 369(6) 501 CONVENIENCE SHOPPING 1.2 4.8 1.3 92 1197 299(17) 898

Table 8.6: No. Of Shops existing and as per norms per 1000 population at Different hierarchy

NO. OF SHOPS REQD AND EXISTING

4.5

12.5

5.5

2.0

3.72.6

1.3

3.7

1.61.2

4.8

1.3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

MPD 1981 MPD 2001 EXISTING

(2006)

NO

. O

F S

HO

PS

TOTAL

COMMUNITYCENTRE

LOCALSHOPPINGCENTERCONVENIENCESHOPPINGCENTRE

Fig. 8.5 Chart: showing the required and existing no. of Formal Shops per 1000 population 8.3.2 Observation: The percentage of existing no. of facilities varies from 45 % at CC level to 63 % at LSC level an

90% at CSC level. in such a case, distribution of CSCs and LSCs as per catchment area needs

to be analysed if adequate no. of shops has been developed as per the status provided by

DDA.

The no. of needed to be developed as per the MPD 2001 norms is around 12.5 shops per 100

population whereas the existing no of shops per 1000 population is around 5.5 shops per 1000

of population the scenario improves a little bit when urban villages (Munirka and masud pur)

are excluded and reaches around 8 shops per 1000 of population. Shops developed.



8.4 Sub zone requirements as per ZDP 2001 ZONE -F Taking into account that the total population of sub zone f-12 and f-13 is less than 5 lakhs,

there is no requirement of district centre or central business district.

Table 8.7: Facility requirement and proposed for sub zone f-12 and sub zone f-13 as per Proposed population (holding capacity ZDP -2001): 8.4.1 Existing population and required facility:

However, the existing population of the sub zones is found to exceed by 50000 approx.

Commercial facility requirements as per existing population (calculated approx. for 2006).

Table 8.8: Facility requirement and proposed for sub zone f-12 and sub zone f-13 as per the existing population 2006(calculated on the basis of decadal growth of Delhi

The inadequacy in terms of required facilities at CSCs level increases to 14 from earlier

deficiency of 10 whereas the no. of CCs considering the population exceeds by one which can

be considered adequate but creates certain implications on the planning and implementation

process that ;

a) Vasant kunj was planned in isolation with the rest of the Community (Sub zone F-12, 13).

This questions integrated approach and prohibition of piecemeal development as told in the

Zonal Development Plan Zone F 2001.

b) Also, it raises the question of delineation of Community then the follow up of those

delineation at lower level plans.

COMMUNITY CENTRE LOCAL SHOPPING CONVINENCE SHOPPING

S NO

SUB ZONE

PROPOSED POPULATION (ZDP 2001) REQUIRED

PROPOSED (ZDP 2001) REQUIRED PROPOSED REQUIRED PROPOSED

1 F-12 52443 1 1 3 1 10

2 F-13 97500 1 1 7 4 20 TOTAL 149943 2 2 10 5 30 17

S NO

AREA POPULATION NO. OF CC REQD

PRESENT NO. OF LSC REQD

PRESENT NO. OF CSC REQD

PRESENT

1 VASANT VIHAR 21750 1 2 4 3

2 VASANT KUNJ B & C 63250

4 3 13 12

4 MASUDPUR 25000 2 0 5 0

5 MUNIRKA 100000

2

3

7 1 20 2

TOTAL 210000 2 3 14 6 42 17



Required and Existing Facility (Considering 2001 and 2006 Population)

S NO FACILITY

R E Q D B Y PROPOSED POPULATION ( ZDP 2001)

R E Q D B Y EXISTING POPULATION(2006)

1 CC 2 2

2 LSC 10 14

3 CSC 30 42

Table8.9: showing the no. of facilities required by the proposed 2001 population and the calculation approximate existing population in 2006

8.4.2 Observations:

It is observed that population is 60000 more than proposed population. This increase of 40%

has occurred over a period of 6 years. The facility proposed is in deficit of the proposed, 4 LSC

and 13 CSC have not been developed as yet. Also, the facility present is only 38% of required

number as per present population (2, 10,000).hence, the required LSC & CSC hence goes up

by 4 & 12 respectively.

SHOPS REQUIREMENT AS PER MASTER PLAN-2001:

S NO SUB ZONE PROPOSED POPULATION

NUMBER OF SHOPS REQD

1 F-12 52443 640

2 F-13 97500 1190

TOTAL 149943 1829

Table 8.10: showing the no. of facilities required by the proposed 2001 population by ZDP

8.5 Existing Situation of Commercial Facility in Sub-Zone F -12 And F-13

Community centre- existing =3. 1 is under construction as Sun City mall.

Surveyed CC=2

Local shopping centre- existing number of LSC=6.

Surveyed LSC=4

Convenience shopping centre-existing number of CSC=17

Surveyed CSC=14



S NO COMMERCIAL AREA

SHOPS REQD A S P E R MASTER PLAN

N O . O F SHOPS DEVELOPED GAP

1 VASANT LOK COMMUNITY CENTRE 290 80

2 C O M M U N I T Y C E N T R E VASANT KUNJ BLOCK B

370

124 246

3 LSC, BLOCK C, VV 60 -5

4 LSC-BLOCK D, VV 64 -9

5 LSC - C-6, VK 54 1

6 LSC - C-9, VK

55

68 -13

7 CSC- BLOCK A (1),VV 26 -2

8 CSC- BLOCK A (2),VV 24 0

9 CSC- BLOCK E,VV 20 4

10 CS - C-1, VK 14 10

11 CS - C-8a, VK 16 8

12 CS - C-8b, VK 16 8

13 CS - C-9, VK 20 4

14 CSC-MUNIRKA VIHAR 22 2

15 CSC-D D A P H A S E 2,MUNIRKA 18 6

16 CSC-B 1, VK 20 4

17 CSC- B1/2, VK 16 8

18 CSC- B3, VK 20 4

19 CSC- B8, VK 12 12

20 CSC- B10, VK

24

20 4

TOTAL 1296 924 372

Table8.11: showing the no of shops needed to be developed as per population ZDP 2001 and the no. of shops developed by DDA.

Observations:

It is observed that number of shops required i s more than that required by proposed

population by 733.From the surveyed 20 faculties surveyed it was found that the number of

shops developed is less than required by 372 which is nearly 29%.It is found that only 71%

of the number of shops is developed. However, many other reasons reduce the number of

shops.



Number of Shops Present After Amalgamation or Sub-Division;


N O . O F SHOPS DEVELOPED

N O . O F SHOPS PRESENT GAP

1 VASANT LOK COMMUNITY CENTRE 290 142 148

2 C O M M U N I T Y C E N T R E VASANT KUNJ BLOCK B 124 85 39

3 LSC, BLOCK C, VV 60 60 0

4 LSC-BLOCK D, VV 64 28 36

5 LSC - C-6, VK 54 35 19

6 LSC - C-9, VK 68 32 36

7 CSC- BLOCK A (1),VV 26 20 6

8 CSC- BLOCK A (2),VV 24 22 2

9 CSC- BLOCK E,VV 20 27 -7

10 CS - C-1, VK 14 13 1

11 CS - C-8a, VK 16 14 2

12 CS - C-8b, VK 16 13 3

13 CS - C-9, VK 20 13 7

14 CSC-MUNIRKA VIHAR 22 20 2

15 CSC-D D A P H A S E 2,MUNIRKA 18 16 2

16 CSC-B 1, VK 20 19 1

17 CSC- B1/2, VK 16 14 2

18 CSC- B3, VK 20 26 -6

19 CSC- B8, VK 12 17 -5

20 CSC- B10, VK 20 23 -3

TOTAL 924 639 285

Table8.12: showing the no of shops needed to be developed by DDA and existing shops. Observations: It is observed that number of shops present after amalgamation is 639 of 924. From the

surveyed 20 facilities surveyed it was found that the number of shops present reduces due to

amalgamation by 31%. However it is observed that this effect of amalgamation is more

pronounced in higher hierarchy facility.

- Community Center: 45%

- Local Shopping Center: 37%

- Convenience Shopping Center: 3%

It is observed that mostly amalgamation occurs in higher hierarchy facility like

community center and local shopping center. It is observed that almost no amalgamation

occurs in convenience shopping center (only 3%). Rather in some CSC sub-division is

observed. In Community Centers the occurrence of amalgamation is most ( approx 45%)



where bars and restaurants generally are vertically amalgamated, where as offices, bars etc

are horizontally amalgamated shops.

the study was also done for the type of shops at different levels .adequacy/in adequacy in

terms of no. of shops developed of that type of use was used to find the problems related to

disposal policies at the cost of the shops may not be allowing certain type of low cost low profit

uses.

The no. of different type of shops was:

COMMUNITY CENTRE-1 S NO TYPE

NUMBER REQD.

NUMBER PRESENT

GAP %

1 GENERAL RETAIL 295 40 86

2 F R U I T & VEGETABLES 40 0 100

3 SERVICE & REPAIR 30 5 83

LOCAL SHOPPING CENTRE-4

S NO TYPE

NUMBER REQD.

NUMBER PRESENT

GAP %




CONVENEINCE SHOPPING CENTRE-14 S NO TYPE

NUMBER REQD.

NUMBER PRESENT

GAP %




Table8.13: showing the no of shops and gap considering type of use. Observations It was observed that type of shops lacks by 83%.It was observed that the type of shops as

required by M PD-2001 was lacking by

-general retail: 68% less

-fruit & vegetables: 96% less

-service & repair: 45% less

It was observed that

- 10% shops are of restaurants

- 16% shops are offices

- 5 % shops are clinics & fitness centers



Other issues related to the development of facilities:

One Community Center site allocated is being built upon as Sun City mall. One Community

center site in Vasant Kunj has been built upon as school (DPS). These types of developments

raise the question of attempt of DDA towards achieving equity among the users and efficiency

between the Land uses.

Observations: The prescribed number of shops of retail, fruits & vegetables and repair & service required

according to MPD 2001 are found to be replaced by shops of offices, restaurants, fitness

centers & clinic. The no. of above facilities like vegetables and fruit is less by 83%. The

typology change has also resulted in change in size of shops due to amalgamation. This

phenomenon is found to be more pronounced in community centers & local shopping centers.

This has reduced the number of shops by 31%. Monitoring of sites allocated for planned

commercial use required as it is observed that sites allocated for community centers have

been constructed upon for other uses or non-hierarchical commercial facility. A good point

needed to be discussed here is that all shops were found to be carrying out the permitted

activity.

8.6 OCCUPANCY RATE:


N O . O F SHOPS PRESENT

NUMBER OF OCCUPIED SHOPS VACANT

1 VASANT LOK COMMUNITY CENTRE 142 98 44

2 C O M M U N I T Y C E N T R E VASANT KUNJ BLOCK B 85 85 0

3 LSC, BLOCK C, VV 60 51 9

4 LSC-BLOCK D, VV 28 24 4

5 LSC - C-6, VK 35 29 6

6 LSC - C-9, VK 32 29 3

7 CSC- BLOCK A (1),VV 20 12 8

8 CSC- BLOCK A (2),VV 22 18 4

9 CSC- BLOCK E,VV 27 26 1

10 CS - C-1, VK 13 11 2

11 CS - C-8a, VK 14 11 3

12 CS - C-8b, VK 13 9 4

13 CS - C-9, VK 13 10 3

14 CSC-MUNIRKA VIHAR 20 18 2

15 CSC-D D A P H A S E 2,MUNIRKA 16 12 4

16 CSC-B 1, VK 19 10 9

17 CSC- B1/2, VK 14 10 4

18 CSC- B3, VK 26 15 11

19 CSC- B8, VK 17 10 7

20 CSC- B10, VK 23 19 4

TOTAL 639 507 132

Table 8.14: showing the Shops left after amalgamation out of the occupied shops



LOCAL SHOPPING CENTRE

86%

14%

OCCUPIED SHOPS VACANT SHOPS

CONVENEINCE SHOPPING CENTRE

77%

23%


COMMUNITY CENTRE

69%

31%


Figure 8.6 Charts: showing the occupancy before and after amalgamation at different hierarchy of commercial spaces

8.7 Property values in planned commercial areas: It is well known and doesn’t require to be discussed that the values of shops in planned

commercial areas are more. But due to the current hullabaloo of the demolition drive carried

out without thinking the current and future economics due to lack of monitoring the Prices of

the planned commercial areas will rise further more. Hence, there should be more and ore hue

and cry related to further alienation of the low cost low profit shops in these areas.

pre demolition scenario post demolition scenario

Planned 10- 15 lacs(3.5 lacs orignl) 28- 30 lacs or more

Unplanned 4 -6 lacs no buyer (2 -4 lacs)

COST OF THE SHOPS

Table 8.15: showing the value of planned and unplanned commercial spaces pre and post demolition drive

Rental values of the planned area were RS. 110 per square feet. sAnd cost was around RS.

25,000 per square feet. This has soared by 200% after demolition & is expected to further rise

by 30% after sealing drive.



Observations: It is observed that number of shops occupied is less by 20.7% (507 of 639). A possible reason

could be high property values in the area which have further escalated after demolition and

sealing drive.

8.8 Traders perception:

the no. of traders surveyed was 30.Traders were surveyed in planned commercial areas to find

their ownership status, number of employees, customers' catchment area and mode of

transport of goods to gauge at demand and problems of area.

OWNERSHIP

83%

17%

OWNED RENTED

Figure 8.7 Chart: showing the Ownership

The ownership status shows that most of the shops are owned, only 17% are rented. This

raises the concern about the shops which require low capital and low cost shops hence again

raising the question of equity among the uses. But with the current trend it seems there is a

competitive environment among the uses with low end shops being neglected which generate

less profit on high capital investment if the hops are in planed commercial area



CATCHMENT AREA

14%

17%

7%

62%

> 0.5 KM 0.5 TO 2 KM 2 TO 5 KM 5 TO 8 KM

Figure 8.8 Chart: showing the catchment area

76% shopkeepers felt that users are from less than 2 km distance. Hence, defining their

catchment area as sectors of R.K. Puram, Vasant vihar and Vsant kunj mainly the planned

areas which have their own facilities. This raises the concern towards allowing the mixed use in

these areas (mainly urban villages) as the main reason for mixed use towards self employment

of the owner is defeated.

MODE OF GOODS SUPPLY

4%

33%

38%

17%

8%

2-WHEELER 3-WHEELER VAN TEMPO TRUCK

Figure 8.9 Chart: showing the mode for supply of goods

2-wheeler and trucks are least used for transport of goods. most shopkeepers use 3-wheeler,

tempo and van this shows the trend towards development of only those uses in these areas



which need minimum infrastructure in terms of road parking, transportation and other facilities.

Considering the trend the proposal

8.9 SHOPS ACROSS COLONIES OF DIFFERENT TIERS:

1VASANT LOK COMMUNITY

CENTRE 370 290 80 142 228 98 272

2 LSC, BLOCK C, VV 60 -5 60 -5 51 43 LSC-BLOCK D, VV 64 -9 28 27 24 31

4 CSC- BLOCK A (1),VV 26 -2 20 4 12 125 CSC- BLOCK A (2),VV 24 0 22 2 18 66 CSC- BLOCK E,VV 20 4 27 -3 26 -2

552 484 68 299 253 229 323TOTAL

GAP

55

24

TIER I - VASANT VIHAR


SHOPS REQD AS

PER MASTER PLAN

NO. OF

SHOPS

DEVELOPED GAP

NO. OF

SHOPS

PRESENT GAP

NUMBER OF

OCCUPIED

SHOPS

Table8.16: showing the status of shops in planned commercial area of Tier I colonies (Vasant Vihar)

TIER I - VASANT VIHAR

552484

299229

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

SHOPS REQD

AS PER

MASTER PLAN

NO. OF SHOPS

DEVELOPED

NO. OF SHOPS

PRESENT

NUMBER OF

OCCUPIED

SHOPS Fig. 8.10 Chart: showing the status of shops in planned commercial area of Tier I colonies

(Vasant Vihar) Observations:

The total requirement as per Master Plan of 552 shops is met upto 229 shops in terms of

number of shops. The gap is

-21% due to lack in number of proposed shops

-57% due to amalgamation of shops

-22% due to low occupancy rate

Tier II Colonies:

1

COMMUNITY CENTRE VASANT KUNJ BLOCK B 370

124 246 85 285 85 285

2 LSC - C-6, VK 54 1 35 20 29 263 LSC - C-9, VK 68 -13 32 23 29 26

4 CS - C-1, VK 14 10 13 11 11 135 CS - C-8a, VK 16 8 14 10 11 136 CS - C-8b, VK 16 8 13 11 9 157 CS - C-9, VK 20 4 13 11 10 148 CSC-MUNIRKA VIHAR 22 2 20 4 18 69 CSC-DDA PHASE 2,MUNIRKA 18 6 16 8 12 1210 CSC-B 1, VK 20 4 19 5 10 1411 CSC- B1/2, VK 16 8 14 10 10 1412 CSC- B3, VK 20 4 26 -2 15 913 CSC- B8, VK 12 12 17 7 10 1414 CSC- B10, VK 20 4 23 1 19 5

744 440 304 340 404 278 466TOTAL

GAP

55

24

GAP

NO. OF

SHOPS GAP

NUMBER OF

OCCUPIED S NO COMMERCIAL AREA

SHOPS REQD AS

PER MASTER PLAN

NO. OF

SHOPS

TIER II - VASANT KUNJ, MUNIRA ENCLAVE & DDA FLATS MUNIRKA

Table 8.17: showing the status of shops in planned commercial area of Tier II colonies



(Vasant Kunj, Munirka Enclave and Vihar)

TIER II - VASANT KUNJ, MUNIRA ENCLAVE &

DDA FLATS MUNIRKA

744

440

340278

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

SHOPS REQD

AS PER

MASTER PLAN

NO. OF SHOPS

DEVELOPED

NO. OF SHOPS

PRESENT

NUMBER OF

OCCUPIED

SHOPS

Fig.8.11 Chart: showing the status of shops in planned commercial area of Tier II colonies (Vasant Kunj, Munirka Enclave and Vihar)

TIER II COLONIES

The total requirement as per Master Plan of 774 shops is met upto 278 shops in terms of

number of shops. The gap is

-65% due to lack in number of proposed shops

-22% due to amalgamation of shops

-13% due to low occupancy rate

Observations:

In tier I colonies large % of gap (41.5%) is caused due to amalgamation (57%).

In tier II colonies large % of gap (37.4%) is caused due to supply gap (65%).

In tier III colonies no planned commercial facility is present. (Munirka village and

Masudpur).

8.10 Observations and Conclusions: Considering the current situation the point that positively occurs is that as per the Master Plan

2001 the norms are adequate but there is a major inefficiency at the implementation level,

considering both the quantum of the no. shops, floor space also in the proper spatial

distribution of facilities.

The distribution of the facilities is a major concern when ZDP allocation is based on the floor

space consideration which affects the catchment area of CSCs and LSCs in a more critical

manner at the layout level.



Observations: in terms of required, proposed, developed, occupied and occupied

after amalgamation at different levels:

NUMBER OF SHOPS ( AS PER MPD 2001 )

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

CC LSC CSC

MPD 2001 DEVELOPED PRESENT OCCUPIED

Fig.8.12 Chart: showing no. of shops and status at different Hierarchy

8.11 Commercial space deficiency (at different level):

REQUIRED (2001)

PROPOSED (DDA)

DEVELOPED(TILL DATE)

OPENED

AFTER AMALGAMATION

DEVELOPMENT NORMS for popln. -1,49,943 (2001)

ALL PLANNED COMMERCIAL

Æ1829 shops

1296

924

639

507

71 %

51 %

100 %

100 %

100 %

100 %35 %

28 %

71%

49 %

39 %

69 %

55 % 79 %

>



100 %>REQUIRED (2001)

DEVELOPED(TILL DATE) 75 %

41 %AFTER AMALGAMATION

100 %

55 %

COMMUNITY CENTER(2) Æ730(555)

414

227

Æ550 shops 100 %>REQUIRED (ZDP 2001)

PROPOSED (DDA)

EXISTING

AFTER AMALGAMATION

330

246

155

60 %

45 %

28 %

100 %

75 %

47 %

100 %

73 %

LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER( 10)

Æ720 shops 100 %>REQUIRED (ZDP 2001)

PROPOSED (DDA)

developed

AFTER AMALGAMATION

264 + 72

257 + 72

47 %

46 %

100 %

98 %

191 + 72 37 % 80 %

100 %

82 %

CONVINENCE Shopping center(30)

8.12 possible suggestions (at different level):

At policy level (master plan, zonal plan) Considering that the existing norms are adequate in terms of no. of shops and the

same framework is followed:

1. Allow greater F.A.R at CC & LSC level to provide more shops and shops with variable

floor area.

2. Provisions for development of intermediate hierarchical places( Shopping Malls) in

suitable centrally located areas( to tackle Amalgamation of smaller shops at lower

hierarchy commercial spaces)



3. Use non-hierarchical commercial facility as tool to bridge gap between demand and

supply.

4. Translate the norms related to no. of shops into Floor Space at Zonal Level to have

area wise need specific, type and size of shops (as different type of colonies have

different needs, socio-economic difference).

Giving Consideration to another approach while formulating new norms as per floor

space considerations:

1) Use floor space per 1000 person as criteria for determining commercial demand. Also

define commercial hierarchy facilities in terms of range of number of shops and total

floor area.

2) Typology of shops required should be determined at site level or sub-zonal level; this

will provide flexibility with area of shops.

At site level

2) Accelerate efforts towards complete occupancy. Conduct auctions.

3) Locate sites that can be developed for commercial activity for lacking facilities

(especially for urban village).

4) Give considerations to new design and size of shops at layout level (considering division

and amalgamation)

5) Provide space for informal shopping.

6) Balance the deficiency at Community level.

7) Include Non- hierarchical commercial space in the hierarchy for higher level uses.

Provide them a hierarchy between LSC and CC considering the no. of shops

amalgamated at both the places.

8) Provide parking space at CC and LSCs also provide better and more comfortable highly

accessible Public transport System towards CCs.



9. PEOPLE’S PERCEPTION Introduction It was found out that there is no need for revision of norms. User perception was studied to

know the views across the users of different tiers and possible options were formulated based

upon their views.

People’s Perception Survey was done in the study area in Zone – F to gain an insight of the

views of people - residents, traders & professionals, on the issue of mixed land use and misuse

of premises and give the probable solutions accordingly.

The areas covered during the survey are were Vasant Vihar TIER -I colonies, Vasant Kunj,

Munirka Enclave from TIER -II colonies and Munirka Village, Masudpur Village from TIER -III

colonies.

For carrying out the survey, certain aspects were identified. The questions were asked from the

people on these aspects only which are related to mix use & misuse of premises. The aspects

are as follows:

1) Extent of commercial activity in residential areas.

2) Reasons of emergence of shops in residential areas.

3) Implications / problems due to mixed land use.

4) Solutions / Suggestions

All analysis of the survey has been done on these criteria only. The response of the people &

its analysis has been classified tier wise.

The sample taken for the survey comprised of various professionals, residents & traders. The

following table gives the sample sizes foe various categories:

SAMPLE SIZE

RESIDENTS & R.W.A TRADERS & M.T.A PROFESSIONALS

1) RESIDENTS- 662) R.W.A.- 5

IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS:

TRADERS-33TRADER ASSO.-2

FROM PLANNED COMMERCIAL AREAS:TRADERS-29

TOTAL:16a) D.D.A.- 6b) M.C.D.- 3c) T.K.C.- 1d) T.C.P.O- 2e) PROFESSIONALS- 4

Table 9.1: sample size

There were also certain limitations due to which the perception reflected from the survey may

not be the actual opinion of people. They can be listed as follows:

1) Sample size taken for the people's perception is very small. It represents less than 0.5% of

the Traders & Resident population of Sub-Zone - 12 &13. Therefore, the responses received

may not be the general opinion of the people.



2) Perception of Professionals is their personal opinion & may not necessarily represent the

view of the organization in which they are working.

9.1 Resident’s Perception The following section reveals the perception of residents about their preferences for planned

segregated commercial spaces & their views regarding mix use.

9.1.1 Preference for Daily Shopping When asked for their preference for daily shopping purpose all the residents from tier I colony

prefer planned commercial spaces for daily shopping purposes. Whereas, 62% of the residents

in tier II colony prefer local shopping centre and 38% prefer community centre. So in tier II

colonies also all the residents prefer planned commercial areas for daily shopping purpose.

However it is interesting to note that as we come down the hierarchy usage of community

centre decreases while usage of local shopping centre increases for daily shopping purpose. In

tier III, 92% of the residents prefer street side shops, only 8% prefer local shopping centre,

none of them are using community centre. Thus, down the hierarchy usage of street side

shops are increasing as they do not have any provision of planned commercial spaces. While at

the sub-zonal level the picture shows that maximum 45% residents use street side shops for

daily requirement followed by local shopping centre (38%) and community centre (17%).

(Fig.1).

Great disparity has been observed between tiers I, I, III categories. It is clear that tier III

colonies want mixed land use to be allowed in residential areas for them.

9.1.2 Preference for Special Shopping 60% of the residents in tier I colony prefer community centre and 30% prefer local shopping

centre for the purpose of special shopping, thus all the residents prefer planned commercial

areas for special shopping purpose in tier I colonies.

In tier II colonies, preference is more for community centre which means local shopping centre

fulfils the means for provision of daily need & special needs are fulfilled by community centre.

Whereas in tier III colonies, 82% of the residents prefer street side shops, and 18% prefer

local shopping centre, maximum % of the residents prefer street side shops however usage of

local shopping centre has increased in case of special shopping for tier III colony. At sub-zonal

level maximum (53%) use local shopping centre followed by street side (24%) and community

centre (23%). Since the population of tier III is more as compared to tier I and II so usage of



street side shops and local shopping centre is more for special shopping purpose at the sub-

zonal level. (Fig.2)

Maximum (76%) use planned commercial areas for special shopping purpose RWA's prefer that

mixed land use should be allowed only for daily shopping & other shops should not be allowed.

In Tier III Street side shops are preferred as compared to planned commercial spaces.

9.1.3 Preference for Commercial Activity (Segregated or Mix Use)

In tier I colonies, 100% of the residents prefer planned commercial areas i.e. they prefer

segregated commercial spaces as compared to mix use. The picture is the same in tier II also.

100% of the residents prefer planned commercial areas over mix use. The scenario comes out

to be completely different in tier III.

Maximum (52%) residents prefer mix use as compared to segregated planned spaces, as it is

more accessible to them. (Fig.3)

Great disparity is observed in views of people between tiers I, II, III categories. The opinion of

RWA’s is also completely different. In tier III preference is for mixed land use whereas in

contradiction RWA’s of tier I and II prefer segregated planned commercial areas.

9.1.4 Adequacy of Planned Facilities According to 50% of the residents of tier I category, planned commercial spaces are

inadequate. In tier II category 62% (majority) of the residents feel that planned commercial

areas are inadequate. In tier III category 100% of the residents feel that planned commercial

areas are inadequate and need to be provided. At sub-zonal level majority (62%) of the

residents feel that existing planned commercial facilities are inadequate. (Fig.4)

It is interesting to note that as we go up the level in different categories, inadequacy of

planned commercial area increases as per people perception. While planning for commercial

areas, Munirka & Masood pur villages have not been considered so inadequacy is 100% in their

case.

9.1.5 Problems Due to Street Side Shops It was observed that half of the interviewed residents do not feel any problem due to shops in

residential area this is because the extent of misuse in tier I category is very less and they

have a predetermined mindset that sealing would be there. Maximum residents in tier II

colonies face the problems of congestion and accessibility. Parking and loss of privacy is also a

major concern. In tier III, maximum residents do not face any problem due to road side shops.

Only some of them face the problem of congestion and parking. (Fig.5)



In the overall picture it was observed that parking and congestion are the major problems

faced by residents of all categories. However, in contradiction it can be noted that in tier III

category residents do not face any problem due to shops in residential area. They are in

support of mixed land use.

9.1.6 Alternative Solution for Better Commercial Facility To fulfil the inadequacy of planned commercial areas maximum of the residents prefer that

more planned commercial areas should be provided in tier I colonies. Residents of tier II feel

that to fulfil the inadequacy of planned commercial areas more planned commercial areas

should be provided also better enforcement should be there. To fulfil the inadequacy of

planned commercial areas majority of the residents in tier III prefer that mixed land use should

be allowed. (Fig.6)

Disparity was observed between Tiers I, II, III categories. In tier III colonies most of the

residents are in support of mixed land use, however at sub-zonal level preference is for more

planned commercial areas.

9.2. People’s Perception from Residential Premises having Shops on Ground Floor This section was only asked to those residents who had non-residential activity on the ground floor. 9.2.1 Disadvantages due to these Shops 67% residents in tier II colonies face problem due to shops on the ground floor and want it to

be removed. 83% residents in tier III colonies do not any face problem due to shops on the

ground floor. At the sub-zonal level 62% of the residents do not face any problem due to shops

on the ground floor. (Fig.7)

It becomes clear from the responses of the people, that resident in tier II & III want mix use to

be implemented.

9.2.2 Advantages Due To These Mix use 61% residents in tier II colonies find these shops advantageous as they cater to their daily

needs. 67% residents in tier III colonies find these shops advantageous as they cater to their

daily needs. At sub-zonal level 59% of the residents find these shops advantageous. (Fig.8)

Although residents of tier II want these shops to be removed, maximum % of the residents in

tier I and II and even at zonal level find the shops on ground floor advantageous. Tier I

colonies do not have any shops on ground floor.



9.3. Perception of Traders from Planned Commercial Areas This section of the trader perception survey does not take into account the traders in tier-III

colonies due to absence of planned commercial spaces in those areas.

9.3.1 Impact of Mix use 70% traders in tier-I feel that their business will not suffer due to shops in residential areas.

This is on the presumption that MLU is not going to be allowed in tier-I colonies. 71% of the

traders in tier-II feel that due to commercial activity in residential areas their business will

suffer. There would be less number of customers. Business of 54% traders in the sub-zone

suffers due to commercial activity in residential areas. Thus the segregated commercial areas

are facing lack of customers due to emergence of MLU. (Fig.9)

Opinions are totally different in all tiers of colonies with respect to impact of mix use. Looking

at the overall picture there is not a shortage of shops.

9.3.2 Adequacy of Parking Spaces 50% of the traders in tier-I think that parking is inadequate in planned commercial areas. Many

costumers have to park their vehicles on street. For 60% of the traders in tier-II parking is a

problem. Places where parking space is available are not maintained well. Overall, for 60% of

the traders at sub-zone level parking becomes a problem. (Fig.10)

Inadequacy of parking space comes up as a major problem for traders (leading to less number

of customers also), which would be further intensified by allowing commercial activity in

residential areas.

9.3.3 Problems arising if mix use Policy (As Per 7 Sep & 15 Sep Notification) 90% of the traders do not think that MLU is a problem. This can be attributed to the fact that

MLU is not being allowed in tier I colonies. In tier-II, 65% of the traders feel that if MLU will

cause problems like burden on infrastructure & will also affect the business in planned

commercial spaces. 55% of the traders at sub-zonal level do not think that MLU is going to

affect the city in any way. (Fig.11)

Traders in segregated commercial areas where MLU has not been allowed are indifferent to its

effects. Whereas in other areas, there is concern about inadequacy of infrastructure & other

issues.

9.3.4 Probable Solutions All traders feel that commercial activity should not be allowed in residential areas in tier-I. But

only 50% think that the shops should be sealed. In tier-II also all traders feel that commercial



activity should not be allowed in residential areas. But only 65% think that the shops should be

shifted from residential to planned commercial areas. At sub-zonal level, all traders feel that

commercial activity should not be allowed in residential areas. (Fig.12)

Traders in tier -I & II colonies think that mixed use should not be allowed. But opinion is

divided as to what should be the solution to the problem of misuse.

9.4. Perception of Traders Operating From Residential Areas This section of the trader perception survey does not cover the traders in tier- I colonies due to absence of commercial activities in residential areas. 9.4.1 Reasons of Emergence of Non-Residential Activity in Residential Areas 70% of the traders operating from residential areas in tier-II have a view that lack of planned

segregated commercial spaces is the major reason for emergence of these shops. In tier-III,

60% of the traders also share the view that there is a lack of planned commercial spaces.

Overall picture at the sub-zonal level reveals that 50% of the traders operating from residential

areas feel that there is a lack of planned segregated commercial spaces. (Fig.13)

Perception survey reveals that majority of traders feel that lack of planned commercial spaces

is the reason for emergence of shops in residential areas. Another key factor is the economic

group of traders. Those who are not able to afford for space in planned areas go for mix use.

9.4.2 Adequacy of Parking In tier-II 100% of the traders surveyed do not face any parking problems. They think that the

parking spaces provided in the commercial areas in these colonies are adequate. For tier-III

traders parking becomes a problem.62% of the traders feel that parking spaces are

inadequate. (Fig.14)

Majority of the traders operating from residential areas, face parking problems. More parking

spaces need to be provided in both planned & unplanned areas. This is also the view of the

market traders association.

9.4.3 Problems while Operating Traders from tier-II do not face any kind of infrastructure or any other problems while

operating from these areas. From tier-III colonies, majority of traders are not facing any

problems while operating. (Fig.15)

55% of the traders do not face any problem while operating from residential areas. This shows

that traders are in favour of mixed land use.



9.4.4 Probable Solutions

Majority of traders from tier-II colonies share a view that all non-residential activities should be

shifted from residential areas as per Supreme Court’s directive. Some also feel that only

harmful establishments should be shifted. In tier-III colonies, traders have a majority opinion

that only harmful establishments should be shifted from residential areas and the rest should

be left undisturbed. (Fig.16)

Traders show a divide as far as sealing issue is concerned. On one hand those from tier-II feel

that traders from residential areas should be shifted whereas traders from tier-III feel that only

harmful establishments should be shifted. At the sub-zonal level the majority opinion comes

out as to shift only harmful establishments from residential areas and the rest should be left

undisturbed.

9.4.5 Conditions for Shifting When asked about being shifted from their present location in residential premise, most of the

traders in tier II give a condition that they prefer a location nearer to the present. In tier-III

colonies, most of the traders would prefer a location nearer to the present. (Fig.17)

On issue of being shifted from their present location traders in residential areas will prefer

locations nearest to the present one.

9.5. Issues Identified 9.5.1extent of Non-Residential activities in Residential Areas

1) Professionals

According to the professional extent of misuse i.e. non-residential activities in residential

premises is 78-80% as they are relying upon the survey carried out by the M.C.D. and media

reports. However many professionals remained silent on this issue and said these surveys were

carried out in 92 and not to be relied upon and scientific surveys need to be carried out.

2) Professionals in Public Department.

According to the professional extent of misuse i.e. non-residential activities in residential

premises is 78-80% as they are relying upon the survey carried out by the M.C.D. however

overall figure varies from plot to plot.



9.5.2 Reasons for Emergence Mix use

1) Residents

According to the residents mixed land use is the source of their livelihood. Another reason is

that the land values in the planned commercial areas are very high and not affordable. There is

inadequacy of planned commercial spaces especially in Tier III colonies and thus the extent is

more there.

2) Traders

Most of the traders perceive that the rental values are too high in the planned commercial

spaces and they are not affordable. There is inadequacy of planned commercial spaces

especially in Tier III colonies and thus the extent is more there. One of reasons of the traders

was that this location is nearer to their place of residence and more accessible.

3) Professionals

According to the professional additional income compels to sustain-for sheer survival.

Regulations are not implemented, thus non implementation of the planned commercial spaces

is the reason for emergence of mix use. Also there has been escalated trend from user need to

community need.


Non-availability of planned commercial spaces is the reason for emergence of mixed use.

Also due to limited job opportunity residents go for mixed use as a source of additional income.

8.5.3 PROBLEMS DUE TO MIXUSE

1) Residents

Parking and congestion are the problems faced by the residents.

2) Traders

Lack of customers is the problem faced by the traders in planned commercial areas in Tier II

and III colonies. However other problems are parking and overloaded infrastructure.

3) Professionals

Planning profession will not be augmented and implemented. Growing number of vehicles is a

major concern so parking policies have to be properly formulated.


According to the professionals in residential areas there would be implication on residential

areas and peaceful living would be destroyed. Land market pressure would increase. However

other problems are parking and overloaded infrastructure.



9.5.4 Suggestions/ Solutions

1) Residents

According to the residents of tier III colony mixed land use should be approved for daily use

materials and other commercial activities should be shifted to planned commercial spaces.

2) Traders

According to the traders in residential areas, selective uses should be allowed especially the

daily use materials and parking and infrastructure should be improved.

According to the traders in planned commercial areas-- Demolition should be there but more

on big players and the traders should be shifted to commercial areas.

3) Professionals

According to the professionals mixed land use should be scientifically determined with respect

to threshold & carrying capacity. Percentage of the traders in residential areas should be

restricted. However as per some of the professionals daily use stuff should be allowed. Lawful

rectification should be there against the miss users.


Strip commercial should be allowed. Some of them perceive that there is a need for revision of

norms. Compatible mixed land use should be allowed and a humanity approach is needed.

However there are diversified suggestions regarding MLU as some of the professional perceive

that traders should be shifted out in a phased manner and penalty should be charged acc to

land price of commercial use.

9.6 Conclusions

1) Although many professionals talk about inadequacy of infrastructure and factors like holding

capacity & threshold to be the key deciding factors but still an increase in the permissibility is

observed from tier-I to tier-III in the notifications.

2) Observations from the surveys & empirical analysis show a completely different picture from

the people's perception which has been basically created from the media hype. Therefore

people's perception cannot necessarily be a basis for plan-making without survey & empirical

analysis.



1) IN TIER - 1 COLONIES:

There are only 3% plots (43 out of approx. 300) with non residential activity in the study

area.

3) IN TIER - 3 COLONIES:26% of the total plots in the villages have some non-residential use on the ground floor.Out of which about 80% establishments are non-permissible.

DEVELOPMENT ISSUES1) The number of shops present is 924 which is 71% of requirement.2) Sun City Mall development instead of CC 3) School development in Vasant Kunj on CC sitePLAN.COMM.

Non Residential activity in Residential Premise

PERCEPTION POSSIBLE OPTIONSOBSERVATIONSASPECTS

2) IN TIER - 2 COLONIES:There are only 0.66% dwelling units (35/5277) with non-residential activity.Only 0.19% establishments are not permitted.

1) Overall figure varies from plot to plot.2) 78-80% (As per MCD Survey as shown in media reports)3) Affordability & distance from residence are major reasons for emergence of non-residential activity in residential areas.

DEVELOPMENT & MONITORING ISSUES1) Enforcement and Monitoring needs to be looked at for increase in effective supply of Planned Commercial Spaces.

1) Different approach to be taken for different categories. Tier I - Strict adherence to the sealing approach.Tier II- Mild approach to be adopted.Tier III- Phasewise shifting of traders who are into harmful establishments.

TABLE 9.2: ISSUES AND POSSIBLE OPTIONS

MONITORING ISSUES1) Number of shops developed further reduced due to amalgamation.2) Number of shops are 639 which is 70% of the developed shops.3) Type of shops reqd replaced BY offices, restuarants, etc.DISPOSAL POLICY ISSUES1) Number of shops occupied are only 80% of the shops present.Some have not been

auctioned still.

POLICY ISSUES1) Present specified norms are adequate.

POLICY ISSUES1) Revise norms (As per Professionals in Public Deptts).

DEVELOPMENT ISSUES1) Inadequacy of planned seggregated commercial spaces.2) Gap in implementation.

DISPOSAL POLICY ISSUES1) Auctioning of shops leading to high values making planned seggregated commercial spaces unaffordable for a large section of traders.

DISPOSAL POLICY ISSUES1) Leasing instead of freehold ownership may provide solution to problems like amalgamation & sub - division of shops to an extent.2) Allotment of shops in place of auctioning may increase the occupancy of shops.



TIE

R I

SUGGESTIONS M.P.D-2001 M.P.D-2021 FINAL NOTIFICATION

TIE

R II

TIE

R III

ACTIVITIES ALLOWED:1) RETAIL SHOPS IN PLOTS ABUTTING NOTIFIED MIXED USE STREETS

2) "OTHER ACTIVITY" IN PLOTS ABUTTING ROADS 6M ROW IN URBAN VILLAGES

3) PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES

4) PEDESTRIANISED SHOPPING STREETS OF LESS THAN 6 M

ACTIVITIES ALLOWED:

1) PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITY

2) MIXED USE AND COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY IN PLOTS ABUTTING MASTER PLAN ROADS THAT ARE NOTIFIED AS MIXED USE STREETS, AND COMM. STREETS

3) "OTHER ACTIVITY" RESTRICTED TO GUEST HOUSES, NURSING HOMES AND PRE PRIMARY SCHOOLS,PLOTS ABUTTING ROADS OF MINIMUM 18M ROW IN REGULAR PLOTTED DEVELOPMENT,NEW BANKS AND FITNESS CENTRES WILL NOT BE PERMISSIBLEALREADY EXISTING BANKS AND FITNESS CENTRES ON PLOTS ABUTTING ROADS OF MINIMUM 18M ROW, PERMISSIBLE.

4) RETAIL SHOPS ON MIXED USE STREETS

ACTIVITIES ALLOWED:

GROUP HOUSING IN ALL CATEGORIES OF COLONIES:1) ONLY PROFESSIONAL

2) RETAIL SHOPS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR IN THE LAYOUT PLAN OF GROUP HOUSING

5) WHERE THERE IS ONLY ONE DWELLING UNIT IN A RESIDENTIAL PLOT, ONLY ONE TYPE OF MIXED USE (I.E., RETAIL SHOP OR PROF ACTIVITY OR ONE OF THE OTHER ACTIVITIES) 6) WHERE THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE D.U.IN A RESI. PLOT, EACH OF THE D.U. WILL BE PERMITTED TO HAVE ONLY ONE TYPE OF MIXED USE ACTIVITY.

CONDITIONS FOR MIXED LAND USE:

1) RETAIL SHOPS LIKE TIMBER AND PRODUCTS, IRON, MARBLE, STEEL, SAND, FIREWOOD, COAL NOT TO BE ALLOWED

2) REPAIR SHOPS LIKE AUTOMOBILES, CYCLE RIKSHAWS, TYRE, BATTERY-NOT ALLOWED.

3) SERVICE SHOPS LIKE FLOUR MILLS, FABRICATION AND WELDING-NOT ALLOWED.

4) NURSING HOMES, GUEST HOUSES, BOARDING HOUSE, LODGING, STORAGE, GODOWNS AND WAREHOUSING AND MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES (EXCEPT HOUSEHOLD INDUSTRY) AND JUNK SHOPS-NOT ALLOWED.

5) PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITY ALLOWED.

6) INTENDED MIXED LAND USE: AT TIME OF LAYOUT PREPARATION AT SUITABLE LOCATIONS, CLUSTERS OF PLOTS SHALL BE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED FOR SHOPS AND HOUSEHOLD INDUSTRIES AT GROUND FLOOR.

CONDITIONS FOR MIXED LAND USE:

1) ACTIVITIES INVOLVING OBNOXIOUS, HAZAROUS, INFLAMABLE, NON COMPATIBLE, POLLUTED SUSTANCES OR PROCESSES NOT TO BE ALLOWED.

2) HOUSEHOLD INDUSTRIES, RETAIL SHOPS, PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES TO BE ALLOWED.

3) RETAIL SHOPS LIKE TIMBER, TIMBER PRODUCTS, MARBLE, IRON, STEEL AND SAND, FIREWOOD, COAL AND ANY HAZADEOUS AND OTHER BULKY MATERIALS NOT TO BE ALLOWED.

4) REPAIR SHOPS LIKE AUTOMOBILES, CYCLE RICKSHAWS, TYRE AND BATTERY CHARGING NOT TO BE ALLOWED.

5) STORAGE, GODOWNS AND WAREHOUSES NOT TO BE ALLOWED.

6) JUNK SHOPS NOT ALLOWED.

7) LIQUOR SHOPS- NOT ALLOWED.

8) PRINTING, DYING, VARNISHING-NOT ALLOWED.

9) PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES: NON HAZARDEOUS AND NON- NUISANCE KIND OF ACTIVITY LIKE DOCTOR, LAWYER, ARCHITECT, C.A.

10) OTHER ACTIVITY: PRE PRIMARY, NURSURY, MONTESSORI, CRECHE. NURSING HOMES, GUEST HOUSES AND BANKS ON ROADS 18 M AND 9M IN URBAN VILLAGES.

1) MIXED LAND USE TO BE APPROVED-DAILY USE MATERIALS.

2) OTHER COMM. ACTIVITIES TO BE SHIFTED TO PLANNED COMM. SPACES.

3) ALLOW COMPATIBLE MIXED LAND USE

4) NEED A HUMANITY APPROACH.

1) AS PER COURT.

2) FACILITATE WITH PRICING OR SHIFTING.

3) DEMOLITION SHOULD BE THERE.

1) DEMOLITION SHOULD BE THERE.

2) PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES SHOULD BE ALLOWED.

3) DAILY USE STUFFS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED LIKE RETAIL.

4) BANKS ALREADY OPERATING SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE.

REMARKS

IN TIER I CATEGORY, RESIDENTS AND TRADERS SUGGEST THAT MIXED LAND USE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN THIER AREA ESPECIALLY RETAIL SHOPS( DAILY USE STUFF), SO NOTIFIED STREETS IN THIS CATEGORY SHOULD BE RECONSIDERED AND RETAIL SHOPS NOT TO BE ALLOWED.

IN TIER II CATEGORY, RESIDENTS AND TRADERS SUGGEST THAT MIXED ACTIVITIES SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED. PHASEWISE SHIFTING OF TRADERS.

IN TIER III CATEGORY, ALL THE NEEDS OF THE RESIDENTS AND TRADERS HAVE BEEN FULFILLED AS PER THE FINAL NOTIFICATION.

THERE HAS BEEN A LIBERALIZATION IN THE POLICY OF MIXED LAND USE OVER A PERIOD OF TIME WHICH IS IN FAVOUR OF TIER III CATEGORY.

TABLE 9.3: SUGGESTIONS AND THEIR STATUS



10. ISSUES AND IMPLICATIONS

After considering all the different thought out aspect under the secondary data and primary data analysis issue and implication were identified to find possible implications and suggestions.

10.1 Procedure followed while identification of issue and implications

Figure 10.1 procedure followed

STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT

· Concept of Mixed Land Use· Pros and Cons of Mixed Land Use· Applicability of concept in Delhi's scenario

Causes for occuring non-residential use inresidential premises

Inadequacy ofapproved commercial

space

PricingPolicy

Absence ofmonitoring

Qualitative Quantitative

7th September Notification

Implications andIssues

Possible Solutions

Assumptions

Planning Approach

Proposals

Segregated Flexible Integrated



10.2 Concept of Mixed Land use Following are the initial concepts behind formulating the policy for mixed use:

1. To provide income earning/ supplementing opportunities to the less mobile members of the

society e.g. house wives, old people.

2. To create conducive environment for small investments.

3. To reduce burden on transport system by reducing trip numbers and length for work-home trips.

4. Encouraging social interaction by providing more contact points.

10.3 Pros and Cons of Mixed Land use

Table 10.1: identification of probable pros and cons

10.4 Applicability of mixed land use in Delhi's scenario 10.4.1 Scenario prior to 1981

Prior to 1962, Integrated Land use was more efficient due to the following reasons:

Occupation was by the way of small scale trade and commerce, household industry or

professional or liberal art, integration of residences and work places was desirable. The size of

city was small in terms of population and area. Auto mobilisation was limited and commuting in

commercial areas was on foot.

10.4.2 Scenario while preparing MPD-19812 While preparing MPD-1962, Segregation of land uses has come to be the way of planning policy due to

high degree of diversity in activities and land uses, and high levels of auto mobilisation.

· Income supplimenting opportunity for the less mobile.

· Economically easier to maintain workplace at home.

· Transport savings.· Convenience to the customers.· Allows for high density

development.· Helps the poor to work around

the high costs of the formal commercial area.

· To certain extent can help to overcome implementation backlog.

· Annoyance (visual clutter, congestion, noise).

· Hinderance (circulation impediments due to parking and encroachments).

· Stress on infrastructure (water, electricity, parking etc.).

· Risks (increased outsider use, reduces ownership of public places, highly vulnerable to disasters).

· Degradation of quality of life.· Change in usage and character

of open spaces.

PROS CONS



10.4.3 Scenario while preparing MPD-2001 Following was the scenario, when the first master plan was revised. Commercial uses in residential

areas tended to concentrate in central locations causing serious imbalances. Available supply of

residential area was curtailed due to succession by other uses. Encroachment by these uses on to

public spaces further affected the quality of residential environment.

10.5 Causes for Occurrence of Non-Residential use in Residential Premise

Following are the reasons for the occurrence of non-residential use in the residential use premises:

1. Inadequacy of approved commercial area

2. Inefficient pricing policy

3. Absence of monitoring

10.5.1 Inadequacy of approved commercial area

Table-1 shows the existing scenario in the study area (Sub zone F’12’ & F’13’) with respect to

commercial activity. Quantitative adequacy of norms is evident from the survey data.

Table 10.2: Existing scenario in the study area with respect to commercial activity

The existing planned commercial areas are inadequate on the following grounds:

The norms which already exist don’t help in estimating the qualitative requirement of commercial

facilities. (In LSC and CC amalgamation of shops is very prominent, and this reduces the no. of

shops which finally leads to the inadequacy of the facility). Nature wise %age distribution of shops is

not given. No space is provided for informal shops in the planned commercial areas. Implementation

is biased towards the influential section of the society. Absence of framework for:

1. Development of commercial areas prior to the development of catchment residential area.

2. Timely disposal of the commercial property (shops).

10.5.2 Inefficient pricing policy

To an extent pricing policy is responsible for the present status of vacant shops in planned

commercial areas. Following are the reasons which make the pricing policy weak an inefficient:

In Residences In Planned Areas Total

I 552 60 229 289II 774 27 278 305III 503 860 0 860

Total 1829 947 507 1454

ExistingReqd. as per

popu. (MPD 2001)Tier



Disposal through auction leads to high prices. Low FAR and Ground Coverage increase the price

of saleable floor space. Unregulated property market and sale on freehold basis leads to

speculation. People don't come forward for allotment of approved commercial properties as they

have to pay in white money.

10.5.3 Absence of Monitoring

There is no framework for monitoring the following things:

1. Whether proposed no. of shops are developed on time or not.

2. Nature of activity taking place in the planned commercial areas.

3. To check amalgamation of shops.

4. To check the status of the shops (Occupied or Vacant).

The absence of monitoring also leads to the inadequacy of planned commercial areas, even if they

are developed on time.



10.6 IMPLICATIONS AND ISSUES OF 7TH SEPTEMBER NOTIFICATION Table-9.2 shows the proposals given in the 7th Sept. Notification to tackle the problem of inadequacy of planned commercial areas. But there are issues which arise from some of the proposals and for those we have given possible solutions. The notification doesn’t have any proposals to make the pricing policy efficient and to strengthen the monitoring. Table-9.3 shows the issues on inefficient pricing policy and monitoring, it also shows the possible solutions for overcoming those issues. There are some issues which arise from the ‘Mixed Use Regulations’ given in the notification, these issues are shown in Table-9.4

Table-10.2: Implications and Issues of 7

th September Notification

PROPOSALS (7th SEPT. NOTIFICATION) IMPLICATIONS AND ISSUES POSSIBLE SOLUTION

· Permitting non-residential establishments inresidential premise will increase the no. ofcommercial establishments beyond therequired at city level.

· Qualitative inadequacy will persist andincrease.

· Environmental degradation of residential area.· Nature of commercial activities permittted in

notified commercial areas is not defined.· It will create Imbalance in allocation of

landuse. [ After the notification, 57% of theestablishments were permitted out of all thenon-residential activities (860 plots) in Tier-IIIcolonies]

· Inadequacy in planned commercial space isovercome at the cost of residential area in Teir-IIIcolonies.

· How to overcome space constraints forparking provision and capacity upgradation inthe notified streets ?

MICRO LEVEL

· Parking demand in CC and LSC is more thanthe parking supply which results in spill over inthe form of on-street parking.

· The concept of making the mixed use streetsless than 9 metre as Pedestrian ShoppingStreets is not feasible in Munirka as thesestreets also gives access to the internalresidential areas, where the commuting is mostlydone by 2-wheelers.

· Permitting 56% of non-residential activities inresidential premise will hamper privacy andsaftey of local residents as the commercialactivities which are permitted cater not only to thelocal need but also to the neighbouring area.

· There is a shortage of 10 LSC and 30 CSC inF-12 and F-13.

· Number of shops developed are less by 18%of the required number in developedcommercial facilities.

10.1 (iii)Mixed use allows access to commercialactivities in the proximity of the residences andreduces the need for commuting across zonesin the city.

10.2.2 (i)Commercial activity in the form of retail shopsshall be permissible in residential premises inplots abutting notified mixed use streets.

10.3.1In already urbanized / urban areas, mixed useshall be permissible in the following areas:

(ii) Residential areas and Streets/ stretchesearlier declared as commercial areas/streets or where commercial use wasallowed in MPD 1962 shall continue suchuse at least to the extent as permissible inMPD 1962.

(iii) Commercial activity existing from prior to1962 in residential areas, subject todocumentary proof thereof.

(iv) Identification and Notification of mixed usestreets in future, shall be based on thecriteria given in para 10.3.2 and as perprocedure prescribed in para 10.3.3, andgiven wide publicity by the local bodiesconcerned.

· Norms to be given in floor space per1000 person.

· Adequacy of Planned CommercialAreas can be increased by increasingthe FAR and by providing spaces forinformal shops.

· Phased development of commercialareas prior to the development ofcatchment residential area.

· To adopt a pricing policy whichencourages the owners of non -residential establishments to shifttowards the planned commercialareas.

· Amalgamation of shops can becontrolled by taking the following steps:- By giving %age wise distribution of

different type of acitivities at eachhierarchy of Commercial Areas.

- By introducing flexibility in design,layout and size of shops.

· The problem of inadequate parking inPlanned Commercial Areas can besolved by:- Designing the parking areas

appropriately.- By developing Multi-level car parks

in higher hierarchy commercialareas. The cost can be recoveredfrom the Shop owners and in turnthey would be provided with separateand fixed no. of bays for parking theirown vehicles.

INAD

EQUA

CY O

F AP

PROV

ED C

OMM

ERCI

AL A

REA



Table-10.3: Implications and

issues arising due to inefficient pricing

policy and monitoring

Table-10.4: Issues arising from

the ‘Mixed Use Regulations’

· Disposal through auction leads to high prices.· Low FAR and Ground Coverage increases the price of saleable

floor space.· Unregulated property market and sale on freehold basis leads

to speculation.· People don't come forward for allotment of approved commercial

properties as they have to pay in white money.

· Disposal of Shops in PlannedCommercial Areas should be donethrough draw of lots to remove theprice hike due to auctioning.

PROPOSALS (7th SEPT.NOTIFICATION)

IMPLICATIONS AND ISSUES POSSIBLE SOLUTION

· No framework exists for monitoring the mixed land use atMaster Plan Level as well as Zonal Plan Level.

· Absence of monitoring is responsible for the coming up ofnon-residential activities on residential premise.

· No framework for monitoring:- Whether proposed no. of shops are developed on time or not.- Nature of activity taking place in the planned commercial areas.- To check amalgamation of shops.- To check the status of the shops (Occupied or Vacant).

No proposals

No proposals

PR

ICIN

G

PO

LIC

YM

ON

ITO

RIN

G

· To formulate a monitoringframework to check theimplementation of the proposals andto check amalgamation and status ofshops.

In residential plotted development mixed use shall be permitted, subjectto the following general terms and conditions:(ii) Where there are more than one dwelling units in a residential plot,

each of the dwelling units will be permitted to have only type of mixeduse activity.

10.4 (ii)

Professional activity is permissible in plotted development and grouphousing under the following specific conditions:(i) Professional activity shall be permitted if carried out by the resident

him/her self.

10.8.1

The following streets/ Stretches of streets or areas mat be notified asCommercial Streets or Commercial Areas by the local authority:(c) In E, F and G category colonies, where, [If] 80% of residential plots

are under mixed use, or if there are 300 shops, within a contiguousarea of 1 Hectare.

10.12.1(c)

· No. of non-residential establishments permitted = no. of Du's in a plot.What will be the mechanism for monitoring?

· What is the mechanism for monitoring the ownership?

· What is the need of giving the criteria for identifying commercialstreets and areas, if the notification is for mixed land use?

· The extent upto which the commercial activity is permitted in apremise (in an area which is identified as commercial) is not stated.

· Criteria for identifying contiguous area is not stated.

CLAUSE ISSUES

· Conditions for identification of mixed use streets and commercialareas are not supported by any kind of background studies.Other Issues



10.7 CHANGES APPARENT FROM THE 7TH SEPT. NOTIFICATION Changes are apparent from the 7th Sept. Notification in the following:

1. Concept of Mixed Land Use

2. Planning Approach

3. Planning Process

10.7.1 Concept as defined by the 7th September Notification

According to the Notification the definition of Mixed land use is: to provide for non-residential

activity in residential premises. Following are the concepts behind the Mixed use Policy as

given in the 7th Sept. Notification:

1. To allow / facilitate access to commercial activity in the proximity of the residences.

2. Principles for permitting mixed land use are the need to acknowledge and make adequate

provisions for meeting community needs, while mitigating environmental impact & providing

for safe and convenient circulation and parking.

10.7.2 Change in the concept

Following are the changes in the concept of mixed land Use Policy after the 7th September

Notification came:

1. From self supporting to convenience of the community:

Original idea was to provide income supplementing opportunities to the less mobile members,

now it is serving people who commute in cars and are very much mobile.

2. from 'pro-poor' to now overcome inadequacy of norms:

Initially meant to create conducive environment for small investment, it is now being identified

as compensatory development to overcome qualitative inadequacy in planning norms

regarding commercial centres

10.7.3 Change in the Planning Approach

From the notification it is apparent that instead of slightly moving towards the Mixed Land Use

under the present planning framework, there is a shift towards unregulated land use.



Figure 10.2 change in planning approach

10.7.4 Change in the Planning Process

Figure 10.3 change in planning process

Survey

Data Analysis

Diagnosis

Plan

No field survey, only stakeholderworkshops organized

80% Delhi is illegal (Based onperception)

Supply Inadequacy

Organizational reformMonitoring through self regulation

CLASSICAL PROCESS PROCESS ADOPTED BY NOTIFICATION

PLANNING APPROACH

INTEGRATEDLANDUSE

SEGREGATEDLANDUSE/ ZONING

MIXED LANDUSE(REGULATED

PERMISSIBILITY AND

EXTENT)

UNREGULATEDLANDUSE

MARKET LED EMPHASIS ON EQUITY & EFFICIENCY



Following are the implications and issues that arise due to the change in the planning process:

· The classical planning approach to solve a problem seems to be vanishing.

· Self regulatory Planning will result in unregulated land use

· Questionable credibility of RWA's in the planning process.

· In the participatory process proper mechanism was not followed, classification of inputs

was not done into :

- Points of consensus

- Points of conflict

· The population of villages was not considered while calculating the number of facilities

required.

·

10.8 Proposals

Following assumptions were taken into consideration before giving the proposals.

1. The approach of Flexible land use is the most appropriate for a city as diverse as Delhi.

2. Tackle the problem with the classical approach to planning.

3. Tackle the problem within the current organizational setup.

The proposals are in the direction of achieving the following things:

· Qualitative improvement of Planned commercial area.

· Pricing policy to be reviewed to include:

1. Protection of vulnerable sections.

2. Principle of cross subsidisation.

· Strengthen the monitoring framework to ensure achievement of targets.

· Instating a mechanism to permit certain daily needs shops through case to case study.

· Upgrade character of residential areas even with permitting these non-residential activities.

· Provisions for informal sector and low end.

· Formulate a phase wise incentive based shifting programme for the establishments which will

not be permitted.

10.8.1 Proposals for Planned Commercial Areas

· To ensure phased development of commercial areas, completion of convenience shopping

centres will be a requirement for issuing Completion Certificate to any residential scheme/

complex.



· Type-wise distribution in percentage of floor area to be prescribed for Convenience and Local

Shopping Centres at zonal level.

· Norms for commercial space to be given in terms of:

Ø CITY LEVEL - Floor space per 1000 population.

Ø ZONAL LEVEL - Floor space per 1000 population.

- Number of Facilities.

Ø LAYOUT LEVEL - Number of Shops in facility.

· To prevent more specialised shops from locating in CSCs and LSCs through amalgamation, non-

hierarchical Commercial areas in the form of shopping malls to be introduced between CC and

District centre.

10.8.2 Proposals for improvements in Pricing Policy · The CSCs and LSCs to be considered as facilities, thus the disposal policy would be as follows:

Ø LSCs and CSCs - Through draw of lots on Leasehold basis.

Ø CCs and DSCs - Through auction on Freehold basis.

· Increase FAR and Ground Coverage of commercial centres to reduce the cost of per area

saleable land.

· Regulation of property market, all property dealers registered to control speculation.

10.8.3 Proposals for Monitoring

There should be a monitoring framework at different levels with different components for

monitoring.

· CITY LEVEL - Floor space developed.

· ZONAL LEVEL - Number of facilities developed

Floor space developed.

· LAYOUT LEVEL - Disposal status of shops.

Type of shops operating.

Status of Amalgamation.

Occupied/ vacant.

10.8.5 Proposals for Permission Mechanism A three tier permission mechanism is proposed, it will achieve a case by case scrutiny based upon

Nature of shop, its Location and inputs from the immediate stake holders.



Figure 10.4 proposed permission mechanism

Type of Establishments to be permitted: (1) GENERAL RETAIL SHOP Confectionery

Grocery and general merchandise

Books and stationery

Chemist

Flower shop

Beatle shop

(2) VEGETABLE AND FRUIT SHOP

(3) SERVICE SHOPS Telephone Booth

Cyber Cafe

Barber

Tailor

Laundry

(4) RESTAURANTS AND BARS Snack stalls

Juice shop

(5) OFFICES Professional offices

(6) PUBLIC/ SEMI PUBLIC Pre-Primary school

Clinic, Dispensary, Path labs, Diagnostic centre.

(7) FACILITIES coaching up to secondary school level.

(8) INDUSTRIES Photostat

TYPEPERMITTED

IDENTIFIEDLOCATION

CASE TOCASE

SCRUTINY

· List of type of establishments to be permittedas mixed use in residential premisis. Based ondaily needs and nuisance standards.

· List locations/ stretches where the above usesmay be allowed. Selection to be based uponinfrastructure holding capacity, local demand.

· The establishments coming under the typespermitted, already operating in one of thenotified areas may apply for a permit. However,permit is granted after scrutinisation basedupon scale of activity and inputs fromimmediate stakeholders e.g. Neighbors.



Reasons for non-inclusion of other activities: High profitability/ serving multinational products, prone to disaster, high nuisance value: Sight,

Odour, Vibrations etc. Special requirement e.g. security, credibility to be developed at a highly

specialised/ branded level.

10.8.6 Criteria for selection of stretches: Following criteria’s should be considered while identifying stretches for permitting mixed use:

1 .V/C Ratio of the street to be less than or equal to 0.8.

2 .Minimum ROW of 6m to facilitate fire fighting.

3 .Parking area availability within 300m (5 min. walk) to the order of: 1 parking bay of the

dominant mode per plot.

4 .At least 70% of the plots in the stretch to have at least one organized non-residential use.

5 .Minimum number of plots that may be considered is 50. ( 25 each on both sides of road, or

50 on 1 side of road).

10.8.7 Procedure for shifting of shops:

Establishments to be shifted in a phased manner are:

- Type of shops (depending upon relative economic ease of shifting) to be considered as

different groups and shifted in a suitable period of time.

Shifting to planned commercial areas on Incentive Basis

- Concession in rate for shifting establishments.

- Concession in maintenance charges

- Sales tax/ electricity waiver for 3 years.

Existing scenario in the study area with respect to commercial activity



11. CONCLUSION For concluding the exercise, an analysis of the findings of the surveys has been done with

respect to the aims, which were as follows:

1) To understand the Zonal development plan & how it fits into the hierarchy of the plans.

2) To understand the functioning of the objectives of equity & efficiency in terms of allocation

on ground.

The overall concept of Zonal Development Plan can be summed up as shown in fig.10.1 &

Table 10.1.

As observed in fig.10.1 & Table 10.1, which show the inter-relationship between the various

hierarchy of plans, it becomes clear that as per planning approach adopted by the DD Act, all

development plans have to be prepared through a process of survey - diagnosis - plan –

monitoring and all these stages are necessary for this planning approach to work. It cannot be

efficient without diagnosis that is not based on surveys but on the perception of a few

individuals.

Also, Monitoring becomes an indispensable part of plan – making.

Another point to be noted is that Zonal Development Plan at the intermediate level is

indispensable for detailing out of the MPD policies to be translated efficiently & equitably at

layout level.

To understand the functioning of the objectives of equity & efficiency in terms of allocation on

ground, a comparison of the observations from the case studies & the empirical analysis was

done with the objectives as envisaged by the DD Act for the Zonal Development Plan. This can

be referred in table 10.2.

It helped to identify the missing links that need to be fulfilled at the various levels in the

hierarchy of plans. It was found that for all the aspects studied, there is a need for more

detailing of the policies & development controls in the ZDP. It was also observed that in both

the residential & commercial aspects there is a backlog of implementation & lack of monitoring

that has led to inequitable distribution of housing topologies & inadequacy of planned

commercial spaces. Moreover the faulty disposal policy is also leading to uncontrolled land

market conditions & speculation. The foremost solution is to monitor & revise the plan

periodically as per the ground conditions. Also the inequitable distribution of the planned

residential & commercial spaces needs to be looked at on the priority basis which has to be

fulfilled in the Zonal Plans yet to come.



OBJECTIVES OF PLANNING 1) EQUITY BETWEEN : 2) EFFICIENCY

*USES*USERS

SYSTEMS APPROACH TO PLANNING

(HIERARCHY OF PLANS)

MASTER PLAN FOR DELHI POLICY DOCUMENT

(overall framework)

ZONAL DEVELOPMENT PLANSDETAILING OF THE ABOVE POLICIES

LAYOUT PLANSDETAIL PROJECT

REPORT

POLICY FRAMEWORK

(planning provision on various issues

of urban development)

ALLOCATION OF USES

( broad allocation of use )

DEVELOPMENT CODE

(to control urban development and

materialize policy provisions )

MONITORING

(to regulate development and give

feedback to plan preparation /review )

STATUTORY FRAMEWORK FOR PLANNING IN DELHI (UNDER DDA ACT 1957)

POLICY FRAMEWORK

(planning provision on various issues

of urban development)

ALLOCATION OF USES

( More detailed, allocation of use )

DEVELOPMENT & BUILDING CODE

(to control urban development and

materialize policy provisions )

MONITORING TARGETS

(to regulate development and give

feedback to plan preparation /review )

Figure11. 1: Concept of Zonal Development Plan



Table 11.1:Relationship between various hierarchy of plan

MASTER PLAN ZONAL PLAN SUB ZONAL PLAN

POLICIES DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS

MONITORING POLICIES/PROVISIONS

PROVISIONSDEVELOPMENT CONTROLS

MONITORING DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS

MONITORING

PO

LIC

Y F

RA

ME

WO

RK

AL

LO

CA

TIO

N

Allocation of land under various use zones

Distribution of land under 37 use zones (2001)

further distribution of use zones under 136 use premise (2001)

Broad allocation to serve as basic pattern of framwork for ZDP

Allocation of more detailed landuse under various use zones

Detailed layout showing position and alignmnt of buildings and various activities.

As per the development controls of MPD or building bye-laws

Densities should be rationalised

MPD identified the area of high and low densities(gross).

It gives a range for various type of housing typologies.

Gross densities at MPD is converted into net densities at sub zone level.

Same as Master Plan policies

Net residential densities at layout level is distributed

As per the development controls of MPD or building bye-laws

Housing should relate to affordability and intergation

Housing type vs % of housing

Urban hierarchy

Development codes for ranges in plot sizes & far etc.

Intergation at community level

Condition & restriction for types of housing

As per Master Plan polices

Housing tragets at zonal level should be incorporated

Cross sub-sidization

Development of areas as conservation,rehabilitation & redevelopment

Mixed landusepolicy (as per modification of 7 sept.)

As per the Development controls of mpd or building bye-laws

Identifiaction of areas as conservation,rehabilitation & redevelopment

Spl. area regulation

Guidelines to preparation of urban renewal schemes

Identification of mixed landuse(categorisation)

Mixed landuse regulations

List of protected monuments

Conditions for permitting of mixed landuse

As per the regulations of MPD or conditions at ZDP

Conservation & renewal schemes (area specific)

As per the regulations of MPD or conditions at ZDP

Condition and restrictions specified

Status of these areas in zone

Win-shield survey & landuse survey after 5 years.

To be monitored as a demographic change after 5 years

Period of monitoring 1 year.household of different types(with socio-economiccharacteristics of slums and squatters.

Period of monitoring to be 1 year.

To be covered under landuse surveys

as per MPD

as per MPD

as per MPD

as per MPD

As per MPD

as per MPD

as per MPD

as per MPD

As per MPD

As per MPD



ALLOCATION

POLICY PROVISION

DEVELPOMENT CONTROLS

MONITORING

ENVISAGED BY Z.D.P. (As per DD ACT)

OBSERVATIONS (Through case studies)

MISSING LINKS CAUSES & RECOMMENDATIONS

MPD ZDP

Equitable Allocation of Landuses.Defining of Use Zones - 136.

Equity across uses & users has not been maintained.* Uses - Mixed Landuse & Malls* Users - Arjun Camp

Allocation of uses & users was not detailed uptil premise level.Lack of Monitoring Need of review of Z.D.P. at frequent intervals.

A comprehensive Net Density disribution to maintain Plan characterBuilding Density specified.

Uneven distribution of densities. Population of Urban Villages not considered.Integration of Urban Villages required.

Integration at Community level.

Mix of Housing Typologies defined & restricted.

Restrictive Mixed Use provisions* Streets identified* Categorisation of Mixed use.

Informal Sector to be protected. Numbers to be specified at locations.

Urban Renewal / Redensification

Upgradation / Resettlement

Civic SurveyTimely ReviewRevision of Plan as per ground conditions observed in survey.

Further distribution of Use Zones.

Housing* Detailed Housing Typology * Building Densities* Implementation of Community Module.

Mixed Use* Planning & Dvelopmet Controls as per the local conditions of the specified streets.

Ghettoization of Low Income areas.

Unequitable distribution of Housing Typologies.

Non Residential Activities in Residential Premise.Problems of Parking & Infrastructure

Not operationalized on ground

Not visible on ground.

Not operationalized efficiently:* Arjun Camp case.

No Monitoring data available.No revision of ZDP

Lack of specifications in the ZDPresulting in guesstimations at scheme or sub-zonal level.Housing* Unequitable & ineffeicient distribution of housing stock over various income groups.* Backlog of housing still left to be implemented.

Mixed Use*Development Controls as by Notifications of 7th Sep & 15 Seprelaxed beyond requirements.

Lack of Implementation.Targets toward integration of Urban Villages with Planned Development still to be achieved.

Modifications not based on survey but perception.

Discrepancy between proposal & implementation.Need of review of Z.D.P. at frequent intervals.Framework & Phasing for upgradation of deteriorated areas required at MPD level.

Lack of Monitoring data & review of targets.

Integration of Urban Villages required.

Lack of Monitoring data & review of targets.Revision of Plan required as per ground conditions.

Lack of Monitoring & Housing Targets

Implementation backlogs.

Integration of Urban Villages required.

Facilitation of High Income Housing over LIG & EWS housing.

Lack of Monitoring & Housing Targets

Implementation backlogs.

Facilitation of High Income Housing over LIG & EWS housing.Discrepancy between proposal & implementation.

Z.D.P does not specify anything on Market growth & strategy to cater it.Erroneous Disposal Policy for Planned segregated commercial areas.Targets of Commercial areas to be achieved on a priority basis.

To be worked out at time of preparation of scheme.Lack of Implementation.

To be worked out at time of preparation of scheme.


Detailing missing at Zonal & Scheme level.

To be worked out at time of preparation of scheme.Lack of Implementation.


Lack of Implementation.

Delineation of Community required.Housing Targets & implementation backlogs to be monitored & plan to be reviewed periodically at ZDP & MPD level.



Erroneous Disposal Policy for Planned segregated commercial areas.Targets of Commercial areas to be achieved on a priority basis.Provisions for Informal Sector.Regulation of property market to control speculation.Identification of Mixed use areas to be done on the basis of Holding Capacity.

Integration to be made Mandatory Provision at MPD level.

Discrepancy between proposal & implementation.

Table 10.2: Operationalization of the objectives of equity & efficiency

area planning zone-f, delhi · media‘s view on mixed use news track was done for different...

Documents