national workshop on town planning parameters for housing the
TRANSCRIPT
Facilitated by
National Resource Centre on Urban PovertySchool of Planning & Architecture, New Delhi4, Block -B, Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi
Tele-fax: 011
Workshop Proceedings
“Town Planning Parameters for
February 14
Ministry of Housing & Urban
National Resource Centre on Urban PovertySchool of Planning & Architecture, New Delhi
B, Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi – 110002
fax: 011-23725516, email: [email protected]
Workshop Proceedings
National Workshop
on
Town Planning Parameters forthe Urban Poor
February 14th, 2011, Bhopal
Organized by
Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation
Government of India
National Resource Centre on Urban Poverty School of Planning & Architecture, New Delhi
110002
Town Planning Parameters for Housing Urban Poor”
Poverty Alleviation
Workshop
“Town Planning Parameters for Housing the
Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation
School of Planning & Architecture, New Delhi
Workshop Proceedings
National Workshop
on
“Town Planning Parameters for Housing the
Urban Poor”
February 14th, 2011
Organized by
Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation
Government of India
Facilitated by
National Resource Centre
School of Planning & Architecture, New Delhi
“Town Planning Parameters for Housing the
Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation
School of Planning & Architecture, New Delhi
Proceedings of the National Workshop
Town Planning Parameters for Housing the
Hotel Lake View Ashok, Bhopal
Prepared by
National Resource Centre (of Ministry of Housing
Prof. Dr. Neelima Risbud
Co-ordinator, NRC & Professor Housing,
Dipti Parashar
Senior Urban Planner, NRC
Rupali Malhari
Project Associate,
Jyoti Dash
Urban Planner, NRC
School of Planning & Architecture
4, Block -B, Indraprastha Estate
New Delhi – 110002
Tele-fax: 011-23725516
Web: www.spa.ac.in
email: [email protected]
Proceedings of the National Workshop
Town Planning Parameters for Housing the Urban Poor
14th February, 2011
Hotel Lake View Ashok, Bhopal
National Resource Centre f Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, Govt.
Prof. Dr. Neelima Risbud
ordinator, NRC & Professor Housing, SPA
Dipti Parashar
Senior Urban Planner, NRC
Rupali Malhari
Project Associate, NRC
Urban Planner, NRC
School of Planning & Architecture
raprastha Estate
110002
23725516
www.spa.ac.in
email: [email protected]
Proceedings of the National Workshop on
Urban Poor
nd Urban Poverty Alleviation, Govt. of India)
Table of Contents
Inaugural Session .................................................................................................................... 1
Welcome Note: Prof. Dr. Neelima Risbud, Co-ordinator, National Resource Centre, School of
Planning and Architecture. ...................................................................................................... 1
Welcome Address: Prof. A. K. Sharma, Director, School of Planning and Architecture. .......... 1
Opening Remarks: Smt. Aruna Sundararajan, Joint Secretary (RAY), MoHUPA, Government
of India. .................................................................................................................................. 2
Introduction to the Workshop: Prof. Neelima Risbud, Co-ordinator - National Resource
Centre, School of Planning and Architecture. ......................................................................... 3
Address: Shri S.P.S. Parihar, Principal Secretary, Urban Development, Govt. of Madhya
Pradesh. ................................................................................................................................. 3
Address: Shri Alok Shrivastava, Principal Secretary, Housing and Environment, Govt. of
Madhya Pradesh. ................................................................................................................... 4
Key Note Address: Smt. Kiran Dhingra, Secretary, MoHUPA, Government of India. .............. 5
Address: Shri. Babulal Gaur, Urban Development Minister, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh. .......... 6
Vote of thanks: Deepti Gaur Mukerjee, Director, RAY, MoHUPA, Government of India. ......... 6
Technical session .................................................................................................................... 7
Presentation of State level case studies, Cost reduction by regulation and guidelines: By Prof.
Dr. Neelima Risbud, Co-ordinator, National Resource Centre, School of Planning and
Architecture. ........................................................................................................................... 7
Presentation: Market perception and financial feasibility of planning norms for low income
housing/ slum rehabilitation through PPP: By Mr. Shiv Prasad Singh, Director Embark. ......... 9
Presentation on Cost reduction Options through Regulations: By Prof. Dr. Neelima Risbud,
Co-ordinator, National Resource Centre, School of Planning and Architecture. .....................10
Questions and Open Discussion: ...........................................................................................12
Closing Session: .....................................................................................................................13
Group Discussion: .................................................................................................................13
Vote of Thanks: Prof. Kavas Kapadia, Dean of Studies, School of Planning and Architecture.
..............................................................................................................................................16
i
Glimpses of the Workshop...........
Prof. Dr. Neelima Risbud delivering the
Introduction to Workshop Prof. A. K. Sharma delivering the Welcome
Address
Shri S. P. S. Parihar, Principal Secretary,
Urban Development, Govt. of MP delivering
the Inaugural Address
Smt. Aruna Sundararajan, Joint Secretary
(RAY), MoHUPA, GoI. delivering the
Opening Remarks
Ms Kiran Dhingra, Secretary, MoHUPA inaugurating the Workshop & lighting the lamp with
Smt. Aruna Sundararajan, Joint Secretary, MoHUPA, Shri Alok Shrivastava, Principal
Secretary, Housing and Environment, GoMP, Prof. A. K. Sharma, Director, SPA.
ii
Ms Kiran Dhingra, Secretary, MoHUPA
welcoming Shri. Babulal Gaur, Urban
Development Minister, Govt. of MP
Shri Babulal Gaur, Urban Development
Minister, Govt. of MP, addressing the
Workshop
Prof. Dr. Neelima Risbud sharing the State
Level Case Studies
Mr. Shiv Prasad Shingh sharing the
Financial Feasibility Study of Four Cities
Participants sharing their view at the Inaugural Session
iii
Participants sharing their views at the Technical Session
iv
Participants sharing their views at Tea Break
Working Group Drafting the Recommendations through Group Discussions
1
Inaugural Session
Welcome Note: Prof. Dr. Neelima Risbud, Co-ordinator, National Resource Centre,
School of Planning and Architecture.
At the outset, Prof. Dr. Neelima Risbud welcomed the chair and other distinguished guests at
the National Workshop on “Town Planning Parameters for Housing the Urban Poor”.
With this note she invited the organizers to felicitate the chairperson, Ms. Kiran Dhingra,
Secretary, MoHUPA, Smt. Aruna Sundararajan, Joint Secretary (RAY), MoHUPA, Smt Deepti
Gaur Mukerjee, Director, RAY, MoHUPA, Shri SPS Parihar, Principal Secretary (UAD Housing),
Govt. of Madhya Pradesh, Mr. Alok Shrivastava, Principal Secretary Housing and Environment,
Govt. of Madhya Pradesh, Prof. A. K. Sharma, Director, SPA, New Delhi.
Prof. Dr. Neelima Risbud then invited the Secretary, MoHUPA to light the lamp and formally
inaugurate the Workshop.
Welcome Address: Prof. A. K. Sharma, Director, School of Planning and
Architecture.
At the outset Prof. A. K. Sharma extended a warm welcome to Ms. Kiran Dhingra, Secretary,
MoHUPA, Smt. Aruna Sundararajan, Joint Secretary (RAY), MoHUPA, Smt Deepti Gaur
Mukerjee, Director, RAY, MoHUPA, Shri SPS Parihar, Principal Secretary (UAD Housing), Govt.
of Madhya Pradesh, Mr. Alok Shrivastava, Principal Secretary Housing and Environment, Govt.
of Madhya Pradesh, Heads of Town Planning Departments from States and UTs, urban
planners, academicians and the officials at the inaugural session of the National Workshop on
“Town Planning Parameters for Housing the Urban Poor”.
He further highlighted the need to review the town planning parameters which control the
development process so as to stop the growth of unorganized, uncalled and substandard
development. He stressed the need to build in flexibility so as to accommodate large mass of
urban poor.
The Director also added that School of Planning and Architecture can act as a platform to
accumulate, compile, assimilate and disseminate the information regarding “Town Planning
Parameters for Housing the Urban Poor” so as to speed up the massive Programme of RAY. He
emphasized that the workshop was organized to share experiences and views and build them in
to a systematic frame work for developing town planning parameters for housing the urban poor.
He added that reforms and changes shall be very useful in the process.
In the end Prof. A. K. Sharma once again welcomed the distinguished guests and participants
and wished the workshop great success.
2
Opening Remarks: Smt. Aruna Sundararajan, Joint Secretary (RAY), MoHUPA,
Government of India.
The Jt. Secretary began by stating that RAY has been a very ambitious project building on the
groundwork already initiated by the JnNURM looking to deepen the reforms and to bring about a
radical change in the urban planning paradigm. RAY has four integrated components founded
on the background of property rights along with provision of a decent dwelling space to the
urban poor, basic infrastructure services and integrated livelihoods. This, she emphasized
would not be an easy programme to implement as it would require various elements to come
together and make it workable. There would need to be a radical rethink on the entire planning
approaches and strategies that we have.
The Master plans in recent times she reflected have become sophisticated and deeper
documents but on the other hand there are large urban pockets outside the paradigm of
planning and these slum pockets are deprived of most and basic planning norms which have
happened over the last few decades. There is a growing body which is dealing with these issues
and attempting to solve these challenges at the grassroot level. In the initial years most of the
responses to try and address these pockets have been adhoc fragmented but over time a
certain degree of standardization has been attempted. We need to draw out some of the
challenges and the common element and come out with a set of recommendations which will be
fed into the RAY programme.
She reiterated Prof A.K. Sharma’s view that planning is no longer a luxury that it used to be.
Land is scarce and the pace of development in recent times is phonetic. Planners now need to
build cities not change cities.
The pace of change is dynamic and over time various standards have been framed for the same
within the Master plans. The School of Planning and Architecture has looked at a cross
sectional representation across states to draw out challenges and suggest recommendations.
She iterated that there needs to be a primary change in approach wherein planning and
implementation come together. She stressed that the pace of change is dynamic and therefore
poses a lot of challenges. She referred to Delhi’s Master plan example which now exhibits
internal inconsistencies with little matching on the ground and poses serious problems. Thus the
nature of planning and quality needs to be radically different.
The big issue, she acknowledged, is, how to have a cohesive and harmonious development and
organize living dynamics since resources and land are scarce. She stated that whenever there
have been plans’ coming under IHSDP, the quality of planning has left much to be desired.
Though emphasis is laid over meeting the engineering standards, it is a very mechanical
requirement. What is important is that living dynamic spaces are organized which is not
apparent. She emphasized that planning today needs to be integrated with the social fabric and
address their issues. Nature of planning has to be different and to enhance livelihood, cultural
lifestyles, etc.
3
Through these workshops she hoped to see a much better, radically reoriented planning
approach and strategy. She focused that the workshop is a “continuing work in progress” to look
forward to a set of recommendations through a fruitful set of deliberations.
Introduction to the Workshop: Prof. Neelima Risbud, Co-ordinator - National
Resource Centre, School of Planning and Architecture.
Prof. Dr. Neelima Risbud began by saying that it is a workshop with a difference as it is not only
a theoretical research but it is an action research which to go as input in to the Programme of
RAY. She added that the research aimed at integrating urban poor into the town planning main
stream which is a giant step towards inclusive planning.
Speaking further on the study she outlined that the study included the detailed documentation of
six cities and also the financial feasibility study of planning norms for low income housing/ slum
up gradation through Public Private Partnership for four cities. She introduced the resource
person form various states – Shri Shashank Mahagaokar, Ms. Banashree Bannerjee and Ms.
Uma Adusumilli. She also introduced Mr. Shiv Prasad Singh who had helped in conducting the
feasibility study of planning norms for low income housing/ slum up gradation through PPP for
four cities.
While summarizing and concluding Prof. Dr. Neelima Risbud thanked the distinguished guests
for giving a platform for having an interactive discussion on the study with the decision makers,
heads of town planning departments from States and UTs, urban planners and academicians
and other officials.
Address: Shri S.P.S. Parihar, Principal Secretary, Urban Development, Govt. of
Madhya Pradesh.
The principal secretary first welcomed the secretary and stated that Madhya Pradesh was
seriously looking at the findings by the School of Planning and Architecture. He further stated
that the workshop was timely as Madhya Pradesh was under implementation of the programme
and is currently in the process of working the unit sizes and defining size and cost of housing for
urban poor and stressed that the workshop under RAY could help address these issues. He
complimented the School for their study and reiterated the issues of the urban poor housing like
policy issues, land tenure issues, norms for development of unauthorised colonies, incentives to
private developers to be able to provide land to the urban poor, introduction of shelter fee, etc.
He further stated that options of shelter provision versus reservation of land need to be
evaluated, if necessary through a particular subcommittee.
He stressed that there are many critical issues which need immediate attention:
• The interest of the developer which needs to be balanced.
• The masterplan provisions which prohibit regularization of existing landuse.
• Institutional framework which needs to be reviewed and studied through existing models.
• The issue of land ownership in urban areas.
4
• Evaluation of reservation of land or provision of shelter away from current location.
In addition, within Madhya Pradesh in recent times efforts have been made in terms of practices
like abolishing stamp duty for registration of land. However, obtaining loans for construction of
houses, banking and lending problems currently are not encouraging which will have to be
looked at.
He further stated that there still exist issues in regularization. Relocating remains a big issue
while there are no clear norms for upgrading facilities in slums. There are challenges in terms of
financing and affordability/pricing of units for urban poor.
He stated that currently, the Town and Country Planning which is involved in preparation of
Zonal Plans should rightly mark the current slums and the same to be followed for upgradation.
The focus needs to be on increasing the units within urban areas by also considering the
requirements of the future. Capacity building issues of the Urban Local bodies need to be
addressed to take the programme toward effective implementation.
Address: Shri Alok Shrivastava, Principal Secretary, Housing and Environment,
Govt. of Madhya Pradesh.
The Principle secretary cited that RAY is one of the few initiatives of the Government of India
wherein the preparatory phase has been introduced at a large scale which would go towards
input of the programme and implementation of the same.
One important aspect he cited is the cost of the land that is required for housing the urban poor
being projected at 10-15 thousand crores for the next 15 years with 1000-1500 Cr investment
per year in terms of real estate. A major concern, he stated was to recover this cost of land. He
reflected that, urban local bodies have little land and that too is used for facilities, etc. Further
the cost of infrastructure increases with increase of density and funding pattern gets skewed.
He pointed that development of slums in the last 5 years has been in situ development but at
the same time we have to ensure through policy mechanism, to offer disincentives to slum
dwellers to site on important/valuable government land. Though Madhya Pradesh is a fore
runner in giving pattas to urban poor, it is important to think as to how we can recover costs of
such nature. Therefore he stated that there is a need to bring in private sector in providing this
housing.
New options need to be evaluated for urban infrastructure and housing through PPP, incentive
Floor Space Index etc. He cited an example of Madhya Pradesh that reserves 25% of land for
the Economically Weaker Section. He stressed on the need to explore options like urban
housing fund to aid in acquisition of land as acquiring land is a very difficult task. He further
stated that peripheral urban land was occupied by people with tremendous political influence
and obtaining this land is difficult. He stated that it is imperative to address practical issues from
5
the field and managing planning parameters for better implementation which could be
deliberated upon in the workshop.
He expressed his happiness over the conduction of the workshop which would help in marrying
planning with implementation of the programme and was hopeful that once the scheme is rolled
out, it would result in much better implementation.
The principle secretary further complimented the states which are doing substantial work in
providing housing for poor and thanked all those who came to participate in the workshop.
Key Note Address: Smt. Kiran Dhingra, Secretary, MoHUPA, Government of India.
The secretary at the outset thanked the host and the hospitality extended. She specifically
thanked the School of Planning and Architecture for the manner in which it took up the
challenges and spared time in looking at the same and studying the problem and trying to solve
challenges faced by the programme. She shared the problems that we are particularly facing
and point at the direction of solution for the same which she stated needs to be worked out
together. She stated that we tend to look at problems in the confines of a project rather than as
policies and plans, the reaction to the stimuli which then manifests into a programme. In doing
so, we do not look at the larger picture without which the programmes are bound to fail.
She elaborated that the concept of master planning initially began off by creating garden cities
and through borrowed Master plans. We failed to look at our own examples of building tighter
communities like the Mughals did. We have taken up master plan process and we have stuck to
it for decades wherein now there is a huge shortage of everything.
At the policy level too, she stated that, there has been a massive neglect as all the programmes
were focused at rural areas and rural development as the urban areas turned into schools of
chaos.
The urban areas are exploited with little political will to set things right. This is further aggravated
by the urban mafia and nexus of power play with high levels of politics in urban land. The urban
areas finally woke with economic growth and the cycle of urban growth intensified.
The introduction of Ray brings forth the new thought that the growth of the country has to
include the mass of people (LIG, EWS) as they too need a share in the democratic system
which is best done by assigning them the property rights. This is required to ensure that the
urban lands are not limited only to the rich.
While talking about the planning process, she stated that the process is neither relevant nor
sufficient. It is in this light that School of Planning and Architecture had been asked to compare
with what really happens on ground. This would help identify issues and tackle the same.
6
New feasible alternatives need to be sought and action needs to be taken on the same. There is
need to find spaces for them as these are seldom available. Choices need to be taken between
intensive use and greater sprawl.
She iterated that land issues need to be tackled as obtaining land is tied with legal hassles as
per the current land acquisition Act. Approaches of land acquisition models in states like Gujarat
and by Vijaywada through town planning schemes need to be introduced for acquisition which
do not displace people, do not get into legal hassles and people are part of the planning and
development process.
The secretary stressed that policies framed should not be hoping for an ideal arrangement to fall
in place and the cynicism of the Town Planning resource is done away. She emphasized that
the workshop would be the platform to debate and discuss with intensive and quick decisions as
there is urgent need to begin actively on the programme. There is little time as the policy
solution should not be ultimately late. She requested all to set aside the cynicism and put forth
the best foot forward. She warned that if the urban poor as left or neglected further within our
urban areas, the process of economic growth would retard. She expressed her wish for
partnerships in making urgent and responsive suggestions.
Address: Shri. Babulal Gaur, Urban Development Minister, Govt. of Madhya
Pradesh.
The Urban Development minister of Madhya Pradesh, Shri. Babulal Gaur, graced the occasion
through his unexpected visit. As he addressed the participants, he invited all to the beautiful
lake city and welcomed all to visit its historic and serene places.
Speaking further on the workshop, he stressed that the rural areas are source of immense
employment whilst the cities are the areas of opportunities. Hence there is a need to provide
and earmark for this informal sector within our cities without which they cannot function. He
further emphasized that RAY would go a long way in ensuring the fundamental right to the
people, one of property.
Vote of thanks: Deepti Gaur Mukerjee, Director, RAY, MoHUPA, Government of
India.
The Director highlighted the need to have such national level conferences in a small time place
like Bhopal so that even the smaller cities are participating and aware of the programmes
happening at the National level.
The Director thanked the dignitaries, organisers and the participants of the workshop and
encouraged all to actively participate and give concrete recommendations which can be fed into
the programme of RAY. She was hopeful that the participants would participate, share and learn
from each other’s experiences and provide fruitful inputs to the programme of RAY.
7
Technical session
The session was chaired by Secretary MoHUPA, Joint secretary (RAY) and Director (RAY), and
moderated by Prof. Kavas Kapadia, Shri S.K. Kulshreshta.
Presentation of State level case studies, Cost reduction by regulation and
guidelines: By Prof. Dr. Neelima Risbud, Co-ordinator, National Resource Centre,
School of Planning and Architecture.
Prof. Dr. Neelima Risbud presented the existing situation of the Town planning parameters for
housing the urban poor. She discussed the changing context and the varying urbanisation
patters across various states.
• Scenario for the following was discussed across 6 states.
• Urbanization & Growth of Slums
• Institutional & Governance framework
• Plan Preparation & Implementation - Issues
• Modes of Land Supply
Various issues on Land Sub Division Regulations discussed were as follows:
• Development control regulations are not always part of Master Plans but have stronger
influence on residential development especially of the poor.
• Many regulations are old and were framed without affordability considerations.
Regulations are prescribed considering plotted form of low rise development
• Regulations were more focused on new greenfield developments than on the
redevelopment. There are hardly any regulations for redevelopment. Since
redevelopment is expected on private properties, financial viability is important but was
not considered.
• The enforcement of regulations is weak and further eroded by massive growth of illegal
land subdivisions in all cities without exception.
• All states have policy of regularizing illegal land subdivision either through Act or through
administrative policy. This has made planning exercise irrelevant. Unauthorised
colonisation is becoming an organised activity.
• Real estate developments outside the municipal limits- lands purchased for SEZ,
industrial parks, technology cities, townships, IT & ITeS has led to suburbanization &
growth of ‘city regions’.
Issues emerged in the development control regulations provided in various states are:
� Minimum Plot/DU Size
• The minimum plot-size standards affect housing costs. The common problem is high
subdivision standards for layouts which results in high standards for minimum plot sizes.
In the context of high land prices, this becomes unaffordable.
8
• The minimum plot sizes prescribed in the Master plan are high, and need based on
sociological concerns; they became unaffordable to EWS & result in growth of informal
housing.
• Dwelling sizes in existing slums range from 10 sq.m. to 25 sq.m. across areas selected
for case studies.
• Due to affordability considerations, plot sizes/DU sizes special projects for EWS are
much less than that prescribed in various Master Plan. BSUP guidelines of Central Govt.
proposes minimum dwelling size of 25 sq.m.
� Density
• Infrastructure required based on proposed densities of Master Plans resulting in under
estimation of infrastructure needs.
• Intensive land use was discouraged by imposing unrealistically low densities (sometimes
lower than the existing densities).
• Plot sizes/Dwelling sizes and residential density is inversely co-related. Higher densities
when adequately supported by facilities and infrastructure and proper circulation do not
result in ‘congestion’ nor reduces quality of life.
• As land prices increase, low residential densities reduce the number of houses available
in a given area of land, generating unaffordable plot sizes thereby pushing up property
prices. Conversely reduction in the plot size Increases gross residential density.
• High intensity development reduces spread, reducing consumption of land by
accommodating more people and reducing average land component /household and
commuting trips leading to lower fuel consumption and lower emissions. Affordable
plot/dwellings for urban poor requires high densities
• Residential densities in housing projects for urban poor under state sponsored
programmes/ JnNURM is several times higher than the Master Plan prescription.
� Floor Area Ratio
• Floor Space Index values in India are different from major cities around the world. The
FSI values are very low, not differentiated between commercial and residential, uniform
over very large areas, Not reflecting difference in accessibility around train stations, not
linked to land market values.
• The FSI is as low as 1 as compared to 12 in New York and 17 in Shanghai. Urban
planning in India has preferred low densities for greener, low rise cities. This has either
led to sprawls or even worse, informal densification without the supporting infrastructure.
• In India, the legal floor space index (FSI) in many cities is very low which prohibits
people from building high rise buildings
• In small cities, the prescription of set-backs & building heights govern the built up area.
FSI prescription in Mumbai has been lower (1.00) than the existing consumed in
subsequent development plans. First consideration for lower FSI was the prevailing
carrying capacity of water, transportation and communication, the second consideration
9
for lower FSI was to limit the population size of the city. Despite this, the city kept
growing.
• Extraordinarily low FSI in Mumbai & other Indian cities has led to an artificial increase in
rents/ sq. ft. & land prices which has unfavorably impacted the urban poor.
� Community facilities and open spaces
• Master plans have no special standards for low income. The standards are not related to
population but are prescribed as % of area.
• Most Master Plans presumed strong public sector role and acquisition of land for
provision of social facilities, open spaces and roads by the urban local body
(Maharashtra, Tamilnadu). However, enough funds are not available with the local body
to acquire the land. Hence many facilities do not get provided.
Presentation: Market perception and financial feasibility of planning norms for
low income housing/ slum rehabilitation through PPP: By Mr. Shiv Prasad Singh,
Director Embark.
Mr Shiv Prasad Singh presented a case study of four cities from market perspective of EWS
housing i.e. Mumbai, Indore, Jhansi and Raipur. He explained there is a need for a market
approach as RAY targets are ambitious and without private sector participation it is difficult to
achieve.
Private sector will not be attracted towards EWS housing unless there are attractive profits in
business, there exists over supply situation in middle class housing. There are poor margins in
low income housing business. There exists a capacity surplus in construction industry along
with a policy which binds private sector to build EWS housing. There is focused credit
mechanism for urban poor for housing and EWS housing is an ‘a political’ affair.
He proposed a planning framework for EWS Housing i.e.
• An appropriate FSI, Ground Coverage & Density norms to substantially reduce
government’s Viability Gap Funding requirements for new EWS housing projects.
• Cost of land as another important determinant in reducing VGF, that which can only be
controlled through early acquisition by government or private parties.
• EWS housing and other housing projects must have separate Development Control
Regulation in cities.
• A uniform high FSI regime is not necessarily useful in reducing VGF.
• VGF can be in form of cash or development rights in other housing pockets to developer.
• Commercial component may be increased for EWS housing for cross subsidy reasons.
• Approval process of new housing projects in city must ensure housing stock creation for
EWS rather than collection of land.
10
Presentation on Cost reduction Options through Regulations: By Prof. Dr.
Neelima Risbud, Co-ordinator, National Resource Centre, School of Planning and
Architecture.
Post lunch, Prof. Dr. Neelima Risbud presented cost reductions options through Regulations.
Various options identified for reducing the cost of the dwelling unit were –
� Option I – Reducing Plot size/DU Size
Cost of a dwelling unit can be reduced by reducing the plot size. This is because; the plot size is
governed by various factors such as land availability and land prices.
Most of the master plans do no prescribe minimum size of the dwelling unit. It has been
observed that the plot size mentioned in the masters plans have either been too large or being
very less i.e.12sq.mt. in camping sites in Delhi. In Delhi, 80 sq. yard plots were allotted to
Jhuggie Jhompri Cluster households for resettlement. The size of the plot was reduced to 40 sq.
meter and further reduced to 25 sq. meter.
OPTION I OPTION II OPTION III OPTION IV
Accommodation
Bare minimum standard for dwelling size
(Sq.mt.)
Minimum standard for dwelling size
(Sq.mt.)
Desirable standard for dwelling size
(Sq.mt.)
For high rise development
(Sq.mt.)
Habitable Room 12.5 15.5 12.5 12.5
Second Room - - 7 9
Cooking Space 2.4 2.4 3.3 3.3
Bath - 1.2 1.2 1.2
W.C. - 0.9 0.9 0.9 Minimum Carpet Area
14.9 i.e. 15sq.mt
20 25 30
Plinth Area 20 25
Comparison of different type of development was done that Group housing till 8 stories is being
accepted by the urban poor in Mumbai. In Mumbai, general development for the EWS goes till 7
to 8 stories. The people’s perspective is changing as they are accepting to the urban houses.
The second generation migrants are working in urban sector and are happy to live on higher
floors. Higher the floor, higher is the market price of dwelling. Also there is less pollution on the
11
higher floors and more security. People are also happy to incur cost in maintenance as they
have secure tenure and a precious asset.
� Option II – Increase in Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Increase in FAR is considered to be one of the ways to reduce cost and make housing
affordable for low income households.
Land Market and land prices are dynamic and change with city, location and with time.
Therefore there is an optimum FAR at a given location in a city. The higher the price of land,
higher is the FAR consumption potential. The FAR norms prescribed in the DCR generally
provide a fixed FAR for all locations in the city and freezes it for next twenty years.
When FAR is high, land consumption per person reduces with reduction of land cost per
household. In a few cities, Govt. has been giving incentive FAR for slum redevelopment to
reduce land cost/tenement and make housing affordable. However, the consumption of higher
FAR is governed by the selling cost of dwelling and returns thereon. Developers may find it
difficult to utilise higher FAR when cost of construction increased with higher stories making
projects unviable at certain locations (eg. Mumbai)
� Option III - Increasing residential saleable area and reduction of facilities
Generally net residential area constitute 40% -60% of the total gross residential area. While
schools are priced generally to recover the costs, shops are disposed off at profit, but the land
under open space and circulation are totally non remunerative and their cost is borne by
residential land/floor space. Although provision of open space has amenity value, but increasing
the area under open spaces /circulation results in increasing the cost of residential land.
Standards for open spaces and facilities are quite generous in most Master Plans (e.g. 7.02 sq.
m. /person in Delhi Master Plan 2021. These standards are drastically reduced in MPD 2021 for
slum rehabilitation/relocation / in-situ slum up-gradation projects 0.46 sq. m. /person by
eliminating parks/playgrounds and prescribing only tot lots. In case of SRA schemes of Mumbai
the standard is further reduced to 0.18 sq. m. /person by eliminating provision of open spaces,
Play grounds/parks altogether.
Facilities such as Primary school, senior secondary school and open spaces are to be provided
on land, but facilities such as shops and community centre can be provided as a part of built up
residential area.
Range of facilities were proposed for the Urban poor
• Facilities @0.5sqmt per person
• Facilities @ 1 Sqmt. Per person
12
Maximum density is determined not by building heights but by the area of facilities provided per
capita. More density can only be achieved if the area under facilities is further reduced. This
would result in affecting the environment.
The area for facilities should depend on the number of persons living on that site – and cannot
be a fixed percentage (e.g., 15% stipulated in existing Municipal rules).
Questions and Open Discussion:
After the presentation by Mr. Shiv Prasad Singh, there was a round of question and answers
and a brief discussion on certain issues.
• One participant was of the view that at the cost of creating extra dwelling space, physical
planning should not be compromised. Mr. Anjum Perwez was of the opinion that Far
increase should be done wisely as if done only as piece-meal solution for slums without
considering the entire city level; it would result in the creation of vertical slums rather
than the current horizontal slums.
• Mr. Kulshestra reflected on the idea of according property rights as being very critical as
per provisions of Ray as property rights ensures that the poor too have access to the
markets. It is a good input to study whether giving property rights gives access to
market.
• Mr. ashish Upadhyay stated that certain basic norms should be finalized for
redevelopment for all. He further stated that the role of planners is crucial as land values
are increasing and there needs to be accountability and objectivity in appropriating the
same. He further argued that as long as there exists regularization of encroached and
unauthorised dwellings, provision of EWS housing would have poor response. He further
exhibited concern towards provision of such numbers of housing at low costs within
prime city lands stating that over a period of years, the same may be evaluated as a
scam for giving away prime lands at such low costs. Thus the programme must ensure
an inbuilt protection of the officers/departments which would handle implementation of
the projects.
• Another person expressed that unless the socio-economic fabric of the people being
housed is not considered, the efforts to make slum free cities would not be successful as
the people deprived of livelihoods, would move to other areas and create new slums.
• After a debate on unachievable densities and FAR as prescribed in the masterplans
today, Mr. Anjum, Perwez also reflected that though FAR and density are entirely
dependent variables, for the sake of the EWS, the number of variables should be
reduced to ensure quality in service and living conditions.
13
• Prof. Kavas Kapadia also stated that Density and FAR need not be confused because
both serve a different purpose though they are related. While FAR is concerned with
volume of built up, density is crucial for laying of infrastructure services.
Closing Session:
Post lunch, the entire assembly was divided into three working groups for discussions on pre-
specified topics to debate, resolve and give recommendations and suggestions on the same.
Group A: Development Options – Housing densities & FAR, for In Situ upgradation and new
development
Group B: Planning norms for urban poor – DU/Plot, facilities and open space standards
Group C: Land-use reservations and mixed use provisions, land policy
Group Discussion:
The deliberations of the group were then presented to all present in the closing session through
powerpoint presentations.
� Group A: Development Options - Housing Densities and FAR For In-situ Up
gradation and New Development
Chaired by Shri Laxmi Narianan & presented by Mr. Rajesh Rawal
The following observations were made regarding housing densities and FAR for in-situ up-
gradation and new development:
• In general FAR needs to be increased.
• FAR targeted during master plan period does not get implemented. If a project is not
built within a stipulated time FAR will keep plunging, so vacant land needs to be
controlled to prevent speculation.
• FAR has to be a function of water supply, provision of sewerage and drainage and
access. Facilities have to be provided in an integrated manner.
• Within the city there can be differential FAR. It has to be function of land price or there
would be unauthorised construction. FAR cannot be increased as per land value without
upgrading infrastructure.
• Spot FAR for different situations like slum, core city or high-rise. Density has to be
different for in-situ up-gradation and new development.
• In-situ development should take into consideration land cost. Location of in-situ site
should not be
� along all major road
� sensitive area
� area needed for public project
14
• Mixed land use should be allowed. Priority should be given to activites that enhanced
their economic activities.
• In new developments urban poor should be provided access to serviced land. There has
to be designated sites for EWS in new housing areas. Under PPP, the builder has to
build houses in lieu of certain percentage of reservation on its site.
• It was concluded that FAR and density are dynamic thus they should be changed
according to the circumstances keeping sustainable and inclusive growth in mind.
� Group B: Planning Norms for urban poor – DU/Plot size, facilities and open space
standards
Chaired & Presented by Prof. Kavas Kapadia
On the topics, following observations were made–
Plot or flat
• Plots are unaffordable,and with lifestyles changing a flat is imminent
• Min unit size standard can be categorized by size of household and by categorization of
sizes and practices of an urban area
• Shift towards tertiary sector of economy and employment – necessitates new capacities
– re-adoption – new trends to reduce migrants bringing in large households. Therefore,
mix of dormitories to single room studios to self-contained flats are appropriated
• 5 m cities could have multistoried, 0.5 to 5 m could have upto G+7 storeys, upto 0.5 m
could have sites & services to walk-ups
Facility Standards (excluding circulation)
• Overall rationalization of facility standards should happen first, both types and spatial
standard for all income groups
• Per capita based standards both for built and open spaces
• Recently rationalized norms in some parts of India may be studied for this purpose
• The figures mentioned in the presentation by SPA seemed acceptable for facilities
• Only those that require exclusive and those that are location-specific require space
standards (ground)
Open space standards
• Rationalization of standards for all income groups is required first.
• Per capita open spaces can be disaggregated into city, sub-city and neighborhood level
open spaces. Each can be rationalized in terms space, and then distinction between
green and non-green open spaces to be made. Green spaces must be developed and
offered.
• Size of open space should be such that it is usable.
15
Densities
• Amongst density and height of building, one should be variable
• Ground coverage is restrictive. Make it upto 50% subject to setbacks being as per codes
• High densities and lack of social amenities with tiny unit sizes can encourage bad social
behavior. Therefore implications must be studied.
Circulation
• Roads must not be less than 6 m wide.
Private sector participation in slum redevelopment
• Allow and facilitate PPP with appropriate conditions to allow choices, and to cover the
whole city
• Public intervention has to be there
• Pockets must be pooled in such a way that all the slums are covered
• Mixed income group housing must be encouraged
� Group C: Land Use Reservation and Mixed Land Use provisions, Land policy
Chaired by Shri S. Mahagaonkar & Presented by Smt. Banashree Banerjee
Intensive deliberations on the above topic brought about the following suggestions:
Reservation of Land: It is agreed that reservation of land for the poor is required.
The issue remains as to how to make it operational. The reservations could be at different
levels:
1. Land reservation in Project:
• National Policy for reservation of land is good in principle but needs to be evaluated
w.r.t. feasibility in different cities for ex. In Karnataka, up to 10% is acceptable and
feasible. In Rajasthan, UP & TN -15%.
• Reservation can be on the same plot/or within fixed radius. Several developers can join
together to reserve a pocket.
• In specific cases, developers may be asked to purchase land elsewhere (designated
areas)
2. Land Reservation In Master Plan:
• There should be reservation for EWS population in the MP based on present and future
projections.
• Zone existing slums to be developed in-situ as mixed use EWS Zone.
• For future EWS population and relocation, zone proportionate areas in MP zones along
with the plan/strategy for making this land available
• Explore other options for making land available for the poor
• unused/underutilised Govt land, rationalisation of development standards
• Land reservation for migrants and construction labour
16
Mixed Land use: In terms of mixed land use, it was felt that the same needs to be proposed
again at two different levels.
1. Mixed use for Project:
• Introduce commercial use for cross subsidisation
• Service areas/work centres of the workers could be integrated.
2. Mixed Land Use at Masterplan level
• All low income areas to be mixed use areas
• Only exclusive zoning for industry, service networks, environment and heritage
protection areas, wholesale commerce.
Land Policy: The discussion relating to land policy brought forth certain practical issues
pertaining to land acquisition and allotment. Some of the suggestions were
• Do not allot land, only property rights
• Urban area should have exclusive land policy and not be governed by rural land laws
• Urban land policy should look at regulation and promoting development actively and
preventing speculation
• Masterplan has to be backed by land policy
• Designate direction of growth and areas of development
• Alternatives to Land Acquisition; direct negotiations; joint development with landowner
• Transparent and simplified process
• Need for Land Information database
• Some Ideas with regard the above were:
• Bring back ULCRA/other methods of land redistribution
• Land Acquisition needs to be simplified.
• Redistribution of land.
• Vacant land/property taxation
• One family , one house
Vote of Thanks: Prof. Kavas Kapadia, Dean of Studies, School of Planning and
Architecture.
The Dean of studies Prof. Kavas Kapadia thanked the Jt. Secretary and Director for gracing the
workshop by their esteemed presence. He further thanked all the participants for actively
participating in the workshop and giving their valuable suggestions and recommendations. He
thanked Prof. Dr. Neelima Risbud and the team of NRC for facilitating and appropriately
organizing the workshop.
17
Annexure - I
Background Note on
National Workshop on Town Planning Parameters for Housing the Urban Poor
1. The Context
Regulatory frameworks have a significant impact on urban development in general and low
income settlements in particular. It includes legal instruments of zoning, land-use, plotted/flatted
development, space standards and infrastructure standards. Many states have developed
statues, policies/regulations to ensure more equitable and appropriate allocation of land for the
poor. However, a key issue at settlement level is the extent to which regulatory framework of
town planning reflects the needs, priorities, aspirations and affordability of low income
communities.
Most planning regulations do not prescribe norms for slum upgrading. As such, upgraded slums
do not confirm to planning regulations and do not get integrated into the urban planning system.
Significant part of planning norms had evolved out of colonial approaches.
It is in this context that the Government of India has launched, Rajiv Awas Yojana in the year
2009 envisaging tackling issues of inclusive growth and slum-free cities. It further proposes ‘in
situ’ development programmes with basic amenities and an enabling strategy for affordable
housing in the case of ‘tenable’ slums, with reconfiguration to the extent possible based on town
planning norms of the State/UT concerned. It emphasizes that States/UTs develop slum-free
State/UT/Cities vision and develop legal framework for regularizing space and accord property
rights to slum-dwellers as well as create space for the poor and new entrants to cities as they
grow.
The guidelines of RAY also prescribes that ‘It is important to ensure that these settlements
follow norms to ensure basics of public health, hygiene, safety, security and efficiency of orderly
development of sustainable habitat and achieve optimum use of land”.
2. Research Study on Town Planning Norms for Urban Poor
In the above context, the Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation has awarded a
research study to the National Resource Centre (NRC) established in the School of Planning
and Architecture, New Delhi. The study has precisely undertaken the comparative assessment
of “Town planning parameters for low income housing” in twelve cities of six states viz. Andhra
Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh Rajasthan, Tamilnadu and Uttar Pradesh. The details of
states/cities taken up for the case studies are as follows:-
18
Sl.
No.
States Geographical
Location
Level of
Urbanisation
Cities
1 Uttar Pradesh North 20.8% Lucknow Jhansi
2 Rajasthan West 23.4% Jaipur Alwar
3 Madhya
Pradesh
Central 26.5% Indore Sagar
4 Maharashtra South West 42.4% Mumbai Nanded
5 Karnataka South 34.0% Bangalore Tumkur
6 TamilNadu South 44.0% Chennai Erode
Note: No cities have been selected from Hilly areas/ North-Eastern States of India.
The present research is an academic effort to review & compare current planning regulations
(especially densities, F.A.R, Plot sizes) in selected cities & examines its appropriateness to
include low income affordable housing & regularized slum/ resettled slum in the broader context
of Rajiv Awas Yojna. The aims of the study are underlined as:
• Assessment of regulatory framework for providing housing to urban Poor.
• Undertake comparative review of current planning norms and development control regulations (i.e. residential densities, FAR, Plots sizes and use permissibility for mixed uses etc.) and their effectiveness for urban poor in selected cities/states.
• Examine appropriateness of present planning regulations for low income affordable housing and regularized slum/ resettled slums.
• Further it has also undertaken studies on financial feasibility of planning norms for low income housing/slums.
3. Purpose of the Workshop
The proposed workshop intends to share the outcome of the research study with the larger
group of technical experts in view of its applicability as a reference input for drafting guidelines
on “planning norms for slum free cities” in the context of Rajiv Awas Yojna. The outcomes of the
research flag vital issues w.r.t regulatory framework of town planning and norms for including
slums and their development in mainstream urban planning process to make cities slum free.
4. Intended Output of the Workshop
The workshop is proposed to provide inputs to the detailed guidelines being formulated by the
Ministry for Slum Free city planning under RAY. It will explore the issues connected to existing
town planning norms/parameters based on learning’s generated from case studies undertaken
by SPA in 6 states of the country. The issues of revising or reframing the town planning norms
for slum upgradation, redevelopment and relocation would be discussed in the light of RAY
19
guidelines and the studies undertaken by SPA. The master planning approach and
modifications needed therein to suit the urban poor would also be discussed in the workshop.
5. Proposed Participants
The key participants would be a combination of urban administrator, town planners, slum
clearance boards, urban local bodies of selected states and representatives of real estate
organization. The town planners working on these specific topics will be specially invited to
participate, share their state experiences and give comments /suggestions in the workshop after
the draft planning guidelines are circulated to the practitioners in advance. Civil Society partners
working on urban planning issues would also be encouraged to participate in the workshop. The
detailed schedule of the proposed workshop is provided on next page.
20
Annexure – II
Programme Schedule
Workshop on Town Planning Parameters for housing the urban Poor
14th February, 2011
Venue: Hotel Lake View Ashok, Shamla Hills, Bhopal (M.P.)
Session Topic Speakers/Moderators
9:00 – 9:30
am
Registration -
Inaugural Session:
9.30 – 9.40
am
Welcome Address Prof. A.K.Sharma
Director, School of Planning and Architecture,
New Delhi
9.40 – 9.50
am
Presentation of Bouquets to
the dignitaries and lighting of
the lamp
9.50 – 10.00
am
Opening Remarks Smt. Aruna Sundararajan, IAS
Joint Secretary (RAY)
Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty
Alleviation
Govt. of India
10.00 –10.10
am
Introduction to the workshop Prof. Neelima Risbud,
Co-ordinator - NRC, School of Planning &
Architecture, New Delhi
10.10 –10.20
am
Address by Secretary, UDD,
Govt. of Madhya Pradesh
Shri S.P.S. Parihar
Principal Secretary, Urban Development
Govt. of Madhya Pradesh
10.20 – 10.30
am
Address Principal Secretary,
Housing and Environment,
Govt. of Madhya Pradesh
Shri Alok Shrivastava
Principal Secretary, Housing and Environment,
Bhopal
10.30 – 10.45
am
Key Note Address Smt. Kiran Dhingra, IAS
Secretary,
Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty
Alleviation (MoHUPA), Govt. of India
10.45 – 10.55
am
Vote of Thanks Smt. Deepti Gaur Mukerjee
Director, RAY, Ministry of Housing and Urban
Poverty Alleviation (MoHUPA), Govt. of India
10.55 to 11.15 ------- Tea Break--------- Technical Session : Town Planning norms for urban poor : State level case studies, Outcomes and Recommendations
21
Chair : Secretary MHUPA/ Additional Secretary & Mission Director, JNNURM Moderators: Prof. Kavas Kapadia, Shri S.K. Kulshreshta 11:15 – 11:45
pm
Sharing case study of 6 states on town planning parameters for urban poor : Findings and issues
Prof. Neelima Risbud, Co-ordinator - NRC, School of Planning & Architecture, New Delhi
11:45 – 12:15
pm
Financial feasibility of planning norms for low income housing/slum upgradation through PPP
Mr. Shiv Singh, Director Embark Advisors Pvt. Ltd. Planning & Real Estate Advisors
12:15 – 1:00
pm
Outcomes/Recommendations of Research Study of NRC, SPA
Prof. Neelima Risbud, Co-ordinator - NRC, School of Planning & Architecture, New Delhi
1:00 –1: 30
pm
Questions and open discussion
-
1.30 to 2:30 ---------- Lunch Break ---------- Group Discussion Session: Formation of 3 groups for discussion on sub themes
2:30 – 4:30
pm
Sub themes to draft issues for guidelines. 1. Land-use reservations
and mixed use provisions, Land Policy
2. Planning Norms for Urban Poor – DU/Plot, facilities and open space standards
3. Development Options – Housing densities & FAR, for In Situ Upgradation and New Development
Group Facilitators
• Sh. S. Mahagaonkar Retd. Chief Town Planner (JDA, Rajasthan)
• Ms. Banashree Banerjee Urban Management Consultant
• Ms. Uma Adusumilli Chief Planner, MMRDA
4:30 – 4.45 ---------- Tea Break ----------
Closing Session: Presentations and follow- up action
4:45 – 5:20
pm
Detailed presentations from each of the groups on the draft issues & guidelines
Chair Ms. Deepti G. Mukherjee, Director, RAY, Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation (MoHUPA), Govt. of India Member/s of Technical Committee for preparation of Slum Free City Plan
5.20 – 5.50
pm
Agenda for follow-up action
5:50 – 6.00
pm
Vote of Thanks Prof. Kavas Kapadia Dean of Studies, , School of Planning & Architecture, New Delhi
22
Annexure – III
List of Invitees
Workshop on Town Planning Parameters for housing the urban Poor
14th February, 2011
Venue: Hotel Lake View Ashok, Shamla Hills, Bhopal (M.P.)
Sl.
No. Name Address Phone/Fax
E-Mail/
Mobile
A. State Housing &Urban Development Departments
1
Sh. M. Laxmi
Narianan
Secretary (Housing) Govt. of Karnataka,
Room No.213 2nd Floor Vikas Sauda, Dr.
B.R. Ambedkar Road,BANGALORE-
560001(IHSDP)
Telefax: 080-
22251476,
sim.kar@nic
.in
2 Mr. Amarnath
CEO, Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement
Board Govt. of NCT of Delhi Punarvas
Bhavan I.P. Estate, New Delhi-2.
Tel: 23379983,
Fax: 23370965,
M: 9871895644
delhishelter
@gmail.com
B. Commissioners
3 Mr. Anjum
Parwez
Commissioner, Municipal Administration,
Karnataka 9448378644
a_parvez@
yahoo.com
C. HUPA Ministry
4 Ms Kiran Dhingra
IAS
Secretary, Room No. 225 -C Wing
Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty
Alleviation , GoI, New Delhi 110011
5 Smt. Aruna
Sundarajan,IAS
Joint Secretary(RAY) Room No. 116-G,
Wing Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty
Alleviation , GoI, New Delhi 110011
6 Ms. Deepti Gaur
Mukerjee IAS
Director (RAY), Room No. 118-C Wing
Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty
Alleviation , GoI, New Delhi 110011
9013554433 deeptigaur@
yahoo.com
7 Mr. Shubhagao
Dasgupta
Team leader , GHK team, Ministry of
Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation, GoI,
New Delhi 110011
9811660176
shubhagato
@hotmail.
com
8 Dr. Suman Sen
Sharma
DFID / GHK Team, Ministry of Housing &
Urban Poverty Alleviation, GoI, New Delhi
110011
997116006 suman1210
@gmail.com
9 Ms. Anindita
Mukherjee
DFID / GHK Team, Ministry of Housing &
Urban Poverty Alleviation , GoI, New
Delhi 110012
9910704713
amukherjee.
ghk@gmail.
com
10 Ms. Tora Saikia
DFID / GHK Team, Ministry of Housing &
Urban Poverty Alleviation , GoI, New
Delhi 110012
9650449102 tsaikia@
gmail.com
23
D. SPA
11 Prof. A K Sharma Director, School of Planning and
Architetcure, New Delhi
12 Prof. Kavas
kapadia
Dean of studies, School of Planning and
Architetcure, New Delhi
E. State Town Planning Depatments
13 Mr. Vinod Kumar
Yaduvanshi SUDA, Lucknow 9455551149
14 Mr. S C Kush Municipal Corporation,
Faridabad,Haryana 9818043232
skush@
yahoo.com
15 Mr. Mohan Taori Add.Chief Town Planner, Rajasthan
Housing Board, Jaipur 9950722276
mtaori10@
gmail.com
16 Mr. N K Khare Add.Chief Town Planner, CTP Office,
Opposite Birla Tempel, Jaipur 9460066508
kharenanda
kumar@redif
fmail.com
17 Mr. P. Naveen
Kumar
Specilist , Town Planning, MEPMA,
Mucipal Administration Department 7893810331
naveenkp20
@gmail.com
18 Mr. P.
Mahashabdey DDA 98110799863
mahashabd
om
19 Anju Singh Project Officer, SUDA , UP 9897896036
20 Mr. Rajesh Rawal Office of the Chief Town Planner, Sec 10
A, GandhiNagar 9426367590
rjrawal@yho
o.com
21 S.Chithra
Senior Planner,Chennai Metropolitan
Development Authority,Thalamuthu
Natrajan Building No 1 Gandhi Irwin
Road,Egmore, Chennai 600008
Tel:
04428414855,
fax:
04428548416,
M: 09444386303
chithracmda
@gmail.com
22 R. Anusuya,
Assistant Planner,Chennai Metropolitan
Development Authority,Thalamuthu
Natrajan Building No 1 Gandhi Irwin
Road,Egmore, Chennai 600008
Tel:
04428414855,
fax:
04428548416,
M: 09444787968
anuraga.ravi
@gmail.com
F. Resource Persons
23 Ms. Banashree
Bannerjee
Urban Development Consultant, Sector A,
Pocket C. Flat No. 6 Vasant Kunj, New
Delhi- 110070
9868214202
banashree_
om
24 Shri Shashank
Mahagaokar
Chief Planner (Retd.),Jaipur Development
Authority, Plot No. 7-A, Keshav Vihar
Gopalpura Bye- Pass Jaipur- 302015
9829058343
shailashash
ank@yahoo.
co.in
25 Ms. Uma
Adusumilli
Chief (Planning Division),Mumbai
Metropolitan Region Development
Authority, Bandra-Kurla Complex,
Bandra (East), MUMBAI – 400 051
Office:022-
26591237, 022-
26590001-08,
M:9821637475
umaplanner
@gmail.com
26 Mr. Shiv Prasad
Singh
Director, EmbarkEstate Advisors Pvt. Ltd,
37- Neeraj CGHS, B-1, Vasundhra 9999928014
shiv.singh@
embarkgrou
24
Enclave , Delhi--110096 p.com
G. others
27 Dr. S.K.
Kulshreshtha
Urban Development Consultant, AO-27,
Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi -110088 9313951557
kools66@ho
tmail.com
28 Trishna Project Associate, CEPT 8980600145 idtrishna@g
mail.com
F. BHOPAL
29 Shri Baboolal
Gaur Minister of UD , MP
30 Mr. K K Singh
Bhagel PA, Minister of UD , MP
31 Shri S.P.S Parihar
Principal Secretary, Ministry of Urban
Dev. & Adminstration Mantralaya,
Vallabh Bhavan, Bhopal- 462003
0755-2442055
Fax:0755-
2574524
spsparihar@
hotmail.com
32 Mr. Ashok Singh UAD, PMU, BHOPAL 9009635321 asbhadouria
@gmail.com
33 Mr. Ashok Kumar CE, UADD 9425501281 akumar@mp
urban.co.in
34 Mr. Sanjeev
Singh SPA, BHOPAL 9425301469
sanjtpa@gm
ail.com
35 Sh. Alok
Srivastava
Principal Secretary (Housing &
Envoirnment)
Tel: 0755–
2551786
Email:
pshousenv-
36 Shri S.N .Mishra
,IAS
Special Secretary, Housing &
Environment Department, Govt. of
Madhya Pradesh. Mantralaya, Room No.
325, Vallabh Bhavan, Bhopal- 462003
Off:0755
552356,
Fax:0755
552591,
M:9827012820
snmisra@m
purban.gov.i
n
37 Shri Ashok Khare
Chief Engineer, Directorate of Urban
Administration & Development
Department,Bus Stand No. 6, Shivaji
Nagar,Bhopal - 462016
Fax:0755
2558975-76,
M: 9425301281
akhare@mp
urban.gov.in
38 Shri B N Tripathi Additional Director Town Planning (M.P.),
E-5 Arera Colony, Bhopal 462016 9425605777
bntripathi.tcp
@gmail.com
39 Shri Yogendra
Sharma
Shri Yogendra Sharma, IAS
Commissioner Indore Municipal
Corporation Indore, M.P
Fax: 0731
2434489,
M: 9425614054
yogesh26@
yahoo.co.in
40 Shri Manish Singh
Commissioner Municipal Corporation ,
Bhopal Harshvardhan Complex, 1st Floor
Mata Mandir Chauraha Bhopal
Fax:0755
2539806,
M: 9425675440
41 Shri Ashish
Upadhyay, IAS
Commissioner,Directorate of Town &
Country Planning Paryavaran Parisar, E-
5, Arera Colony, Bhopal -462016
Ph:0755
2427091
Fax:0755
2427097
ashishupadh
aya@hotmai
l.com
25
42 Mr. Shivkant
Mudgal
Twon Planner, Bhopal Municipal
Corporation, Madhya Pradesh 942499977
skmudgal@r
ediffmail.co
m
43 Dr. Natraj Kranthi Associate Professor, SPA Bhopal 9754477838
natraj_krant
hi@rediffmai
l.com
44 Prof. Manmohan
Kapshe
HOD Deptt. Of Urban Plannig, School of
Plannig & Architecture, Bhopal 9893064636
45 Dr. Alka Bharat
HOD, Department of Architecture and
Planning, Maulana Azad National Institute
of technology, Bhopal 462051
9826296046
alka.bharat
@yahoo.co
m
46 Ms. Kalpana
Srivastava, IAS
Project Director, Madhya Pradesh Urban
Services for Poor Govt. of Madhya
Pradesh, Shivaji Nagar Bhopal-462016
9425012310 mkapshe@g
mail.com
47 Shri C.U. Roy
Deputy Director Communication,
Municipal Support Unit, MPUSP 2nd
Floor, Palika Bhavan Shivaji Nagar Stop
No. 6, Bhopal-462003
942500960 roy@mpurb
an.gov.in
48 Mr. Javed
Farooqhi APRO MCB 9424499983
49 Mr. Ajay Kumar
Vinodia SPA, BHOPAL 9425012838
ajayvinodia
@gmail.com
50 Mr. Ajit Mali Indore 9826995534 arajit@gmail
.com
51 Mr. C M Shukla 7, Race Course Road, indore 9406801008
52 Mr. Hitendra 102, navneet Plaza, indore 9826061124
53 Mr. Ravi
Upadhaya DPR, Bhopal 9425079181
dpr.mpinfo.o
rg
54 Swati Srivastava Research and Training Officer, UAD
Bhopal 9754034209
swati.srivast
ava621@ga
mil.com
55 Mr. U K Sachdeva Additional Director, UAD 94253011117
uksachdeva
@rediffmail.
com
56 Mr. Sanjay
Pandey UAD, BHOPAL 9827364427
sanjayp332
@gmail.com
57 Alka Aggarwal Paryavaran Bahawan, Bhopal 9425300479
alkaaggarwa
l-
2009@rediff
mail.com
58 Dr. D Rayanna MPUSP, SD & Trainning, Consultant 9993176574
59 Mr. P. D.
Karkhani WAP COS LTD. 9893026584
karkhanispa
@gmail.com
60 Mr. R K Agarwal WAP COS LTD. 9810433268
61 Modhukar HUDCO, BHOPAL 9893203918
26
62 Dr. Richard Slater
Team Leader, MPUSP,Palika Bhavan,
Shivaji Nagar, Stop No. 6, Bhopal -
462016
9995569811 rpslateruk@
yahoo.co.uk
63 Mr. Mayank AO BMC 9424499900
mayank@m
purban.gov.i
n
64 Mr. Jayesh Kuamr
Vijay
Joint Director, Town and Country
Planning, Sagar
vijayjk@gma
il.com
65 Mr. Vijay Tandon SNPUPR 9815070974
vijay.tandon
@ghkint.co
m
66 Sh. Rajarshi
Rakesh Sahai
Architect and Urban Development
Planner, MPUSP,2nd Floor, Palika
Bhavan, Shivaji Nagar, Stop No. 6,
Bhopal-462016 (M.P.)
9429040892 archieroger
@gmail.com
67 Mr. Kmalesh
Bhatnagar MSU, MPUSP, UADD, BHOPAL 9425373601
kbhatnagar
@mpurban.
gov.in
68 Shri Sunil Singh
Deputy Director Planning,Municipal
Support Unit, MPUSP,2nd Floor, Palika
Bhavan,Shivaji Nagar, Stop No.6
Bhopal-462016
9425150108
sunilsingh21
3@rediffmail
.com
69 Mr. S. S. Rathor Joint Director, Town Planning, Bhopal 2427092 sudhir.rathor
@gmail.com
G. NRC Staff
70 Prof. Neelima
Risbud Coordinator, NRC, SPA, New Delhi 9891059875
n.risbud@g
mail.com
71 Ms.Dipti Parashar Senior Urban Planner,NRC,SPA 9958416648 dips_arch@
yahoo.com
72 Ms. Rupali
Malhari Project Associate,NRC, SPA 9650012158
rupalimalhari
@gmail.com
73 Jyoti Dash Urban Planner, NRC, SPA 9718288014 ar.jyotidash
@gmail.com
74 Tara Chand Secretarial Assistant, NRC, SPA 9953178126
75 Vikas peon cum helper, NRC, SPA 9268889811