The warmth
and social cohesiveness witnessed during the floods has invigorated the hopes
of Keralites when the phrase “Rebuilding Kerala” is professed.
The spirit
of egalitarian social warmth shall have to be the bedrock of a Vision amidst the
debate of “development vs ecology” that shall soon rage. We cannot take sides
here. We need to device our own ways to conduct our lives within this
ecological region called Kerala. And to get that going, we need to create a
wide consultation process that needs to be first and foremost out-in-the-open,
transparent and evolving.
Process
creates the Form
So, before
we try to define “Rebuilding Kerala”, we need to certainly unravel the process
that is producing the Kerala that we still have, with its opportunity to
rebuild. We have the privilege of hindsight to seek remedial changes in them,
so that we move towards a more satiating Form for Kerala.
A revision
is due, to alter the larger political agenda, the governance mechanism and the
administrative priorities, and the Rules that govern us. We need to alter the
Process that generates the Form!
Tinkering
our Governance Mechanism for Land-use:
While it is
true that we have Institutions of great merit like the Geological Survey of
India (GSI), Centre for Earth Science Studies (CESS) etc; and that they have
collated vast tranches of knowledge which have direct bearing on the conduct of
lives in Kerala, we still are far away from making practical, functional, real-time
application of such available wisdom on the ground. So, areas clearly
demarcated as unfit for construction ought not to get a legal building permit. The
method that needs to be employed should not be draconian or solely restrictive
in a nature. If that is so, the force of demand will learn to subvert the
system that denies it.
It is the
Local Self Government (LSG) that has the power to prepare the local development
plan. It is true that Plans thus prepared and approved by the LSG has the power
to over-ride all the other existing building/ development controls/ rules that
shape our built form. Then, why does our LSG create plans that permits or does
not deny construction in a zone not recommended for such activity?
The history
of such places is that there never was any law that abjectly denied permission
for construction anywhere. However, neither was there any pressure on land as
to attempt to build on such known fragile lands. As development pressures
mounted and need to capitalise on the land value of such fragile land also
grew, no elected local government had the nerve to announce a restrictive law.
As an energetic democracy, let us not assume that any such restrictive law
would be passed too soon either; especially so, when the people of the State
are emotionally and economically stressed.
There has to
be a win-win solution where the person owning the fragile land does not lose
out on the opportunity to enjoy its development potential even while he does
nothing to alter the nature of the land.
There are
two broad case scenarios here; Listing activities that are permissible within
the fragile area and complete denial of construction activity. (No Development
Zone, NDZ)
If the only
land your family owns is in the “non-buildable” ecologically sensitive area by
definition, then what is your recourse? If the system cannot effectively
compensate you, the State cannot protect its ecology. Then, we are back to
square one!
Post rehab
stage, the government would need to identify land parcels for re-densification.
That is, to allow more housing stock to come up within existing settlements.
This is an idea that is very difficult to implement with the available legal
tools at the disposal of the government. However, such objective of increasing
density within existing urban fabric can be achieved using Acts that already
exist in India in some States. This is where Urban Design comes in.
In our urban
physical planning; and more precisely, in the administrative service delivery
of urban planning by the government, there exists today, a large void- a
missing link. Between the very large maps showings broad land-use plans at the
city level (Master Plans) and the architectural/ building controls stated
within the Kerala Municipal/Panchayat Building Rules (KMBR), we need a bridge
that connects these two ideas. That is the role of Urban Design.
This role
& task of Urban Design, that would connect the smallest parts of the urban
fabric (that is, individual buildings) to the larger networks of public spaces,
transportation, urban ecology, services like water supply- sewerage systems-
storm water management, pedestrian safety etc, is ill-defined and effectively
missing in our cities today.
A small
portion of this attempted by the Town Planning Department in the form of
Detailed Town Planning Schemes (DTP schemes). However, all Town Planners are
aware of how much more valuable a detailed urban Design proposal can be; with
its inherent capability for translating built densities into a cohesive and
functional urban form that integrates open space network, architectural
components and services. Urban Design brings in legibility, character and
liveability to the intent of the large Master Plans. Master Plans remain
unfulfilled now, due to lack of Urban Design.
THE NEED
TO RE-DENSIFY
The
availability of well-serviced land has been seriously inadequate due to our
poor history of urban planning. The demand for quality usable land is set to
spiral in Kerala even without the newly induced pressure from the flood-plain
management and the recommendations from noted environmentalists. Hence, further
densification of our settlement in a more organised, planned and sensitive
manner is an urgent prerogative. Densification should not be needlessly equated
with more concrete and squalor. It is potentially a pro-life idea where more
accessible green areas are liberated and quality urban life is provided more equitably.
Lower energy footprints can be achieved through thoughtful re-densification.
The degree
of re-densification needed in various parts of the State has to be quantified
from a deeper study and has to be done in a comprehensive manner accommodating
inputs from institutions like GSI, CESS, Social Scientists, Ecologists, Real
Estate Industry, Town Planning Department, Urban Designers, Architects,
Economists, Agricultural Scientists, elected representatives, and all other
stakeholders.
However, the
tools needed for the re-densification process to occur needs to be put in
place. Many governance tools for re-densification of settlements are in use in
various parts of the country and the world. The role of such tools or
governance mechanism is to create an administrative environment where the
energies in the market operate freely to achieve the built density pattern
envisaged by the Detailed Town Planning or Urban Design Scheme (DTS or UDS)
over a period of time incrementally.
Tool 1:
LAND POOLING ACT:
The current
built form of an urban settlement is driven by the Kerala Municipal Building
Rules (KMBR) using tools like Floor Area Ratio (FAR), Coverage, setbacks etc
which are linked to the assigned permitted land-use on the site. That is, the
form or density of built-form is created based on the existing ownership
pattern of the land, access width to the land and the permissible land-use.
Hence, the built-form or density is not related in any manner to its geographic
location.
In other
words, no Town Planner is ever aware beforehand, as to where in the city the
next high-rise apartment is going to be proposed unless and until an
application seeking permission for it lands up on his table. This is a very
major lacunae in that, the Town Planner is unable to predict or pre-decide the
specific location of high- or low-density development within the Town Planning
Scheme and hence is not a position to provide adequate water supply, sewerage
or transportation system. This is the single biggest failure of the Town Planning
system that we have now.
Another
extremely cruel failure that happens as a corollary to the above is the
inability of such Town Planning mechanism to create parks or open spaces for
the settlement.
This Act is
needed to redesign the scenario. The other name for this Act is Land
Reconstitution Act. What it does is to first collate information on current
ownership pattern as the base record, and then, the land holdings are reworked
into a more efficient layout plan with better serviceability/ utility of plots.
Plots are assigned specific development densities through a stated maximum
permissible built-up area statement. Some have high density while others are
medium and a few are earmarked as open spaces as per the Urban Design Scheme.
Ownership
patterns are altered marginally mostly and drastically in some cases. A system
of reassigning real estate/ values based on the new opportunity is done and the
same are redistributed as gains and losses. Such schemes are designed to
achieve greater overall density even as they liberate meaningful network of
open spaces.
The role of
digital technology in the creation, publication, review and execution of this
process is tremendous in its capacity for efficiency as well as transparency.
The question
of how the person whose land is marked out as no-development zone either for
being ecologically fragile like a wet land or as a flood plain or due to CRZ or
for a children’s park, can be compensated, still remains and that is where the
next tool is relevant and inevitable to the success of the first.
Tool 2:
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR)
This idea
has been mooted for some time now. The true purpose of this Act is to
compensate a land owner WITHOUT actually acquiring the land from the owner at
market rates. Land Pooling Schemes are done within specific Scheme boundaries.
TDR shall also be complete binding within their respective Land Pooling
Schemes, otherwise, it shall lead to large scale corruption and fraud.
Tool 3:
LAND TRIBUNAL
Needless to
say, there are bound to be perceived and genuine injustices meted out by such
schemes. It is thus mandated that we also constitute a grievance redressal
system in the form a Land Tribunal to specifically handle issues that pertain
to the implementation of the Act. This would ensure speedier redressal without
which the pace and energy of the intended Scheme itself could be jeopardised.
Role of
IT:
Digital
Revenue data, overlays of GIS maps, 3D modelling on GIS, using such models in
real time with TDR database, managing the financial modelling of LP schemes
& its TDR support eco-system, locating real-time data sensors for managing
services like water supply, storm water management, traffic flow, firefighting,
etc are components that can actually reduce administrative costs and turn our
governance and the city, more citizen-friendly. Money is already being spent on
such digital infrastructure in bits and unconnected parcels, but as and when
they attain critical mass, we have the opportunity for carefully integrating
them for our collective good.
Kerala is
poised at the threshold of a major relook at its self-image; hope has risen in
our people for an attitudinal change in resetting our development agenda. The
World Bank in their recommendations suggests, “Land use planning allows
communities to guide the location, type, density, and timing of
development through regulations, public infrastructure investments, market
incentives, and conservation of natural resources such that development is safe
from flood disaster and in harmony with a sustainable urban water cycle.”
Evolving a
new vision for an Urban Settlement Pattern with a carefully choreographed urban
re-densification is indeed a positive tool to address our environmental
concerns.
