Workshop Report of CONNECTING MOSAICS 2016seip.urban-industrial.in/live/hrdpmp/hrdpmaster/... ·...

Workshop Report of

CONNECTING MOSAICS – 2016 Exploring India’s Culture of Spatial Planning

Land Use Planning and Management Project – GIZ

08-09 June 2016 I Bhubaneswar, Odisha

Report on Connecting Mosaics 2016 workshop under LUPM

2

Table of Contents

List of Abbreviations………………………………………………………………………………....................3

Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………………….4

Background and Objective of the workshop…………………………………………………..............6

Day 1: Introduction, Presentations and Group Works………………………………….……………...8

Group Work 1: Industrial Development in Gujarat………………………….......……………14

Group Work 2: Residential Development in Goa…………………..……………………………..16

Group Work 3: Industrial Development Linked with Housing……………………..……….18

Group Work 4: Industrial Development in Tamil Nadu………………………………………….20

Panel Discussion in Fish Bowl Format…………………………………………………………………….22

Day 2: Reflecting on Planners’ Profession- Presentations ……………………………...……….…24

Panel Discussion in Fish Bowl Format…………………………………………………………………….28

Conclusion……………………………………...…………………………………………......................29

Annexure 1: List of participants………………………………………………………………………………......30

Annexure 2: Agenda…………………………………………………………….....…………………………………....32


3

List of Abbreviations

APMCHUD Asia Pacific Ministerial Conference on Housing and Urban Development

CEPT Centre for Environmental Planning & Technology

CSDS Centre for the Study of Developing Societies

DoLR Department of Land Resources

GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH

GoI Government of India

H&UDD Housing and Urban Development Department

ICPP Inclusive Cities Partnership Programme

LUPM Land Use Planning and Management

MoHUPA Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation

MoRD Ministry of Rural Development

NURHP National Urban Rental Housing Policy

PMAY Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana

SPV Special Purpose Vehicle

ULB Urban Local Body

URDPFI Urban and Regional Development Plans Formulation and Implementation


4

Executive Summary

GIZ- Land Use Planning and Management (LUPM) project has partnered with Department of

Land Resources (DoLR), Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD), Government of India with an

objective to apply instruments of integrated spatial planning and land use planning in Indian

states. It is vital to understand existing spatial planning processes, institutional structures,

and legal framework to recognize the challenges and identify possible solutions. In this

regard, a two-day workshop ‘Connecting Mosaics 2016’ was organised by GIZ- Land Use

Planning and Management (LUPM) in close partnership with Inclusive Cities Partnership

Programme (ICPP) in Bhubaneswar, Odisha on 8-9 June, 2016.

The main objective of the workshop was to understand the practice and

conceptualization of Spatial Planning in India & the existing challenges. Also, to

understand the existing roles and contributions of the planners profession, its key

actors and related academia in Spatial Planning.

The workshop was well received by the participants. It was attended by the Director

(Housing), Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation; Joint Secretary to Government

of Odisha, Revenue and Disaster Management (R&DM) Department; Member Secretary, State

Planning Commission Government of Tamil Nadu; Chief Town Planner, Town & Country

Planning, Government of Odisha; Member Secretary, Town & Country Planning Department,

Government of Goa; Planning Member, Rourkela Development Authority, Government of

Odisha; Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat; Academic think

tank from Centre for Environment Planning and Technology (CEPT), Ahmedabad; NIRMA

University, Ahmedabad; School of Planning & Architecture, New Delhi, Xavier Institute of

Management, Bhubaneswar, IIEST, Shibpur; and experts.

Day 1

On the first day of the workshop there were a wide range of disparate presenters, and the

convergence – and occasional divergence – made for educative interaction. In the inaugural

session of the workshop dignitaries and experts from divergent backgrounds made

presentations on Juxtaposing Human Settlements with Spatial Plans by Mr. Satinder Pal

Singh, Exploring the Culture of Spatial Planning in India by Mr. Georg Jahnsen, State of

Spatial Planning in India by Mr. Vidyadhar Phatak and Framework for Spatial Planning in

Odisha by Mr. Sangram Mohapatra.

Mr. Satinder Pal Singh emphasized that cities are key to tackling the problems of urban

poverty, social inequality and climate change and if managed efficiently they can become

sustainable and inclusive. Also, it is crucial to evaluate whether the investments and

programmes are addressing the spatial distortions. Mr. Georg Jahnsen presented a Swiss

artist work to emphasize that individual elements does not signify anything, it’s the

connections and relations within the elements in the system that make the difference. He

also emphasized the need to delve into aspects of spatial planning processes, practices,

shortfalls and strategies to overcome it. Mr. Vidyadhar Phatak presented the evolution of

spatial planning in India and the three important elements Scale, Purpose and Tools. Mr.

Sangram Mohapatra reflected on the impacts of inefficient planning by highlighting the

Odisha experiences of POSCO, Kalinga Nagar and Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas

(PESA) Act.

In the technical sessions four group work exercises where a fictional situation was given for

deliberation and share their outcomes. The keys areas deliberated by each group in their


5

visual exercise are landscape of participation, planning process, framework for interaction

and challenges. Some of the challenges identified by the groups are under utilisation of

land, coastal regulations, institutional capacity of the agencies, political will, mapping of

resources, accountability, environmental clearances, land acquisition, consensus building,

and interdepartmental coordination. An open forum discussion in fish bowl format was held

to discuss the above issues. Some of the suggestions obtained from the discussion are:

Planning process needs to be transparent and consultative

Setup mechanism for intermediate review and assessment of plans

Measures to curb market speculations

Resolve the discrepancies in land revenue records

Increase financial investment in urban sector

Recommend guiding factors for preparing spatial plans

Prepare regional level spatial plans (district level)

Day 2

On the 2nd day, the technical session focused on the theme “Reflecting on Planners’

Profession”, where presentations were made on Planning Education in India by Mr. Utpal

Sharma, A Historian’s Perspective of Planning Profession by Mr. Awedhendra Sharan,

Reflections on Culture of Spatial Planning in India by Mr. Saswat Bandyopadhyay and Spatial

Planning leveraging on ‘JUGAAD’ way of thinking by Ms. Aparna Das.

Mr. Sharma informed that most planning programs are still based on the western countries

planning ideologies. The need to redefine the curricula is being felt increasingly and there

is a conscious effort to try and plug planning education to the urban agenda. Mr. Sharan said

in public participation process we are looking for affirmation and not contestation and the

academic institutions must focus on teaching about listening. Mr. Bandyopadhyay shared his

experiences from various projects across the country, where laxities and gaps stress the

need for regional level spatial planning. Ms. Das shared her experiences, which emphasize

the role and importance of the planning profession that centres on technical skills, ethical

values and accountability.

An open forum discussion in fish bowl format was held to discuss the above topic. Some of

the suggestions obtained from the discussion are:

Transform the conventional approach in academia to recognise relevant areas and

the hierarchy of the planning profession. Academia shall improve the understanding

of students about

o resource management

o consultative and participative approaches

o economic drivers

Spatial Plans shall be comprehensive and build synergies between various sectoral

plans

In the concluding session, Mr. Jahnsen highlighted that the enemy of spatial planning is the

neglected area between two cities. Planning process shall consider the entire area of the

country to be dealt at different levels.


6

Background

The Department of Land Resources of the Ministry of Rural Development and GIZ are jointly

implementing the “Land Use Planning and Management” project in the framework of the

Indo-German Technical Cooperation with an objective to apply instruments of integrated

spatial planning and land use planning in Indian states. In this context, it is vital to

understand existing spatial planning processes, institutional structures, and legal framework

to recognize the challenges and identify possible solutions.

A Master Plan in India typically covers a time horizon of about 20 years, presenting a road

map from the present state of the city to its future with spatial details. The process begins

with the projection of population of an urban area and estimating the demand for residential

space. The requirements of commercial and industrial spaces are based on projections of

the economic prospects of the city. The transport patterns follow the land use pattern and

the space requirement for transportation and natural resources is typically a residual.

Only about 24 percent (1890 out of 7935 towns) of Indian Cities have Master Plans. These

plans aim to promote growth, guide & regulate present and future development of towns

and cities. They are envisaged to act as an instrument to work out land and infrastructure

requirements in harmonious and sustainable manner to perform all their economic and social

functions efficiently and effectively.

Master Plans in India are criticized because either they have not been well-conceived; or

have not incorporated inclusion of economically weaker sections of society in planning for

space, or they were finalized in a top down fashion with little consultation with

stakeholders. Also the regulatory approach in implementing Master Plans combined with

compulsory land acquisition for enforcing the intended land use is a drawback. Further, the

stringent land use and density norms with uniform FSI between residential and commercial

areas are not allowing the densification of focal areas of the City. The key instruments of

Background and Objective of the Workshop


7

urban planning such as a land policy, land use and zoning regulations, infrastructure and

transport work in isolation.

Master Plans restrict themselves to physical planning of a city and its immediate periphery,

and have not been able to pay attention to the challenges of metropolitan and regional

planning. Metropolitan Planning Committees and District Planning Committees which were

proposed way back in 1992, have been formed in some states but they have not been

effective as regional planning agencies. Unauthorized development in peri-urban areas

indicate that the master plans were unable to anticipate demand and consequently plan for

services where demand for land was high.

Another major challenge in urban planning is capacities both at the local government level

to envision and prepare a master plan and a city development plan, and at the state

government to provide legislative and administrative support for facilitating the process of

planning at local and regional level. This requires setting up and strengthening municipal

cadres in the states which provide the basis for training and building human resource

capability. Also, the academic institutions and planning agencies has key roles in addressing

the gaps in capacities and professional challenges encountered in the preparation of spatial

plans.

A two-day workshop ‘Connecting Mosaics 2016’ was organised by GIZ- Land Use Planning and

Management (LUPM) and Inclusive Cities Partnership Programme (ICPP), during June 8-9,

2016 at the Trident Hotel in Bhubaneshwar. Participants included the the Director (Housing),

Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation; Joint Secretary to Government of Odisha,

Revenue and Disaster Management (R&DM) Department; Member Secretary, State Planning

Commission Government of Tamil Nadu; Chief Town Planner, Town & Country Planning,

Government of Odisha; Member Secretary, Town & Country Planning Department,

Government of Goa; Planning Member, Rourkela Development Authority, Government of

Odisha; Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat; Academic think

tank from Centre for Environment Planning and Technology (CEPT), Ahmedabad; NIRMA

University, Ahmedabad; School of Planning & Architecture, New Delhi, Xavier Institute of

Management, Bhubaneswar, IIEST, Shibpur; and experts. The list of participants and agenda

for the workshop are enclosed as Annexures 1 and 2.

Objective

The main objective of the workshop was to understand the practice and

conceptualization of Spatial Planning in India & the existing challenges. Also, to

understand the existing roles and contributions of the planners profession, its key actors

and related academia in Spatial Planning.

Report on the Connecting Mosaics 2016 workshop under LUPM

8

Inaugural Session

On behalf of GIZ, Ms. Aparna Das, Senior Advisor, ICPP welcomed all the delegates and

participants to the two-day workshop on “Connecting Mosaics” - Exploring the Culture of

Spatial Planning in India. The inaugural session was facilitated by Ms. Das, GIZ and the two

day workshop was moderated by Mr. Darryl D’Monte, Journalist. At the outset, Ms. Das

presented a brief introduction about GIZ and the Land Use Planning and Management project

(LUPM), the organiser of the workshop. The LUPM project is partnered with Department of

Land Resource (DoLR), Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD), Government of India. Ms. Das

informed that participation of DoLR in this workshop could not materialise due to prior

commitments. Ms. Das welcomed Mr. Satinder Pal Singh, Director (Housing), Ministry of

Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation (MoHUPA) and explained MoHUPA’s interest in Urban

and Regional Planning in the context of Habitat III and as member of Asia Pacific Ministerial

Conference on Housing and Urban Development (APMCHUD).

The expectations and formats (fish bowl and Pecha Kucha) for the two day workshop were

briefly explained to the participants. Ms. Das welcomed and invited all the dignitaries Mr.

Satinder Pal Singh, Director (Housing), Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation

(MoHUPA), Mr. V.K. Phatak, Ex. Chief Planner, Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development

Authority and the Project Director, GIZ-LUPM, Mr. Georg Jahnsen to the dais and the

workshop was inaugurated with lighting of the lamp. Mr. Darryl D’Monte, the moderator of

the workshop requested all the participants to briefly introduce themselves.

Day 1: Introduction, Presentations and Group Works


9

Juxtaposing Human Settlements with Spatial Plans

by Mr. Satinder Pal Singh

Mr. Satinder Pal Singh, Director

(Housing) in his address, welcomed all

the participants and presented on

Juxtaposing Human Settlements with

Spatial Plans. In his presentation he

mentioned that being the second largest

urban system in the world, India is at

crucial stage in its urban transition as its

urban population is growing at a pace of

2.76 percent and for the first time the

net increment to urban population

surpasses the net increment to rural

population. He highlighted that India is

entering into a different phase in

demographic trajectory. Mr. Singh

opined that at this juncture we need to

identify the gaps in our processes, whether the investments and programmes are addressing

the spatial distortions or they are exacerbating the spatial distortions.

Mr. Singh emphasized that there is a need for radical paradigm shift in the way the Cities

and human settlements are planned, managed, developed and governed. The National

Urban Housing and Habitat Policy 2007 advises preparation of spatial plans at various levels

but is limited to urban areas only. Further, Mr. Singh opined that often housing for urban

poor is neglected in spatial planning process resulting a shortage of 18 million as estimated

by the technical committee on housing shortage in 2012. To address the housing shortage

government has come up with several initiatives such as Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY)

Scheme, Smart City Mission, National Urban Rental Housing Policy (NUHRP), prepared a

template for preparation of State Affordable Housing Policies, and adopted Real Estate

Regulatory Act etc.

The MoHUPA is working on New Urban Agenda for Habitat III, which advocates integrated

urban spatial strategies to develop compact, integrated and well connected cities. Also, the

Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD) launched RURBAN mission to develop a cluster of

villages that preserve and nurture the essence of rural community life with focus on equity

and inclusiveness without compromising with the facilities perceived to be essentially urban

in nature. In his concluding remarks, Mr. Singh stated that cities are key to tackling the

problems of urban poverty, social inequality and climate change and if managed efficiently

they can become sustainable and inclusive.


10

Setting the Context: Exploring the Culture of Spatial Planning in India

by Mr. Georg Jahnsen

Mr. Georg Jahnsen, Project

Director, LUPM has set the context

for the workshop by presenting the

work of a Swiss artist John Tinguely

who creates fascinating self-

moving machines using metal

objects from various objects such

as a car, washing machine, type

writer and a gramophone. The

artist created this by redesigning

the relationships and linkages

between different elements.

Individual elements does not

signify anything, it’s the

connections and relations within

the elements in the system that

make the difference. Mr. Jahnsen quoted the essence behind the creation of the machine

i.e. systematic planning and with these words he welcomed all the participants to the

workshop, which focuses on systematic planning only at different level and framework. Mr.

Jahnsen familiarized the participants to Land Use Planning and Management (LUPM) project

within GIZ- Indo German Environment Partnership for Urban and Industrial Development

cluster framework. Mr. Jahnsen opined that there are believes that Urban and Industrial

development leaves no opportunity for environment, however, spatial planning through

intelligent design of various functions can bridge these diverging ideas.

Mr. Jahnsen broadly defined spatial planning as any construction on the ground that effects

the spaces and redefines the land. In a city, land and space are linked and connected with

each other. Each element in a City is mosaic embedded in a bigger quarter for example floor

plan of building has several mosaics which form a building these form a neighbourhood,

quarter, region etc. He further quoted that Christopher Alexander, a planner and a writer

in his book ‘A Pattern Language’ described the idea of connected patterns that are

connected at various levels and the author states that the connection of spatial patterns is

similar to poetry. Mr. Jahnsen emphasised that a spatial planning at various levels can only

be managed through a big public structure of cooperation. This workshop provides the

opportunity to take a closer look at this cooperation system in India and to understand the

culture of spatial planning in India. In his final remarks, Mr. Jahnsen welcomed all the

experts and requested to utilise this opportunity to delve into aspects of how spatial

planning is done? How different states practice spatial planning? What experiences are good

and where there is room for improvement? What strategies will be useful to bring the culture

of spatial planning to peri-urban and rural areas?


11

Key Note Address: Spatial Planning in India

by Mr. Vidyadhar Phatak

The Key note speaker Mr. Vidyadhar

Phatak, Ex. Chief City Planner, Mumbai

Metropolitan Region Development

Authority in his opening remarks has

stated that land and space does not stop

at the boundary of a municipality. The

three important elements of spatial

planning are Scale (nation, state or

region and local), Purpose (resource

conservation & use, infrastructure led

and externality management) and Tools

(eminent domain or acquisition for

public space, police power to control

nuisance). Mr. Phatak presented the

land use planning process and structure

of Japan, which has a National Land Use

Planning Act that guides the preparation of land use plans at three levels (national,

prefectural and municipal). Similarly, in India the National Commission on Urbanisation in

1988 devoted a chapter on spatial planning and acknowledge the need for a similar scale of

spatial planning structure. Also, the Urban and Regional Development Plans Formulation and

Implementation (URDPFI) guidelines of 2015 envisage a similar structure of plans

(perspective plans, regional plans, development plans and local area plans). An issue for

consideration is whether these kind of plans can operate in an institutional vacuum or not.

Mr. Phatak demonstrated disharmony in one of the key elements of spatial planning

‘purpose’ with few examples of Damodar Valley Corporation Act (for manging flood control,

power generation and irrigation), zoning maps for agro climate, agro ecology, Delhi-Mumbai

Industrial Corridor Plan, which have linkages to spatial planning but does not serve the

purpose of spatial planning as there is no harmonisation among these plans.

Mr. Phatak enlightened about the institutional evolution of spatial planning dating back to

early 19th century with City Improvement Trusts followed by 1915 & 1920 Town Planning

Acts of Mumbai and Madras, town and country planning acts of 1950s, urban development

and metropolitan development authorities acts of 1960-70s and 74th constitutional

amendment in 1994 which led to the preparation of metropolitan regional plans of

Hyderabad, Bengaluru, Mumbai, Delhi NCR and Chennai. Spatial planning in a region has

linkages with plans of various departments which are independent but not synergized.

Despite the fact that there are conflicts and challenges in the preparation of Spatial Plans,

Mr. Phatak opined that most of the Master Plans in India are very prescriptive and overtime

become non-implementable. In the last part of presentation Mr. Phatak presented the

spatial planning history, process and institutional framework of Mumbai Metropolitan

Regional Development (MMRD) plan.


12

Framework of Land Use Planning in Odisha

By Mr. Sangram Mohapatra

Mr. Sangram Mohapatra, Joint

Secretary, Revenue and Disaster

Management (R & DM)

Department, Government of

Odisha in his address presented

the background of land use

planning and highlighted the key

issues and challenges w.r.t. land

use planning in the state of

Odisha.

Prior to the independence Odisha

was fragmented into three

administrative zones, which has

been merged after independence.

Odisha does not have its own

revenue code and is administered

based on the laws followed in Bihar, West Bengal and of British era. The prevailing land

acquisition act has been amended to address transparency, rehabilitation and resettlement

aspects.

Mr. Mohapatra reflected on the impacts of inefficient planning by highlighting the cases of

POSCO where major portion designated as forest land is sand dunes and not suitable for

industrial development, Kalinga Nagar known for steel manufacturing hub is located in

region which is designated as forest but no forest exist in that area and last case that was

highlighted was Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas (PESA) Act that restricts

development in 13 districts. In spite of not having land use policy Odisha has a regulatory

administrative mechanism to regulate industrial corridors, which restricts development of

industrial areas along the water bodies. Mr. Mohapatra also informed that revenue land

records are old and under Digital India programme land survey and digitisation has been

initiated in nine (9) districts and expected to complete by December 2016. He further

emphasized that Government of Odisha is interested in partnering with GIZ to ensure

adequate policies, process and tools are in place.


13

Technical Session I: Status of Spatial Planning in India

Going forward, the moderator Mr. Darryl D’Monte invited Mr. Georg Jahnsen to explain about

the technical session. Mr. Jahnsen explained the participants that the technical session is a

group work session where a fictional situation (see below) will be given for deliberation and

share their outcomes. The participants are divided into four (4) groups consisting of experts

from different backgrounds to work on the fictional situation and share their outcomes with

the other groups, which would lead to the panel discussions. The keys areas identified for

deliberation in each situation are landscape of participation, planning process, framework

for interaction and challenges.


14

Participants:

Mr. V.T. Mandora Deputy Secretary Govt. of Gujarat

Mr. Prakash Modi Project Officer Govt. of Gujarat

Mr. Ashok Kumar Barman, ACS Joint Secretary Govt. of Assam

Mr. Ram Mohan Mishra Planning Member, RDA Govt. of Odisha

Ms. Kajori Mishra Professor Xavier Institute

Moderators:

Mr. Gerog Jahnsen Project Director GIZ-LUPM

Mr. Ramachandra Panda Technical Expert GIZ ICPP

The objective of the group work is to expand industrial corridor along the peripheral areas

of a city in the State of Gujarat. After exhaustive deliberations on the following questions:

Who all needs to be involved in the planning process? What kind of participation is

required?

What are steps, timelines and milestones?

What are linkages or cooperation required at various levels (national, state and

local)?

What are current challenges and bottlenecks in the planning process?

Group Work 1: Industrial Development in Gujarat


15

On behalf of the group Mr.

V.T.Mandora presented

that the group has

identified stakeholders at

three levels national, state

and local/ regional level.

At regional level area

development and district

authorities, at state level

Forest, Industries, Urban

Development, Panchayat

Raj & Rural Development,

Water Resources,

Electricity, revenue,

housing departments and

at national level Ministries

of Environment, Railways,

Finance, National Highway

Authority, Coastal

Regulations Zone etc. as

the crucial stakeholders.

The process involved in the

expansion of the industrial

corridor includes creation

of special purpose vehicle

(SPV), engaging

consultants, preparation

of layout, consultations

with various stakeholders,

ensuring Public and

private funding and

approvals from various

authorities.


16

Participants:

Mr. Saswat Bhandopadhyay Professor CEPT

Mr. Subhendra Mishra Chief Town Planner Govt. of Odisha

Mr. P.K. Ghosh Retd. IAS Expert

Mr. Ashok Kumar Member Secretary, SGPOA Govt. of Goa

Mr. Sovanic Roy Professor IIEST

Moderators:

Mr. Naveen Kumar Potti Technical Expert GIZ-ICPP

Mr. Kasinath Anbu Technical Expert GIZ ICPP

The objective of the group work is to expand residential zones along the peripheral areas

of a city in the State of Goa. After exhaustive deliberations on the following questions:

Who all needs to be involved in the planning process? What kind of participation is

required?

What are steps, timelines and milestones?


local)?

What are current challenges and bottlenecks in the planning process?

Group Work 2: Residential Development in Goa


17

On behalf of the group Prof. Saswat Bhandyopadhyay presented that the group identified

the various relevant stakeholders from the demand side, supply side, facilitators, regulators

and also the affected people. Broadly it covers private individuals, migrants, religious

institutions, industrial estates, urban poor, hoteliers, public agencies, developers, builders,

financial institutions, tourism industry etc. The most affected people are the farmers and

the surrounding land owners.

The group considered the existing legal

framework that is relevant to the

development of residential areas in the

State of Goa. Government of Goa has

town planning act, municipal act, town

planning schemes, forest act, revenue

act, heritage conservation, mining act,

fisheries act, land acquisition act etc.

Further, the group deliberated on the

processes, this involves baseline

profiling and mapping, assessments of

growth, consultations, review of

existing land use and land records,

exploring connectivity & regional

linkages, realigning planning area,

developing structure plan, zoning

regulations, local area plans, housing

layout plans for the proposed area are

the broad recursive steps.

Finally, the group discussed on the

challenges faced in this process which

are under utilisation of land, coastal

regulations, understanding the

significance of spatial planning and

institutional capacity of the agencies

involved in the process.


18

Participants:

Mr. Satinder Pal Singh Director (Housing) MoHUPA

Mr. Utpal Sharma Director NIRMA University

Mr. Awadhendra Sharan Professor CSDS

Ms. Sutapa Pati Professor XIMB

Moderators:

Ms. Aparna Das Senior Advisor GIZ-ICPP

Mr. Arpan Mazumder Jr. Technical Expert GIZ ICPP

The objective of the group work is to expand industrial development along the peripheral

areas of a city. After exhaustive deliberations on the following questions:

Who all needs to be involved in the planning process?

What kind of participation is required? What are steps, timelines and milestones?


local)?

What are current challenges and bottlenecks in the planning process? Development

in Goa

On behalf of the group Prof. Utpal Sharma presented that the group approached the exercise

by assuming that the two industrial pockets indicated in given plans are either identified by

the state government or by the state industrial department. The group also opined that

industrial development cannot happen in isolation and residential and infrastructure needs

to serve the proposed industrial shall be an integral part of the development. The group has

identified the stakeholders involved, the planning process, framework for interaction and

the challenges in the process and implementation.

Group Work 3: Industrial Development linked with Housing


19

The key stakeholders involved are

industrial workers, Department

of Industries, Development

Authority, Industry owners, local

villages and the urban local body

(ULB).

Some the key steps included in

the planning process are

projections and provisions for

future, expansion of municipal

boundary, provision for planned

infrastructure, mandatory

provision for housing for workers

(rent) and affected by land

acquisition and regular

monitoring of industries.

The main challenges identified

are scale of industries, political

will, interaction between private

partners and government,

mapping of resources,

accountability, and management

of effluents and revitalization of

land after industries.


20

Participants:

Mr. V.K. Phatak Ex. Chief Planner MMRDA

Mr. S.K. Kulshrestha Independent Consultant

Mr. Sugato Dutt, IFS Member Secretary Govt. of Tamil Nadu

Ms. Sanjukta Bhaduri Professor SPA, New Delhi

Moderators:

Ms. Tanaya Saha Technical Expert GIZ-LUPM

The objective of the group work is to expand industrial development along the peripheral

areas of a city in Tamil Nadu. After exhaustive deliberations on the following questions:

Who all needs to be involved in the planning process?

What kind of participation is required? What are steps, timelines and milestones?


local)?

What are current challenges and bottlenecks in the planning process? De

Group Work 4: Industrial Development in Tamil Nadu


21

On behalf of the group Prof. Sanjukta Bhaduri presented that the group assumed that the

proposed industries are

chemical industries. The

group has identified the

stakeholders, processes

and challenges in the

development of

industries.

The group has identified

various stakeholders

from the state and local

level. The policy level

decisions in conjunction

with inter departmental

coordination are

essential prior to the

start of the planning

process. Collection of

information database

such as projected

population and the economic activity, land availability and utilisation etc. are crucial for

analysis purposes. Baseline assessment of land availability and utilisation, social impact and

environment assessment needs to be conducted. Prof. Bhaduri also mentioned that

consultative process need to strive for building consensus rather than considering as a

procedural requisite.

The anticipated challenges are Environmental clearances, resistance to land acquisition,

consensus building, interdepartmental coordination, pollution control and waste disposal.

The group has reached consensus on the need for planning, interdepartmental coordination

and adequate monitoring & evaluation for smooth preparation and implementation of

development.


22

At the conclusion of all the presentations by the working groups the moderator Mr. D’Monte

invited the presenters from each group to be panellists for a discussion in a ‘Fish Bowl’

format. He further explained the format in which participants need to come to the dais to

ask a question or present their opinion. Some of key points are highlighted below:

Mr. Roy stated that the planning process needs to be transparent. Also, mentioned

that economically feasible and locally acceptable technologies have a prominent role

in addressing infrastructure needs.

Mr. Sharan said that large and complex planning projects must include a mechanism

for intermediate review and assessment.

Ms. Das mentioned that Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) are the reflection of a

parallel system that empowers to surpass the established participatory processes for

development. It creates confusion among public on whether to approach the

executive wing or the local elected representatives for their concerns. Also, she

asked the participants what should be the scale of spatial planning?

Mr. Bandyopadhyay opined that it is the fear that exists among the administrative

and political wing that decentralisation would lead to the misuse of power.

Mr. Dutt mentioned that it is important to address the scarcity of land and sudden

market speculations, which fails the regulatory system.

Ms. Bhaduri mentioned that discrepancies in land revenue records leads to

complications in the planning process and adequate mechanisms to resolve these

situations are not in place.

Ms. Saha asked the participants where to start for preparing a coherent land use

plan?

Mr. Phatak emphasised that it is necessary for the planners to think unconventionally

and question themselves whether can we plan for the unknown to allow new things

to evolve?

Mr. Sharma stated that government shall seriously consider increasing financial

investment in urban sector.

Mr. Jahnsen stated that we should look how to transform urban areas using simple

land use planning with district as a unit. Spatial plans shall clearly indicate the merits

of planning and de-merits of not planning.

Open Discussion in ‘Fish Bowl’ Format


23

Mr. Bandyopadhyay stated that it is necessary to understand what are the outcomes

expected from the plan, which needs to be communicated to the public. Also, it is

essential to understand what is real need for having a spatial plan and what basic

things would it provide?

Mr. Sharma stated that if plans are prepared based on a logic then it could be

convinced at the political and executive wings. He suggested that micro regional

plans can be more effective and easy to implement.

Mr. Mishra & Mr. Ashok Kumar opined that more emphasis on public participation

need not be given as majority are self-centric and do not understand the objective.

Also, mentioned that the decision making power shall not be with the people who

are not experts in the field.

Mr. Ghosh explained that a plan is prepared for the welfare of the citizens and if it

could be communicated in layman terms it would be easy for the administrative and

political bodies to take decisions.

Ms. Bhaduri highlighted the need to comprehend what can be achieved through

spatial plans through adequate diagnosis of the requirement.

Ms. Das acknowledged the importance of the guiding factors for preparing spatial

plans and requested the experts to suggest the guiding factors for a city to prepare

spatial plans?

Mr. Roy referred unorganised growth of peri-urban areas is becoming a concern of

public health & welfare and suggested it could be considered as a guiding factor.

Ms. Saha queried about the stake of planners in the planning process and the sanctity

of the plans as the time consumed by process exceeds the plan period.

Mr. Ghosh asked like grid-iron pattern developments can collage pattern could be an

option.

Mr. Kulshrestha opined that the lack of ownership of the plans and administrative

jurisdictions are barriers of preparing regional level spatial plans. He believes that

the upcoming National Policy on Land Use would address most the concerns that

were raised.

Mr. Jahnsen opined that a spatial plan that considers the region as a whole, instead

of focusing on the urban and rural divide is the need of the hour.


24

The second day of workshop started with summarizing the first day proceedings by the

moderator Darry D’Monte. The last technical session of the workshop “Reflecting on

Planners’ Profession” started with setting the context followed by presentations in ‘Pecha

Kucha’ a Japanese format meaning chit chat. The presentations were followed by an open

discussion in ‘Fish Bowl’ format.

Setting the context: Planning Education in India

by Mr. Utpal Sharma

Mr. Utpal Sharma, Director, NIRMA

University has set the context of the

session by presenting about the

planning education in India. As per the

Mckinsey Global Report (2011), the

Ministry of Urban Development

estimates that India needs 30,000 to

40,000 planners across its cities in

India and presently the number is

merely 5,000. The paradigm shift in

planning after independence has given

the platform for several institutions to

decide on their approach for the

academic curriculum. Now, the time

has come to revisit the academic

curriculum and professional requirement. The transformation of physical settlement

patterns from rural, which was 95 percent post-independence to urban (33 percent, 2011

Census) showcases the need to emphasize on urban issues. The urban agenda of the world

has also been changed - from provisioning of water and sanitation to environmentalism,

sustainable urban development, to liveable, smart and intelligent cities presently.

Day 2- Reflecting on Planners’ Profession, Presentations & Open Discussion


25

The early urban planning definition was focused on physical design, enforced through strict land use regulations. Now new approaches identify institutional shift from governmental control to good governance facilitating wider scope for planning. Earlier planning was considered as a multi sector (engineer, geography, architecture, economics and sociology) profession where more number of disciplines are involved towards producing a more contextual solution. Now, it is believed that inclusion of expertise in fields of business development, finance, etc. is necessary to bridge the gap between contemporary planning issues and idealistic principles in planning. In most planning schools in the country, the orientation and contents of their programs have been shaped by the planning ideologies that were essentially western in origin. Most curricula are a mix of theory and practical knowledge which tries to hone the communication and soft skills apart from technical and analytical skills. The need to redefine the curricula to meet the growing industry needs is being felt increasingly and there is a conscious effort among the planning academia to try and plug planning education to the urban agenda. Mr. Sharma presented the new curriculum for the planning programme at NIRMA University which offers choices to students in choosing multiple electives to prepare themselves for the professional needs.

A Historian’s Perspective of Planning Profession

by Mr. Awadhendra Sharan

Mr. Awadhendra Sharan, Professor,

Centre for the Study of Developing

Societies (CSDS) has presented his thoughts

and perception on planning profession from

an outsider perspective. Mr. Sharan

defined spatial planning as manging

spatially defined territories and people.

Broadly, it covers economic situation,

environmental and political challenges.

This is mainly based on logic of governance

versus logic of survival and the between

these two aspects is increasing

substantially. While emphasising on

technological aspects he stated that it is

necessary to understand the relationships

setup between different types of settlements.

Mr. Sharan stated that many political scientists refer that 70 percent of cities are beyond

the plans and in this situation it essential that planners introspect on their role and actions.

Mr. Sharan presented the views of authors Paratha Chatterjee and Rahul Malhotra on

distinction between arena of civil society laws versus arena of political society and

distinction between a static city and cities in motion and how they co-exist and how to deal

with it.

Further, he suggested that it essential to look at resource transfer between city and peri-

urban areas. Earlier experts debated on regional planning issue of how to determine the

optimum size of a satellite town? Whether it should be based on cost of service delivery or

on cost & time for mobility. To this Julian Whitely has added another parameter of aesthetic

appeal. Also, presented the views of Arjuna Padhya Roy and Dipesh Chakraborthy on

participation. While rationalising about orientation to future it is important to consider


26

aspirations of individuals and strengthen the capacities of individuals. Summarising this he

said what we are looking in participation is affirmation and not contestation. Mr. Sharan

opined that the academic institutions must focus on how to teach about listening than

speaking.

Reflections on Culture of Spatial Planning in India

By Mr. Saswat Bandyopadhyay

Mr. Saswat Bandyopadhyay, Professor,

Centre for Environment Planning and

Technology has narrated a story from

his experiences on the culture of spatial

planning in India using visuals. He

narrated the story with the example of

Lake City, Bhopal where the catchment

area of the lake has decreased from 60

sq.kms to a small area due to

urbanisation. He highlighted the laxities

of various departments in preserving

the water body and the lack of regional

land use plan to oversee the growth

surrounding the lake.

Similarly, he presented various examples of Regional Environment Management Plan of Joda

and Barbil of Odisha where mining is a major concern and no department has a vision for

the region. He also cited examples of laxities in industrial areas of Sanand and Changodar

clusters near Ahmedabad, Kalpasar Development Area, Matheran etc. Finally, highlighted

some of the key questions to be considered:

Spatial Resolutions – Taluka? District? Special Regions? State?

Institutional Ownership - Land & Revenue? Urban Development/Town & Country

Planning? Rural? OR a Neutral entity such as Home or SAD?

Prioritization of Areas- Hazard Prone? Natural Resources and Diversity? Higher

Anthropogenic Foot prints?

Theme – Environment? Natural/Common Property Resources? Hazard oriented?

Connectivity and linkages? Economy and Market?

Anticipated/ Targeted Users- Demand Side orientation of the SEP

Plan Implementation and Monitoring Framework

Institutional Capacities of both Demand Side and Supply Side agencies?


27

Spatial Planning leveraging on ‘JUGAAD’ way of thinking

by Ms. Aparna Das

Ms. Aparna Das, Senior Advisor, Inclusive

Cities Partnership Programme of GIZ has

narrated her story with visuals from

personal experiences. She mentioned the

word ‘Jugaad’ is a particular way of

thinking that makes things happen. As a

professional planner she introspected on

what should I deliver? A professional

planner executes the roles of technocrat,

negotiator, advocacy, generalist, activist

etc. Among the visuals shown in the

presentation, a picture depicting India

Pakistan partition was presented to

narrate the impact of a line on a

geographical space.

Ms. Das further shared the experiences of in-situ upgrading projects in Bhopal to showcase

the ignorance of planners, architects and decision makers of the impacts of their decisions.

The proposal was to redevelop the existing slum into vertical buildings and rehabilitate the

slum dwellers into these vertical buildings. The proposal did not consider or consult to

understand the impact on livelihoods and their families.

Similarly, Ms. Das presented another example where informal settlements sprung around

water bodies, used them as disposal system in the long run. The water bodies are either

polluted are extinct, which is because of the negligence from the regulatory body

responsible to protect them. Ms. Das presented the above instances to emphasize the role

and importance of the planning profession that centres on technical skills, ethical values

and accountability.


28

At the conclusion of all the presentations the moderator Mr. D’Monte invited the presenters

to be panellists for a discussion in a ‘Fish Bowl’ format. He further recapped the format in

which participants need to come to the dais to ask a question or present their opinion. Some

of key points are highlighted below:

Prof. Sharma opined that studio based learning approach provides a platform to

explore slum redevelopment or housing etc. There is a need for bigger planning

schools to break the conventional approach and teach more relevant topics.

Mr. Sharan believes that there is a gap between science of planning and experience

of living, which needs to be filled. Also, community and nature should be brought

together in the planning process.

Mr. Bandyopdhyay opined that the social needs are changing and the time has arrived

for planners to introspect on the following - how planning profession is being

perceived and relevant? What are the measures of successful plan? What are the

limits of spatial plans?

Mr. Roy mentioned that it is important for the students to understand the possible

alternative scenarios available in physical planning and the impacts of each scenario.

Further mentioned that it is important to consider the ecosystem of planning both

physical and institutional.

Ms. Saha mentioned that it vital to have the soft skills that help in implementation

of plans. Also, it is important to understand where do planners get confined and

when an intervention is required.

Ms. Das stated it is necessary to understand the hierarchy of the planning profession.

Mr. Barman informed that Government of Assam has constituted Village Land

Management Conservation Committees to oversee many aspects including spatial

planning and preservation of wetlands.

Mr. Mishra opined that planners are the recommending bodies and do not take

decisions on the plans, hence a planner cannot be held responsible for the failure of

a plan.

Mr. Ashok Kumar elevated the issue of environmental impact that is created by the

new capital region of Andhra Pradesh. Mr. Sharma contrasted by specifying that

Open Discussion in ‘Fish Bowl’ Format


29

urban population occupies only one percent of the land and transforming an

agricultural land into an urban area is inevitable for growth of urban areas.

Ms. Bhaduri opined that resources are becoming scarce and they need to be managed

efficiently and effectively. For which, academic institutions should also focus on

resource management in their curriculum.

Ms. Bhaduri also opined that synergies between various plans prepared by various

departments should be sustained.

Mr. Kulshrestha opined that urban is not the only component of the mosaic

representing India. Hence, a comprehensive thought process is required.

Mr. Phatak believed that many opine that real estate sector and developers are

enemies of planning but need to understand the economic drivers and their needs.

Mr. Anbu opined that planning schools impart European and American planning

methods and techniques, but they do not teach how to bring balance between

consultative approach and participative approach.

Mr. Ghosh explained that in most instances at the time of project/plan negotiation

if the politicians and administrators are properly educated about the negative

impacts of their decisions, it can definitely play a crucial role on their decision

making.

Concluding Remarks:

Mr. Jahnsen in his concluding remarks recited the lines of Mr. Phatak “land does not stop at

the boundary of a City” and Mr. Bandyopadhyay “planning stops at the doorsteps when it

starts to get interesting”, which emphasize the need of spatial planning at larger scale.

Further, he quoted the thoughts of a German Urbanist who opined that the enemy of spatial

planning is the area between two cities, which is neglected, though being the potential area

for growth. He further opined that the thought of visualising country as green carpet and

placing cities on the carpet is incorrect. Planning process shall consider the entire area of

the country to be dealt at different levels.

Mr. Jahnsen thanked all the participants on behalf of GIZ for attending the Connecting

Mosaics workshop and contributing to the stimulating discussions and sharing their

knowledge and thoughts on Spatial Planning in India.


30

ANNEXURE 1

List of Participants:

S.No Title Participant

Name Designation Organisation

1 Mr. Satinder Pal Singh Director (Housing) Ministry of Housing & Urban

Poverty Alleviation (MoHUPA), Govt. of India

2 Mr. Sangram

Mohapatra Joint Secretary

Revenue & Disaster Management Department (R & DM), Govt. of

Odisha

3 Mr. Subhendra Mishra Chief Town Planner &

Director Town Planning H & UD Department, Govt. of

Odisha

4 Mr. Souvanic Roy Professor IIEST, Shibpur

5 Ms. Kajori Mishra Dean Xavier University & XIMB

6 Ms. Sutapa Pati Professor XIMB

7 Mr. Utpal Sharma Director NIRMA University

8 Mr. P.K. Ghosh Retd. IAS Independent Consultant

9 Mr. Saswat

Bandyopadhyay Professor CEPT University, Ahmedabad

10 Mr. Ashok Kumar Member Secretary,

SGPOA Town & Country Planning Department, Govt. of Goa

11 Mr. Vidyadhar Kumar

Phatak Ex. Chief Planner

Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority

12 Dr. S.K. Kulshrestha Urban Planner Independent Consultant

13 Mr. Ram Mohan Mishra Planning Member, RDA RDA, Govt. of Odisha

14 Ms. Sanjukta Bhaduri Professor School of Planning &

Architecture, New Delhi

15 Mr. Sugato Dutt, IFS Member Secretary State Planning Commission, Govt.

of Tamil Nadu

16 Mr. Awadhendra

Sharan Associate Professor CSDS, New Delhi

17 Mr. Ashok Kumar Barman, ACS

Joint Secretary Govt. of Assam


31

18 Mr. V.T. Mandora Deputy Secretary Revenue Department (RD), Govt.

of Gujarat

19 Mr. Prakash Modi Project Officer Revenue Department (RD), Govt.

of Gujarat

20 Mr. Georg Jahnsen Project Director Land Use Management Project,

GIZ

21 Ms. Aparna Das Senior Advisor Inclusive Cities Partnership

Programme, GIZ

22 Mr. Naveen Potti Technical Expert Inclusive Cities Partnership

Programme, GIZ

23 Ms. Tanaya Saha Technical Expert Land Use Management Project,

GIZ

24 Mr. Kasinath Anbu Technical Expert Inclusive Cities Partnership

Programme, GIZ

25 Mr. Ramchandra Panda Technical Expert Inclusive Cities Partnership

Programme, GIZ

26 Mr. Arpan Mazumder Jr. Technical Expert Inclusive Cities Partnership

Programme, GIZ

27 Mr. Darryl D' Monte Moderator FEJI


32

ANNEXURE 2

Land Use Planning and Management Project National Workshop on

Theme: “Connecting Mosaics - 2016” Exploring India’s Culture of Spatial Planning

Date: 8th and 9th June, 2016 | Venue: Trident Hotel, Bhubaneshwar, Odisha

Workshop Objective: Understanding the existing practice and challenges of Spatial Planning in India and thereby understanding the roles and contribution of professional planners, key actors and the related academia in Spatial Planning.

Agenda Day 1: 8th June, 2016

9:30 – 10:25 hrs Registration

10:25 – 11:30 hrs: Inaugural Session

10:25 – 11:30 hrs

Lighting of Lamps.

Opening of Session by Moderator Mr. Darryl D’Monte & Ms. Aparna Das, ICPP – GIZ

Address by Mr. Satinder Pal Singh, IPS, Director (Housing), MoHUPA, Government of India.

Setting the Context by Mr. Georg Jahnsen, Project Director, GIZ-LUPM.

Keynote Address by Mr. Vidyadhar K. Phatak, Former CTP, MMRDA.

11:30– 11:45 hrs Tea Break

11:45 – 13:00 hrs: Technical Session 1 – Status of Spatial Planning in India, Practical Examples

11:45 – 12:00 hrs “Introduction to Group Work” by Georg Jahnsen and Darryl D’Monte.

12:00 – 13:30 hrs “Group Work” (4 Groups).

13:00– 14:00 hrs Lunch

14:00 – 16:00 hrs: Technical Session 1 continues…

14:00 – 14:30 hrs “Group Work” (4 Groups).

14:30 – 16:00 hrs Group Work Presentations ( 4 Groups)

16:00– 16:15 hrs Tea Break

16:15 – 17:45 hrs: Technical Session 2

16:15 – 17:45 hrs Panel Discussion “Fish Bowl”.

19:30 hrs Dinner


33

Day 2: 9th June, 2016

10:15– 10:30 hrs Summary of Day 1 by Darryl D’Monte

10:30 – 11:15 hrs: Technical Session 3: Reflecting on Planners’ Profession (Presentations in “Petcha Kucha” format)

10:30 – 10:45 hrs Setting the Context: Prof. Utpal Sharma, Director, NIRMA.

10:45 – 10:55 hrs Presentation by Prof. Awadhendra Sharan, Centre for Study of Developing Societies (CSDS).

10:55 – 11:05 hrs Presentation by Prof. Saswat Bandyopadhyay, H.O.D., Environmental Planning, Centre for Environmental Planning and Technology (CEPT).

11:05 – 11:15 hrs Presentation by Ms. Aparna Das, Sr. Advisor, GIZ-ICPP, New Delhi.

11:15 –11:30 hrs Tea Break

11:30 – 12:30 hrs Panel Discussion (“Fish Bowl”) moderated by Darryl D’Monte

12:30 – 13:00 hrs: Concluding Session

12:30– 13:00 hrs Concluding remarks and Vote of Thanks: Darryl D’Monte and Georg Jahnsen

13:00 onwards Lunch

Workshop Report of CONNECTING MOSAICS 2016seip.urban-industrial.in/live/hrdpmp/hrdpmaster/... ·...

Documents

Transcript of Workshop Report of CONNECTING MOSAICS 2016seip.urban-industrial.in/live/hrdpmp/hrdpmaster/... ·...