×
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Shop is where the home is

Brazen commercialisation has reduced quiet neighbourhoods to mere nostalgia for Bangaloreans. A recent HC order, however, offers a ray of hope
Last Updated 05 February 2012, 14:53 IST

Bangalore’s consumerist overdrive has an underbelly that isn’t exactly too palatable to long-time residents: The unchecked mushrooming of commercial structures in purely residential areas.

This too apparent a trend over the last 10 years has left the Bangalorean grumbling, wondering whether the City will ever have residential zones at least remotely reminiscent of the peaceful ‘Pensioner’s Paradise’ years of yore.

But now, in a welcome relief, the High Court of Karnataka has issued an interim order to stop all commercial activities in residential zones. The order, delivered on January 24, says no commercial activities should be allowed in future in residential zones demarcated by the Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) of 1995.

The High Court order followed a petition challenging the merits of the master plan 2015 brought before the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vikramajit Sen and Justice B V Nagarathna. Unable to elicit a clear response from the State on the need to have a mixed zoning pattern, the court did not get a satisfactory response as to why the expert committee reports that appeared to contradict the CDP 2015 were not implemented.

As things stand, the State government and the planning agencies have been asked by the court to restrain from granting permission for any commercial activity in such zones.

The High Court had pulled up the State government for its lack of response to the questions related to CDP 2015. The Court’s poser whether the builders’ lobby was running the Government was telling.

The sky-rocketing land prices and the increasing influx of people from outside the State, it appears, have given the builders a free hand to convert residential localities into commercial zones with impunity. Their perfect tool: The CDP 2015 loophole of encouraging ‘mixed zoning.’

From being quiet residential localities, areas such as Koramangala, Indiranagar, Jayanagar and Malleswaram have been transformed into booming commercial spaces, albeit for a price. This has resulted in increased traffic congestion, parking problems and destruction of neighbourhoods, all due to the provisions and loopholes inherent in CDP 2015, as the petitioners contended before the High Court.

“The CDP 2015 loopholes were exploited beyond tolerable limits by the builders and land owners who wished to convert their residential places into commercial hubs. The chaos that accompanied the conversion has engulfed most parts of Bangalore,” says an activist involved in drafting the petition.

The petitioners had mainly challenged the several new zones such as ‘mixed zones’, ‘mutation corridors’ and ‘transformation zones,’ all of which they claim are against the Act.
Ironically, the State Government, in its Cabinet note issued in 2007, had endorsed the views of the PSS Thomas Committee, which criticised the intrusion of commercial activity into residential zones.

The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) had even agreed to ensure this ‘in principle’, but to no avail. The Committee was constituted as an expert advisory panel in 2005 on the orders of the then government to look into the 6,620 objections that were received against the CDP 2015. The note was added as an annexure to the PIL filed by concerned citizens in 2009 in the High Court.

Committee recommendations
The Committee had recommended that a “mainly residential area should be enabled to retain its residential character and large-scale commercial developments along the main corridors of traffic are not desirable.”

This was taken note of by the then Principal Secretary to the Urban Development Department, Jyothi Ramalingam, who had suggested that the BDA take note of these recommendations before releasing the revised CDP 2015.

However, according to government sources, the BDA had said in its reply to the Cabinet that “the CDP 1995 put unnecessary constraints on commercial zones (a mere 2.9 per cent of the conurbation). A more liberal mix of land uses and concomitant increase in parking requirements is a necessary supply side intervention which will restrict the urge for unauthorised conversion of residential space to commercial uses.”

The Committee had recommended that for one particular residential locality, Indiranagar, BDA should opt to pull down the BDA complex there to make way for a commercial space. However, the recommendation was not looked into by the BDA, which said it would examine the proposal in the light of the Metro rail alignment passing through this area.

On the much disputed ‘mutation corridor’, the expert committee recommended ‘protection’ of the residential localities classified as ‘mainly residential’ in the CDP. The BDA reasoned that only 10 arterial roads, two main roads and one Ring Road will be considered mutation corridors. However, some petitioners contended that these corridors persist right through ‘mainly residential’ areas, including Sarjapur Road, Indiranagar 100 Feet Road and Koramangala 100 Feet Road (17th Main). They have raised doubts about whether the committee’s recommendations were ever adhered to in this aspect. “A mutation corridor allows even an iron industry to set up shop along these roads. It is absurd,” contends a petitioner.

Such has been the drastic change in the BDA stance that locations earmarked in residential zones as space for petty shops, STD/fax, Internet, ATM, bakery, recreation clubs in the draft Master Plan have now been marked in the Final Master Plan as eateries, hotels, gyms, clinics, bank offices, small repair centres for automobiles, nursing homes, polyclinics, marriage halls and fuel stations.

In the light of such violations pointed out by the petitioners, the CDP 2015 may become irrelevant, if the HC rules in favour of the petitioners. This will leave CDP 2035 with a lot  of ground to cover.

Here is a look at the Thomas Committee recommendations,  the BDA’s response and the petitioners’ contentions

Thomas Committee
It is not desirable to permit developments of a nature which will convert Mainly Residential areas in due course into Mixed Residential areas.
BDA response
CDP 1995 puts unnecessary constraints on commercial zones. A more liberal mix of land uses and concomitant increase in parking requirements is a necessary supply side intervention, which will restrict the urge for unauthorised conversion of residential space for commercial use.
Petitioners’ contention
No parking spaces have been identified specifically, in the Master Plan.
Parking has been pushed further into pure residential areas by allowing multi-storey parking in the bylanes of residential areas.  The commercial activities allowed is over and above specific areas earmarked for commercial use within a residential area.

Thomas Committee
The local residents should be given a central role and empowered to monitor land use, building violations and traffic in their respective localities.
BDA
BDA may consider a consultative approach with ward committees, when set up, on these issues.
Petitioners
No such interaction or consultative approach has been adopted by BDA.

Thomas Committee
The basic principle is that a mainly residential area should be enabled to retain its residential character. Large scale commercial development along the main traffic corridors  is not desirable.
BDA
Agreed in principle.
Petitioners
In its response, the BDA has overlooked and not addressed the issue of commercialisation of current residential areas.

Thomas Committee
No mutation corridors should be permitted in (or through) any area which is classified as Mainly Residential.
BDA response
Mutation corridors are now limited to 10 arterial, two main and one ring road across city limits.
Petitioners
i) Mutation corridors still run through residential areas. For example: a) Sarjapur Road (currently not commercialised), b) Indirangar 100 feet road. c) Koramangala 100 Feet Road (17th Main).
ii) It is doubtful if any significant change has been incorporated from the draft Master Plan to the final one.

Thomas Committee
The criteria for locating Transformation Zones and Commercial Axis in the Mainly Residential areas should first be strictly defined and exist on those roads which have already been commercialised to such an extent that it is necessary for the remaining residents on such roads to have the choice to convert to commercial property because of the decline in livability. The number and length of such roads should be strictly limited.
BDA
Agreed. Commercial Axis is part of mainly residential area while Transformation Zones have been regrouped either as commercial business/axis or Mixed Residential zones.
Petitioners
i) While BDA has agreed to this recommendation, commercial taxes have in fact been drastically hiked in numbers from the draft to the final Master Plan
Examples
a) Koramangala: Increased from 9 to 15
b) Banashankari: Increased from 2 to 24.

Thomas Committee
In Mainly Residential areas, only identified roads should be permitted to have independent buildings for ancillary use and only on specific stretches which should exclude those parts of the roads which are still mostly residential.
Older residential areas:  Areas such as Malleswaram, Gandhi Bazaar, Shankarapuram, Basavanagudi, Vasant Nagar, Benson Town, Shantinagar, Visheshwarapuram, Jayanagar and Richmond Town Planning Districts also have Mainly Residential character and should be so classified. In these areas, the Transformation Zone should be limited to identified stretches on a small number of specified roads.
Petitioners
a) Commercialisation has been allowed through backdoor with the introduction of ancillary activities (commercial) on all roads, irrespective of their width.
b) Number and extent of ancillary activities increased drastically.

ADVERTISEMENT
(Published 04 February 2012, 19:57 IST)

Follow us on

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT