1. Opinion » Op-Ed
Published: November 22, 2013 01:01 IST | Updated: November 22, 2013 01:01 IST
Undermining urban planning
Chander Suta Dogra
At a meeting in July, where the RDRP-2021 was approved, political pressure also
ensured the inclusion of three new districts to the NCR.
Any dilution of zoning and construction in the Regional Plan prepared by the
NCRPB could upset the balance between urbanisation and conservation

2. As the National Capital Region Planning Board (NCRPB) revises the Regional Plan2021 (RP-21), a blueprint for a sustainable and planned development in the NCR, it
does so amid growing concern that perhaps it is time to question the inherent
weaknesses of this unique institutional arrangement that has prevented it from
becoming a model of “guided urbanisation in one of the largest metropolitan regions in
the world.”
Indeed, many of the challenges that the NCRPB faced in implementing and enforcing
RP-21, in force since 2005, have become manifest more during the year-long process of
revising the plan that is now in its final stages. Perhaps the most obvious has been the
addition of three new districts to the NCR, increasing its area by 34 per cent, even
though the study group on Regional Land Use, set up to make recommendations for the
Revised Draft RP-21, rejected their inclusion. But political pressure (read lobbying by
real estate groups) won the day and, in July, a meeting of the NCRPB headed by Union
Urban Development Minister Kamal Nath that approved the RDRP-2021, also
approved the inclusion of three new districts, even though they were conspicuously
absent from the draft plan itself.
So, Mahendragarh and Bhiwani have been added from Haryana, and Bharatpur from
Rajasthan, which incidentally makes half of Haryana (11 out of 21 districts) part of the
NCR now. Members of the study group that rejected the inclusion of the districts on the
ground that their addition would add to the chaos in NCR planning, say they were
under immense pressure from political representatives but did not give in, as the
demand was “untenable.”
Although the expansion has been done ostensibly to reduce the pressure on Delhi’s
health, educational and transport infrastructure, in reality, as the draft of the RDRP-21
itself notes, except for Gurgaon, Faridabad, Noida and parts of Ghaziabad, the benefits
of NCR planning have not percolated to other areas. The attraction for States is
primarily a surge in real estate prices that is likely to accompany the NCR tag, as well
as cheap loans from the NCRPB for infrastructure projects.
RP-21 is meant to balance urbanisation and conservation, and provide sustainable
development in the three NCR States of Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh and the
Union Territory of Delhi, and prevent haphazard growth in the agglomerated region
primarily by zoning and controlling land use. The board of the NCRPB comprises,
among others, Chief Ministers of the member States and is headed by the Union Urban
Development Minister.
In all the eight years that the RP-21 has been in force, the member States did not
finalise the sub-regional plans for their respective areas, as sub-regional plans have to
be prepared in conformity with the provisions of the Regional Plan, and this would
have tied the States down. Instead, they passed master plans with massive deviations
from the provisions of the current RP-21, and at breakneck speed, to cash in on the real
estate boom. Haryana passed three master plans for Gurgaon in quick succession in
2007, 2010, and 2012. Now, the States have prepared draft subregional plans that
reflect master plans grossly violative of the existing RP-21 but have managed to get
their deviations accommodated in the revised RP-21. Once notified, this will not only
regularise the existing violations but also introduce fresh dilutions in the original land
use zoning. Post-facto rationalisation is the name of the game now.
Consider this: In April, Haryana Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda wrote to Mr.
Kamal Nath requesting him to instruct the NCRPB to incorporate the “existing

3. position” of Haryana’s Gurgaon-Manesar Urban Complex (GMUC) Development Plan
2031 in the Regional Plan under review. Mr. Hooda’s missive came in connection with
a case in the Supreme Court, during the course of which the NCRPB had informed the
court that despite several suggestions, Gurgaon’s development plan was not in
conformity with the RP-21. It had also submitted a list of deviations by Haryana as
early as 2006 and followed up with several letters to the Haryana government asking it
to modify master plans of some other NCR towns to bring them in conformity, which
fell mostly on deaf ears.
Experts say that most of the revision is aimed at diluting environmental safeguards in
the Regional Plan 2021. In June, a planning committee meeting of the NCRPB saw
Haryana’s town and country planning department, and Rajasthan mooting several key
dilutions in zoning and construction restrictions, all of which have been incorporated in
the revised draft RP-2021. Key among them is the proposal to delete the restriction that
limits construction at 0.5 per cent, in the Natural Conservation Zone (NCZ), and also
the proposal to incorporate guidelines for ‘development’ in the conservation plans to be
prepared for the NCZs. These in effect will open up the Aravallis and other so far
protected, environmentally sensitive areas in the NCR for urbanisation. Prominent
realtors with huge land banks in the protected area stand to gain as their proposed
projects will be green lit. These changes were neither proposed nor reviewed by the
Study Group on Environment, which was unceremoniously packed up after just one or
two meetings. In fact, key members of the same group even held a seminar recently in
the capital to discuss environmental oversight in the revised Plan.
Says Jagan Shah, Director of the National Institute of Urban Affairs in the Urban
Development Ministry: “The distortions in NCR planning in the last few years go
against the very rationale of setting up the NCR in the first place. Implementation of the
original plan has been a challenge and the NCRPB has been repeatedly hauled before
the courts to explain deviations by the States.”
It is not surprising then, if there are some who see the RDRP-21 as a capitulation by the
NCRPB to the never-ending demands from constituent States to deviate from the
original plan. “States are running riot with the planning and the NCRPB seems to be
committing hara-kiri and consciously giving up some of its powers of enforcement,”
says an officer associated with RDRP-21. Chapter 19 of RDRP-21 which deals with
implementation points out: “This creates an unnecessary and fractious situation for the
NCRPB, which is called upon to point out violations and deviations from the plan,
ironically bringing into question both its own efficacy as ‘coordinator’ as well as the
commitment of the State governments towards a regional plan prepared by a Board that
includes, among others, the Chief Ministers of the constituent States.”
In case of violation of the RP, the NCRPB can at best withhold financial assistance to
the participating State or Union Territory. Just how effective this has been is evident
from the case of Haryana, which despite deviating significantly from the original Plan,
has managed to corner 72 per cent of the financial assistance from the NCRPB.
chander.dogra@thehindu.co.in
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/undermining-urban-planning/article5376474.ece
© The Hindu