Goa does not fail to amaze these days.
We have protests to allow illegal activity that shuts down legal
activity while the Government is IFFY (International Film Festival)
about the issue. Now wide roads are blocking the Regional Plan 2021
(RP2011).
I may be biased in believing that the
best way forward for RP2021 is not scrapping but correcting the
anomalies. I fully agree with Dr. Oscar Rebello and a fellow member
of the Draft RP 2021 who says that lots of sincere effort has gone
into this exercise. I believe that the real reason that we have to
modify RP2021 is the fact that if it is scrapped we will be left with
the RP2001. We all know that there are many issues with RP 2001.
While everyone will be focused on getting a new regional plan
unscrupulous elements and Goa has no shortage of them will may hay or
rather concrete monsters in no time.
There seem to be three main elements
blocking the plan at the moment. First and foremost are the wide
roads seemingly painted across every village. The second is the fact
that tracts of land have been converted to “settlement” almost
without any one asking and third is the fact that some landmarks,
especially heritage structures or water bodies are missing.
Roads: The State Level Committee
(SLC) states categorically that the roads have been marked from some
old plan apparently they date back to 1977. Obviously despite the
digital maps being around since the DRP was released, the roads were
marked only in the RP2021. This has lead to the charge wrongly, that
the builders lobby is behind this.
If
the
road
leading
to
Curtorim (a village in Goa)
cemetery
is
shown
as
15
m
against
the
existing
3
m.
The
Gram
Shabba
should
take
a
call
and
send
their
recommendation.
as
to
what
is
their
need,
maintain
3
more
increase.
As
per
the
Indian
Road
Congress
it
can
only
be
classified
as
a
Village
Panchayat (VP)
Road
and
therefore
the
width
cannot
be
what
comes
out
of
someone's
hat.
Each
VP
will
look
at
the
roads
and
send
their
recommendation.
The
other
classification is
Major
District
Roads.
Where
required
it
should
be
marked
for
expansion
which
can
be
done
at
the
time
of
redevelopment
of
the
property
along
that
road.
This
will
ensure
that
as
the
properties
develop
the
road
will
automatically
widen
which
is
a
current
practice.
No
need
to
demolish
an
existing
structures
just
because
it
is
shown
in
the
plan.
The
CHOGM
road
is
a
good
example.
Where
25
mts
is
“No
Development
Zone”,
while
in
reality
the
road
is
15m.
This
allows
for
absorbing
all
the
encroachments
(strange
we
plan
for
illegalities)
without
hampering
the
road.
Conversion to
settlement.
It
is
clear
now
with
Edgar's
(a respected town planner) resignation
being
made
public
that
keeping
a
track
of
zone changes
when
done
quietly
was
difficult.
Even
now,
surely
some
of
the
changes
would
surprise
the
SLC
members.
Therefore
the
best
way
would
be
to
let
each
village
look
at
their
respective
village
and
decide
to
keep
or
reject
a
change.
In
Saligao
or Curtorim it is reported
that fields
or
barren
land
have
been
converted
to
settlement,
no
issue.
Let
the
villagers
ask
for
status
quo
after
studying
the
plan
in
detail.
Missing landmarks.
Let
the
VP
mark
the
landmarks
again
and
send
to
the
Town & Country Planning (TCP).
Some may not show due to issues of scale. A solution is to provide
maps with a bigger scale, say 1:5000. How
simple
is
that.
In
the
mean
time
the
plan
should
be
operational
but
any
change
request
sent
to
the
TCP
should
be
considered
provisionally
operational.
Meaning
if
a
particular
plot
is
marked
as
settlement,
and
the
VP
feels
it
should
be
put
back
to
eco
sensitive
or
vice
versa,
then
no
application
for
development
should
be
entertained
in
the
interim
period
with
respect
to
that
specific
survey
no.
The bigger worry
is the fact that the 73/74 amendment has not been incorporated in the
TCP Act. The participatory process for spatial planning can be
scrapped anytime as it has no Act backing the and no one can do a
thing.
The other huge
danger lurking in the background is the Amendment 16/16A of TCP Act.
Under this any project can by pass the planning process and if it is
for PUBLIC PURPOSES. That is a big hole in the planning process.
All the best to
the people, hopefully you will choose CORRECT RP 2021.
Blaise Costabir
No comments:
Post a Comment