Workshop Proceedings

National Workshop on “Town Planning Parameters for Housing the Urban Poor ”

th February 14 , 2011,

Organized by

Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation Government of

Facilitated by

National Resource Centre on Urban Poverty School of Planning & Architecture, New 4, Block -B, Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi – 110002 Tele-fax: 011 -23725516, email: [email protected]

Workshop Proceedings

National Workshop on “Town Planning Parameters for Housing the Urban Poor”

February 14 th , 2011

Organized by

Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation Government of India

Facilitated by

National Resource Centre School of Planning & Architecture, New Delhi

Proceedings of the National Workshop on Town Planning Parameters for Housing the Urban Poor

14 th February, 2011 Hotel Lake View Ashok, Bhopal

Prepared by

National Resource Centre (of Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, Govt. of India)

Prof. Dr. Neelima Risbud Co-ordinator, NRC & Professor Housing, SPA [email protected]

Dipti Parashar Senior Urban Planner, NRC [email protected]

Rupali Malhari Project Associate, NRC [email protected]

Jyoti Dash Urban Planner, NRC [email protected]

School of Planning & Architecture 4, Block -B, Ind raprastha Estate New Delhi – 110002 Tele-fax: 011-23725516 Web: www.spa.ac.in email: [email protected]

Table of Contents

Inaugural Session ...... 1 Welcome Note: Prof. Dr. Neelima Risbud, Co-ordinator, National Resource Centre, School of Planning and Architecture...... 1 Welcome Address: Prof. A. K. Sharma, Director, School of Planning and Architecture...... 1 Opening Remarks: Smt. Aruna Sundararajan, Joint Secretary (RAY), MoHUPA, Government of India...... 2 Introduction to the Workshop: Prof. Neelima Risbud, Co-ordinator - National Resource Centre, School of Planning and Architecture...... 3 Address: Shri S.P.S. Parihar, Principal Secretary, Urban Development, Govt. of ...... 3 Address: Shri Alok Shrivastava, Principal Secretary, Housing and Environment, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh...... 4 Key Note Address: Smt. Kiran Dhingra, Secretary, MoHUPA, Government of India...... 5 Address: Shri. Babulal Gaur, Urban Development Minister, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh...... 6 Vote of thanks: Deepti Gaur Mukerjee, Director, RAY, MoHUPA, Government of India...... 6 Technical session ...... 7 Presentation of State level case studies, Cost reduction by regulation and guidelines: By Prof. Dr. Neelima Risbud, Co-ordinator, National Resource Centre, School of Planning and Architecture...... 7 Presentation: Market perception and financial feasibility of planning norms for low income housing/ slum rehabilitation through PPP: By Mr. Shiv Prasad Singh, Director Embark...... 9 Presentation on Cost reduction Options through Regulations: By Prof. Dr. Neelima Risbud, Co-ordinator, National Resource Centre, School of Planning and Architecture...... 10 Questions and Open Discussion: ...... 12 Closing Session: ...... 13 Group Discussion: ...... 13 Vote of Thanks: Prof. Kavas Kapadia, Dean of Studies, School of Planning and Architecture...... 16 Glimpses of the Workshop......

Prof. Dr. Neelima Risbud delivering the Prof. A. K. Sharma delivering the Welcome Introduction to Workshop Address

Shri S. P. S. Parihar, Principal Secretary, Smt. Aruna Sundararajan, Joint Secretary Urban Development, Govt. of MP delivering (RAY), MoHUPA, GoI. delivering the the Inaugural Address Opening Remarks

Ms Kiran Dhingra, Secretary, MoHUPA inaugurating the Workshop & lighting the lamp with Smt. Aruna Sundararajan, Joint Secretary, MoHUPA, Shri Alok Shrivastava, Principal Secretary, Housing and Environment, GoMP, Prof. A. K. Sharma, Director, SPA. i

Ms Kiran Dhingra, Secretary, MoHUPA Shri Babulal Gaur, Urban Development welcoming Shri. Babulal Gaur, Urban Minister, Govt. of MP, addressing the Development Minister, Govt. of MP Workshop

Prof. Dr. Neelima Risbud sharing the State Mr. Shiv Prasad Shingh sharing the Level Case Studies Financial Feasibility Study of Four Cities

Participants sharing their view at the Inaugural Session

ii

Participants sharing their views at the Technical Session

iii

Participants sharing their views at Tea Break

Working Group Drafting the Recommendations through Group Discussions

iv

Inaugural Session

Welcome Note: Prof. Dr. Neelima Risbud, Co-ordinator, National Resource Centre, School of Planning and Architecture.

At the outset, Prof. Dr. Neelima Risbud welcomed the chair and other distinguished guests at the National Workshop on “Town Planning Parameters for Housing the Urban Poor”.

With this note she invited the organizers to felicitate the chairperson, Ms. Kiran Dhingra, Secretary, MoHUPA, Smt. Aruna Sundararajan, Joint Secretary (RAY), MoHUPA, Smt Deepti Gaur Mukerjee, Director, RAY, MoHUPA, Shri SPS Parihar, Principal Secretary (UAD Housing), Govt. of Madhya Pradesh, Mr. Alok Shrivastava, Principal Secretary Housing and Environment, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh, Prof. A. K. Sharma, Director, SPA, New Delhi.

Prof. Dr. Neelima Risbud then invited the Secretary, MoHUPA to light the lamp and formally inaugurate the Workshop.

Welcome Address: Prof. A. K. Sharma, Director, School of Planning and Architecture.

At the outset Prof. A. K. Sharma extended a warm welcome to Ms. Kiran Dhingra, Secretary, MoHUPA, Smt. Aruna Sundararajan, Joint Secretary (RAY), MoHUPA, Smt Deepti Gaur Mukerjee, Director, RAY, MoHUPA, Shri SPS Parihar, Principal Secretary (UAD Housing), Govt. of Madhya Pradesh, Mr. Alok Shrivastava, Principal Secretary Housing and Environment, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh, Heads of Town Planning Departments from States and UTs, urban planners, academicians and the officials at the inaugural session of the National Workshop on “Town Planning Parameters for Housing the Urban Poor”.

He further highlighted the need to review the town planning parameters which control the development process so as to stop the growth of unorganized, uncalled and substandard development. He stressed the need to build in flexibility so as to accommodate large mass of urban poor.

The Director also added that School of Planning and Architecture can act as a platform to accumulate, compile, assimilate and disseminate the information regarding “Town Planning Parameters for Housing the Urban Poor” so as to speed up the massive Programme of RAY. He emphasized that the workshop was organized to share experiences and views and build them in to a systematic frame work for developing town planning parameters for housing the urban poor. He added that reforms and changes shall be very useful in the process.

In the end Prof. A. K. Sharma once again welcomed the distinguished guests and participants and wished the workshop great success.

1

Opening Remarks: Smt. Aruna Sundararajan, Joint Secretary (RAY), MoHUPA, Government of India.

The Jt. Secretary began by stating that RAY has been a very ambitious project building on the groundwork already initiated by the JnNURM looking to deepen the reforms and to bring about a radical change in the urban planning paradigm. RAY has four integrated components founded on the background of property rights along with provision of a decent dwelling space to the urban poor, basic infrastructure services and integrated livelihoods. This, she emphasized would not be an easy programme to implement as it would require various elements to come together and make it workable. There would need to be a radical rethink on the entire planning approaches and strategies that we have.

The Master plans in recent times she reflected have become sophisticated and deeper documents but on the other hand there are large urban pockets outside the paradigm of planning and these slum pockets are deprived of most and basic planning norms which have happened over the last few decades. There is a growing body which is dealing with these issues and attempting to solve these challenges at the grassroot level. In the initial years most of the responses to try and address these pockets have been adhoc fragmented but over time a certain degree of standardization has been attempted. We need to draw out some of the challenges and the common element and come out with a set of recommendations which will be fed into the RAY programme.

She reiterated Prof A.K. Sharma’s view that planning is no longer a luxury that it used to be. Land is scarce and the pace of development in recent times is phonetic. Planners now need to build cities not change cities.

The pace of change is dynamic and over time various standards have been framed for the same within the Master plans. The School of Planning and Architecture has looked at a cross sectional representation across states to draw out challenges and suggest recommendations. She iterated that there needs to be a primary change in approach wherein planning and implementation come together. She stressed that the pace of change is dynamic and therefore poses a lot of challenges. She referred to Delhi’s Master plan example which now exhibits internal inconsistencies with little matching on the ground and poses serious problems. Thus the nature of planning and quality needs to be radically different.

The big issue, she acknowledged, is, how to have a cohesive and harmonious development and organize living dynamics since resources and land are scarce. She stated that whenever there have been plans’ coming under IHSDP, the quality of planning has left much to be desired. Though emphasis is laid over meeting the engineering standards, it is a very mechanical requirement. What is important is that living dynamic spaces are organized which is not apparent. She emphasized that planning today needs to be integrated with the social fabric and address their issues. Nature of planning has to be different and to enhance livelihood, cultural lifestyles, etc.

2

Through these workshops she hoped to see a much better, radically reoriented planning approach and strategy. She focused that the workshop is a “continuing work in progress” to look forward to a set of recommendations through a fruitful set of deliberations.

Introduction to the Workshop: Prof. Neelima Risbud, Co-ordinator - National Resource Centre, School of Planning and Architecture.

Prof. Dr. Neelima Risbud began by saying that it is a workshop with a difference as it is not only a theoretical research but it is an action research which to go as input in to the Programme of RAY. She added that the research aimed at integrating urban poor into the town planning main stream which is a giant step towards inclusive planning.

Speaking further on the study she outlined that the study included the detailed documentation of six cities and also the financial feasibility study of planning norms for low income housing/ slum up gradation through Public Private Partnership for four cities. She introduced the resource person form various states – Shri Shashank Mahagaokar, Ms. Banashree Bannerjee and Ms. Uma Adusumilli. She also introduced Mr. Shiv Prasad Singh who had helped in conducting the feasibility study of planning norms for low income housing/ slum up gradation through PPP for four cities.

While summarizing and concluding Prof. Dr. Neelima Risbud thanked the distinguished guests for giving a platform for having an interactive discussion on the study with the decision makers, heads of town planning departments from States and UTs, urban planners and academicians and other officials.

Address: Shri S.P.S. Parihar, Principal Secretary, Urban Development, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh.

The principal secretary first welcomed the secretary and stated that Madhya Pradesh was seriously looking at the findings by the School of Planning and Architecture. He further stated that the workshop was timely as Madhya Pradesh was under implementation of the programme and is currently in the process of working the unit sizes and defining size and cost of housing for urban poor and stressed that the workshop under RAY could help address these issues. He complimented the School for their study and reiterated the issues of the urban poor housing like policy issues, land tenure issues, norms for development of unauthorised colonies, incentives to private developers to be able to provide land to the urban poor, introduction of shelter fee, etc. He further stated that options of shelter provision versus reservation of land need to be evaluated, if necessary through a particular subcommittee.

He stressed that there are many critical issues which need immediate attention: • The interest of the developer which needs to be balanced. • The masterplan provisions which prohibit regularization of existing landuse. • Institutional framework which needs to be reviewed and studied through existing models. • The issue of land ownership in urban areas.

3

• Evaluation of reservation of land or provision of shelter away from current location.

In addition, within Madhya Pradesh in recent times efforts have been made in terms of practices like abolishing stamp duty for registration of land. However, obtaining loans for construction of houses, banking and lending problems currently are not encouraging which will have to be looked at.

He further stated that there still exist issues in regularization. Relocating remains a big issue while there are no clear norms for upgrading facilities in slums. There are challenges in terms of financing and affordability/pricing of units for urban poor.

He stated that currently, the Town and Country Planning which is involved in preparation of Zonal Plans should rightly mark the current slums and the same to be followed for upgradation. The focus needs to be on increasing the units within urban areas by also considering the requirements of the future. Capacity building issues of the Urban Local bodies need to be addressed to take the programme toward effective implementation.

Address: Shri Alok Shrivastava, Principal Secretary, Housing and Environment, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh.

The Principle secretary cited that RAY is one of the few initiatives of the Government of India wherein the preparatory phase has been introduced at a large scale which would go towards input of the programme and implementation of the same.

One important aspect he cited is the cost of the land that is required for housing the urban poor being projected at 10-15 thousand crores for the next 15 years with 1000-1500 Cr investment per year in terms of real estate. A major concern, he stated was to recover this cost of land. He reflected that, urban local bodies have little land and that too is used for facilities, etc. Further the cost of infrastructure increases with increase of density and funding pattern gets skewed.

He pointed that development of slums in the last 5 years has been in situ development but at the same time we have to ensure through policy mechanism, to offer disincentives to slum dwellers to site on important/valuable government land. Though Madhya Pradesh is a fore runner in giving pattas to urban poor, it is important to think as to how we can recover costs of such nature. Therefore he stated that there is a need to bring in private sector in providing this housing.

New options need to be evaluated for urban infrastructure and housing through PPP, incentive Floor Space Index etc. He cited an example of Madhya Pradesh that reserves 25% of land for the Economically Weaker Section. He stressed on the need to explore options like urban housing fund to aid in acquisition of land as acquiring land is a very difficult task. He further stated that peripheral urban land was occupied by people with tremendous political influence and obtaining this land is difficult. He stated that it is imperative to address practical issues from

4 the field and managing planning parameters for better implementation which could be deliberated upon in the workshop.

He expressed his happiness over the conduction of the workshop which would help in marrying planning with implementation of the programme and was hopeful that once the scheme is rolled out, it would result in much better implementation.

The principle secretary further complimented the states which are doing substantial work in providing housing for poor and thanked all those who came to participate in the workshop.

Key Note Address: Smt. Kiran Dhingra, Secretary, MoHUPA, Government of India.

The secretary at the outset thanked the host and the hospitality extended. She specifically thanked the School of Planning and Architecture for the manner in which it took up the challenges and spared time in looking at the same and studying the problem and trying to solve challenges faced by the programme. She shared the problems that we are particularly facing and point at the direction of solution for the same which she stated needs to be worked out together. She stated that we tend to look at problems in the confines of a project rather than as policies and plans, the reaction to the stimuli which then manifests into a programme. In doing so, we do not look at the larger picture without which the programmes are bound to fail.

She elaborated that the concept of master planning initially began off by creating garden cities and through borrowed Master plans. We failed to look at our own examples of building tighter communities like the Mughals did. We have taken up master plan process and we have stuck to it for decades wherein now there is a huge shortage of everything.

At the policy level too, she stated that, there has been a massive neglect as all the programmes were focused at rural areas and rural development as the urban areas turned into schools of chaos.

The urban areas are exploited with little political will to set things right. This is further aggravated by the urban mafia and nexus of power play with high levels of politics in urban land. The urban areas finally woke with economic growth and the cycle of urban growth intensified.

The introduction of Ray brings forth the new thought that the growth of the country has to include the mass of people (LIG, EWS) as they too need a share in the democratic system which is best done by assigning them the property rights. This is required to ensure that the urban lands are not limited only to the rich.

While talking about the planning process, she stated that the process is neither relevant nor sufficient. It is in this light that School of Planning and Architecture had been asked to compare with what really happens on ground. This would help identify issues and tackle the same.

5

New feasible alternatives need to be sought and action needs to be taken on the same. There is need to find spaces for them as these are seldom available. Choices need to be taken between intensive use and greater sprawl.

She iterated that land issues need to be tackled as obtaining land is tied with legal hassles as per the current land acquisition Act. Approaches of land acquisition models in states like and by Vijaywada through town planning schemes need to be introduced for acquisition which do not displace people, do not get into legal hassles and people are part of the planning and development process.

The secretary stressed that policies framed should not be hoping for an ideal arrangement to fall in place and the cynicism of the Town Planning resource is done away. She emphasized that the workshop would be the platform to debate and discuss with intensive and quick decisions as there is urgent need to begin actively on the programme. There is little time as the policy solution should not be ultimately late. She requested all to set aside the cynicism and put forth the best foot forward. She warned that if the urban poor as left or neglected further within our urban areas, the process of economic growth would retard. She expressed her wish for partnerships in making urgent and responsive suggestions.

Address: Shri. Babulal Gaur, Urban Development Minister, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh.

The Urban Development minister of Madhya Pradesh, Shri. Babulal Gaur, graced the occasion through his unexpected visit. As he addressed the participants, he invited all to the beautiful lake city and welcomed all to visit its historic and serene places.

Speaking further on the workshop, he stressed that the rural areas are source of immense employment whilst the cities are the areas of opportunities. Hence there is a need to provide and earmark for this informal sector within our cities without which they cannot function. He further emphasized that RAY would go a long way in ensuring the fundamental right to the people, one of property.

Vote of thanks: Deepti Gaur Mukerjee, Director, RAY, MoHUPA, Government of India.

The Director highlighted the need to have such national level conferences in a small time place like Bhopal so that even the smaller cities are participating and aware of the programmes happening at the National level.

The Director thanked the dignitaries, organisers and the participants of the workshop and encouraged all to actively participate and give concrete recommendations which can be fed into the programme of RAY. She was hopeful that the participants would participate, share and learn from each other’s experiences and provide fruitful inputs to the programme of RAY.

6

Technical session

The session was chaired by Secretary MoHUPA, Joint secretary (RAY) and Director (RAY), and moderated by Prof. Kavas Kapadia, Shri S.K. Kulshreshta.

Presentation of State level case studies, Cost reduction by regulation and guidelines: By Prof. Dr. Neelima Risbud, Co-ordinator, National Resource Centre, School of Planning and Architecture.

Prof. Dr. Neelima Risbud presented the existing situation of the Town planning parameters for housing the urban poor. She discussed the changing context and the varying urbanisation patters across various states. • Scenario for the following was discussed across 6 states. • Urbanization & Growth of Slums • Institutional & Governance framework • Plan Preparation & Implementation - Issues • Modes of Land Supply

Various issues on Land Sub Division Regulations discussed were as follows: • Development control regulations are not always part of Master Plans but have stronger influence on residential development especially of the poor. • Many regulations are old and were framed without affordability considerations. Regulations are prescribed considering plotted form of low rise development • Regulations were more focused on new greenfield developments than on the redevelopment. There are hardly any regulations for redevelopment. Since redevelopment is expected on private properties, financial viability is important but was not considered. • The enforcement of regulations is weak and further eroded by massive growth of illegal land subdivisions in all cities without exception. • All states have policy of regularizing illegal land subdivision either through Act or through administrative policy. This has made planning exercise irrelevant. Unauthorised colonisation is becoming an organised activity. • Real estate developments outside the municipal limits- lands purchased for SEZ, industrial parks, technology cities, townships, IT & ITeS has led to suburbanization & growth of ‘city regions’.

Issues emerged in the development control regulations provided in various states are:

 Minimum Plot/DU Size • The minimum plot-size standards affect housing costs. The common problem is high subdivision standards for layouts which results in high standards for minimum plot sizes. In the context of high land prices, this becomes unaffordable.

7

• The minimum plot sizes prescribed in the Master plan are high, and need based on sociological concerns; they became unaffordable to EWS & result in growth of informal housing. • Dwelling sizes in existing slums range from 10 sq.m. to 25 sq.m. across areas selected for case studies. • Due to affordability considerations, plot sizes/DU sizes special projects for EWS are much less than that prescribed in various Master Plan. BSUP guidelines of Central Govt. proposes minimum dwelling size of 25 sq.m.

 Density

• Infrastructure required based on proposed densities of Master Plans resulting in under estimation of infrastructure needs. • Intensive land use was discouraged by imposing unrealistically low densities (sometimes lower than the existing densities). • Plot sizes/Dwelling sizes and residential density is inversely co-related. Higher densities when adequately supported by facilities and infrastructure and proper circulation do not result in ‘congestion’ nor reduces quality of life. • As land prices increase, low residential densities reduce the number of houses available in a given area of land, generating unaffordable plot sizes thereby pushing up property prices. Conversely reduction in the plot size Increases gross residential density. • High intensity development reduces spread, reducing consumption of land by accommodating more people and reducing average land component /household and commuting trips leading to lower fuel consumption and lower emissions. Affordable plot/dwellings for urban poor requires high densities • Residential densities in housing projects for urban poor under state sponsored programmes/ JnNURM is several times higher than the Master Plan prescription.

 Floor Area Ratio

• Floor Space Index values in India are different from major cities around the world. The FSI values are very low, not differentiated between commercial and residential, uniform over very large areas, Not reflecting difference in accessibility around train stations, not linked to land market values. • The FSI is as low as 1 as compared to 12 in New York and 17 in Shanghai. Urban planning in India has preferred low densities for greener, low rise cities. This has either led to sprawls or even worse, informal densification without the supporting infrastructure. • In India, the legal floor space index (FSI) in many cities is very low which prohibits people from building high rise buildings • In small cities, the prescription of set-backs & building heights govern the built up area. FSI prescription in Mumbai has been lower (1.00) than the existing consumed in subsequent development plans. First consideration for lower FSI was the prevailing carrying capacity of water, transportation and communication, the second consideration

8

for lower FSI was to limit the population size of the city. Despite this, the city kept growing. • Extraordinarily low FSI in Mumbai & other Indian cities has led to an artificial increase in rents/ sq. ft. & land prices which has unfavorably impacted the urban poor.

 Community facilities and open spaces

• Master plans have no special standards for low income. The standards are not related to population but are prescribed as % of area. • Most Master Plans presumed strong public sector role and acquisition of land for provision of social facilities, open spaces and roads by the urban local body (, Tamilnadu). However, enough funds are not available with the local body to acquire the land. Hence many facilities do not get provided.

Presentation: Market perception and financial feasibility of planning norms for low income housing/ slum rehabilitation through PPP: By Mr. Shiv Prasad Singh, Director Embark.

Mr Shiv Prasad Singh presented a case study of four cities from market perspective of EWS housing i.e. Mumbai, Indore, Jhansi and Raipur. He explained there is a need for a market approach as RAY targets are ambitious and without private sector participation it is difficult to achieve.

Private sector will not be attracted towards EWS housing unless there are attractive profits in business, there exists over supply situation in middle class housing. There are poor margins in low income housing business. There exists a capacity surplus in construction industry along with a policy which binds private sector to build EWS housing. There is focused credit mechanism for urban poor for housing and EWS housing is an ‘a political’ affair.

He proposed a planning framework for EWS Housing i.e.

• An appropriate FSI, Ground Coverage & Density norms to substantially reduce government’s Viability Gap Funding requirements for new EWS housing projects. • Cost of land as another important determinant in reducing VGF, that which can only be controlled through early acquisition by government or private parties. • EWS housing and other housing projects must have separate Development Control Regulation in cities. • A uniform high FSI regime is not necessarily useful in reducing VGF. • VGF can be in form of cash or development rights in other housing pockets to developer. • Commercial component may be increased for EWS housing for cross subsidy reasons. • Approval process of new housing projects in city must ensure housing stock creation for EWS rather than collection of land.

9

Presentation on Cost reduction Options through Regulations: By Prof. Dr. Neelima Risbud, Co-ordinator, National Resource Centre, School of Planning and Architecture.

Post lunch, Prof. Dr. Neelima Risbud presented cost reductions options through Regulations. Various options identified for reducing the cost of the dwelling unit were –

 Option I – Reducing Plot size/DU Size

Cost of a dwelling unit can be reduced by reducing the plot size. This is because; the plot size is governed by various factors such as land availability and land prices.

Most of the master plans do no prescribe minimum size of the dwelling unit. It has been observed that the plot size mentioned in the masters plans have either been too large or being very less i.e.12sq.mt. in camping sites in Delhi. In Delhi, 80 sq. yard plots were allotted to Jhuggie Jhompri Cluster households for resettlement. The size of the plot was reduced to 40 sq. meter and further reduced to 25 sq. meter.

OPTION I OPTION II OPTION III OPTION IV

Bare minimum Minimum Desirable For high rise standard for standard for standard for Accommodation development dwelling size dwelling size dwelling size (Sq.mt.) (Sq.mt.) (Sq.mt.) (Sq.mt.) Habitable Room 12.5 15.5 12.5 12.5 Second Room - - 7 9 Cooking Space 2.4 2.4 3.3 3.3 Bath - 1.2 1.2 1.2 W.C. - 0.9 0.9 0.9 Minimum Carpet 14.9 i.e. 20 25 30 Area 15sq.mt Plinth Area 20 25

Comparison of different type of development was done that Group housing till 8 stories is being accepted by the urban poor in Mumbai. In Mumbai, general development for the EWS goes till 7 to 8 stories. The people’s perspective is changing as they are accepting to the urban houses.

The second generation migrants are working in urban sector and are happy to live on higher floors. Higher the floor, higher is the market price of dwelling. Also there is less pollution on the

10 higher floors and more security. People are also happy to incur cost in maintenance as they have secure tenure and a precious asset.

 Option II – Increase in Floor Area Ratio (FAR)

Increase in FAR is considered to be one of the ways to reduce cost and make housing affordable for low income households.

Land Market and land prices are dynamic and change with city, location and with time. Therefore there is an optimum FAR at a given location in a city. The higher the price of land, higher is the FAR consumption potential. The FAR norms prescribed in the DCR generally provide a fixed FAR for all locations in the city and freezes it for next twenty years.

When FAR is high, land consumption per person reduces with reduction of land cost per household. In a few cities, Govt. has been giving incentive FAR for slum redevelopment to reduce land cost/tenement and make housing affordable. However, the consumption of higher FAR is governed by the selling cost of dwelling and returns thereon. Developers may find it difficult to utilise higher FAR when cost of construction increased with higher stories making projects unviable at certain locations (eg. Mumbai)

 Option III - Increasing residential saleable area and reduction of facilities

Generally net residential area constitute 40% -60% of the total gross residential area. While schools are priced generally to recover the costs, shops are disposed off at profit, but the land under open space and circulation are totally non remunerative and their cost is borne by residential land/floor space. Although provision of open space has amenity value, but increasing the area under open spaces /circulation results in increasing the cost of residential land.

Standards for open spaces and facilities are quite generous in most Master Plans (e.g. 7.02 sq. m. /person in Delhi Master Plan 2021. These standards are drastically reduced in MPD 2021 for slum rehabilitation/relocation / in-situ slum up-gradation projects 0.46 sq. m. /person by eliminating parks/playgrounds and prescribing only tot lots. In case of SRA schemes of Mumbai the standard is further reduced to 0.18 sq. m. /person by eliminating provision of open spaces, Play grounds/parks altogether.

Facilities such as Primary school, senior secondary school and open spaces are to be provided on land, but facilities such as shops and community centre can be provided as a part of built up residential area.

Range of facilities were proposed for the Urban poor • Facilities @0.5sqmt per person • Facilities @ 1 Sqmt. Per person

11

Maximum density is determined not by building heights but by the area of facilities provided per capita. More density can only be achieved if the area under facilities is further reduced. This would result in affecting the environment. The area for facilities should depend on the number of persons living on that site – and cannot be a fixed percentage (e.g., 15% stipulated in existing Municipal rules).

Questions and Open Discussion:

After the presentation by Mr. Shiv Prasad Singh, there was a round of question and answers and a brief discussion on certain issues.

• One participant was of the view that at the cost of creating extra dwelling space, physical planning should not be compromised. Mr. Anjum Perwez was of the opinion that Far increase should be done wisely as if done only as piece-meal solution for slums without considering the entire city level; it would result in the creation of vertical slums rather than the current horizontal slums.

• Mr. Kulshestra reflected on the idea of according property rights as being very critical as per provisions of Ray as property rights ensures that the poor too have access to the markets. It is a good input to study whether giving property rights gives access to market.

• Mr. ashish Upadhyay stated that certain basic norms should be finalized for redevelopment for all. He further stated that the role of planners is crucial as land values are increasing and there needs to be accountability and objectivity in appropriating the same. He further argued that as long as there exists regularization of encroached and unauthorised dwellings, provision of EWS housing would have poor response. He further exhibited concern towards provision of such numbers of housing at low costs within prime city lands stating that over a period of years, the same may be evaluated as a scam for giving away prime lands at such low costs. Thus the programme must ensure an inbuilt protection of the officers/departments which would handle implementation of the projects.

• Another person expressed that unless the socio-economic fabric of the people being housed is not considered, the efforts to make slum free cities would not be successful as the people deprived of livelihoods, would move to other areas and create new slums.

• After a debate on unachievable densities and FAR as prescribed in the masterplans today, Mr. Anjum, Perwez also reflected that though FAR and density are entirely dependent variables, for the sake of the EWS, the number of variables should be reduced to ensure quality in service and living conditions.

12

• Prof. Kavas Kapadia also stated that Density and FAR need not be confused because both serve a different purpose though they are related. While FAR is concerned with volume of built up, density is crucial for laying of infrastructure services.

Closing Session:

Post lunch, the entire assembly was divided into three working groups for discussions on pre- specified topics to debate, resolve and give recommendations and suggestions on the same.

Group A: Development Options – Housing densities & FAR, for In Situ upgradation and new development Group B: Planning norms for urban poor – DU/Plot, facilities and open space standards Group C : Land-use reservations and mixed use provisions, land policy

Group Discussion:

The deliberations of the group were then presented to all present in the closing session through powerpoint presentations.

 Group A: Development Options - Housing Densities and FAR For In-situ Up gradation and New Development

Chaired by Shri Laxmi Narianan & presented by Mr. Rajesh Rawal

The following observations were made regarding housing densities and FAR for in-situ up- gradation and new development: • In general FAR needs to be increased. • FAR targeted during master plan period does not get implemented. If a project is not built within a stipulated time FAR will keep plunging, so vacant land needs to be controlled to prevent speculation. • FAR has to be a function of water supply, provision of sewerage and drainage and access. Facilities have to be provided in an integrated manner. • Within the city there can be differential FAR. It has to be function of land price or there would be unauthorised construction. FAR cannot be increased as per land value without upgrading infrastructure. • Spot FAR for different situations like slum, core city or high-rise. Density has to be different for in-situ up-gradation and new development. • In-situ development should take into consideration land cost. Location of in-situ site should not be  along all major road  sensitive area  area needed for public project

13

• Mixed land use should be allowed. Priority should be given to activites that enhanced their economic activities. • In new developments urban poor should be provided access to serviced land. There has to be designated sites for EWS in new housing areas. Under PPP, the builder has to build houses in lieu of certain percentage of reservation on its site. • It was concluded that FAR and density are dynamic thus they should be changed according to the circumstances keeping sustainable and inclusive growth in mind.

 Group B: Planning Norms for urban poor – DU/Plot size, facilities and open space standards

Chaired & Presented by Prof. Kavas Kapadia

On the topics, following observations were made–

Plot or flat • Plots are unaffordable,and with lifestyles changing a flat is imminent • Min unit size standard can be categorized by size of household and by categorization of sizes and practices of an urban area • Shift towards tertiary sector of economy and employment – necessitates new capacities – re-adoption – new trends to reduce migrants bringing in large households. Therefore, mix of dormitories to single room studios to self-contained flats are appropriated • 5 m cities could have multistoried, 0.5 to 5 m could have upto G+7 storeys, upto 0.5 m could have sites & services to walk-ups

Facility Standards (excluding circulation) • Overall rationalization of facility standards should happen first, both types and spatial standard for all income groups • Per capita based standards both for built and open spaces • Recently rationalized norms in some parts of India may be studied for this purpose • The figures mentioned in the presentation by SPA seemed acceptable for facilities • Only those that require exclusive and those that are location-specific require space standards (ground)

Open space standards • Rationalization of standards for all income groups is required first. • Per capita open spaces can be disaggregated into city, sub-city and neighborhood level open spaces. Each can be rationalized in terms space, and then distinction between green and non-green open spaces to be made. Green spaces must be developed and offered. • Size of open space should be such that it is usable.

14

Densities • Amongst density and height of building, one should be variable • Ground coverage is restrictive. Make it upto 50% subject to setbacks being as per codes • High densities and lack of social amenities with tiny unit sizes can encourage bad social behavior. Therefore implications must be studied.

Circulation • Roads must not be less than 6 m wide.

Private sector participation in slum redevelopment • Allow and facilitate PPP with appropriate conditions to allow choices, and to cover the whole city • Public intervention has to be there • Pockets must be pooled in such a way that all the slums are covered • Mixed income group housing must be encouraged

 Group C: Land Use Reservation and Mixed Land Use provisions, Land policy

Chaired by Shri S. Mahagaonkar & Presented by Smt. Banashree Banerjee

Intensive deliberations on the above topic brought about the following suggestions: Reservation of Land: It is agreed that reservation of land for the poor is required. The issue remains as to how to make it operational. The reservations could be at different levels:

1. Land reservation in Project: • National Policy for reservation of land is good in principle but needs to be evaluated w.r.t. feasibility in different cities for ex. In , up to 10% is acceptable and feasible. In , UP & TN -15%. • Reservation can be on the same plot/or within fixed radius. Several developers can join together to reserve a pocket. • In specific cases, developers may be asked to purchase land elsewhere (designated areas)

2. Land Reservation In Master Plan: • There should be reservation for EWS population in the MP based on present and future projections. • Zone existing slums to be developed in-situ as mixed use EWS Zone. • For future EWS population and relocation, zone proportionate areas in MP zones along with the plan/strategy for making this land available • Explore other options for making land available for the poor • unused/underutilised Govt land, rationalisation of development standards • Land reservation for migrants and construction labour

15

Mixed Land use: In terms of mixed land use, it was felt that the same needs to be proposed again at two different levels.

1. Mixed use for Project: • Introduce commercial use for cross subsidisation • Service areas/work centres of the workers could be integrated.

2. Mixed Land Use at Masterplan level • All low income areas to be mixed use areas • Only exclusive zoning for industry, service networks, environment and heritage protection areas, wholesale commerce.

Land Policy: The discussion relating to land policy brought forth certain practical issues pertaining to land acquisition and allotment. Some of the suggestions were • Do not allot land, only property rights • Urban area should have exclusive land policy and not be governed by rural land laws • Urban land policy should look at regulation and promoting development actively and preventing speculation • Masterplan has to be backed by land policy • Designate direction of growth and areas of development • Alternatives to Land Acquisition; direct negotiations; joint development with landowner • Transparent and simplified process • Need for Land Information database • Some Ideas with regard the above were: • Bring back ULCRA/other methods of land redistribution • Land Acquisition needs to be simplified. • Redistribution of land. • Vacant land/property taxation • One family , one house

Vote of Thanks: Prof. Kavas Kapadia, Dean of Studies, School of Planning and Architecture.

The Dean of studies Prof. Kavas Kapadia thanked the Jt. Secretary and Director for gracing the workshop by their esteemed presence. He further thanked all the participants for actively participating in the workshop and giving their valuable suggestions and recommendations. He thanked Prof. Dr. Neelima Risbud and the team of NRC for facilitating and appropriately organizing the workshop.

16

Annexure - I

Background Note on National Workshop on Town Planning Parameters for Housing the Urban Poor

1. The Context

Regulatory frameworks have a significant impact on urban development in general and low income settlements in particular. It includes legal instruments of zoning, land-use, plotted/flatted development, space standards and infrastructure standards. Many states have developed statues, policies/regulations to ensure more equitable and appropriate allocation of land for the poor. However, a key issue at settlement level is the extent to which regulatory framework of town planning reflects the needs, priorities, aspirations and affordability of low income communities.

Most planning regulations do not prescribe norms for slum upgrading. As such, upgraded slums do not confirm to planning regulations and do not get integrated into the urban planning system. Significant part of planning norms had evolved out of colonial approaches.

It is in this context that the Government of India has launched, Rajiv Awas Yojana in the year 2009 envisaging tackling issues of inclusive growth and slum-free cities. It further proposes ‘in situ’ development programmes with basic amenities and an enabling strategy for affordable housing in the case of ‘tenable’ slums, with reconfiguration to the extent possible based on town planning norms of the State/UT concerned. It emphasizes that States/UTs develop slum-free State/UT/Cities vision and develop legal framework for regularizing space and accord property rights to slum-dwellers as well as create space for the poor and new entrants to cities as they grow.

The guidelines of RAY also prescribes that ‘It is important to ensure that these settlements follow norms to ensure basics of public health, hygiene, safety, security and efficiency of orderly development of sustainable habitat and achieve optimum use of land”.

2. Research Study on Town Planning Norms for Urban Poor

In the above context, the Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation has awarded a research study to the National Resource Centre (NRC) established in the School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi. The study has precisely undertaken the comparative assessment of “Town planning parameters for low income housing” in twelve cities of six states viz. Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh Rajasthan, Tamilnadu and . The details of states/cities taken up for the case studies are as follows:-

17

Sl. States Geographical Level of Cities No. Location Urbanisation 1 Uttar Pradesh North 20.8% Lucknow Jhansi 2 Rajasthan West 23.4% Jaipur Alwar 3 Madhya Central 26.5% Indore Sagar Pradesh 4 Maharashtra South West 42.4% Mumbai Nanded 5 Karnataka South 34.0% Bangalore Tumkur 6 TamilNadu South 44.0% Chennai Erode Note: No cities have been selected from Hilly areas/ North-Eastern States of India.

The present research is an academic effort to review & compare current planning regulations (especially densities, F.A.R, Plot sizes) in selected cities & examines its appropriateness to include low income affordable housing & regularized slum/ resettled slum in the broader context of Rajiv Awas Yojna. The aims of the study are underlined as: • Assessment of regulatory framework for providing housing to urban Poor. • Undertake comparative review of current planning norms and development control regulations (i.e. residential densities, FAR, Plots sizes and use permissibility for mixed uses etc.) and their effectiveness for urban poor in selected cities/states. • Examine appropriateness of present planning regulations for low income affordable housing and regularized slum/ resettled slums. • Further it has also undertaken studies on financial feasibility of planning norms for low income housing/slums.

3. Purpose of the Workshop

The proposed workshop intends to share the outcome of the research study with the larger group of technical experts in view of its applicability as a reference input for drafting guidelines on “planning norms for slum free cities” in the context of Rajiv Awas Yojna. The outcomes of the research flag vital issues w.r.t regulatory framework of town planning and norms for including slums and their development in mainstream urban planning process to make cities slum free.

4. Intended Output of the Workshop

The workshop is proposed to provide inputs to the detailed guidelines being formulated by the Ministry for Slum Free city planning under RAY. It will explore the issues connected to existing town planning norms/parameters based on learning’s generated from case studies undertaken by SPA in 6 states of the country. The issues of revising or reframing the town planning norms for slum upgradation, redevelopment and relocation would be discussed in the light of RAY

18 guidelines and the studies undertaken by SPA. The master planning approach and modifications needed therein to suit the urban poor would also be discussed in the workshop.

5. Proposed Participants

The key participants would be a combination of urban administrator, town planners, slum clearance boards, urban local bodies of selected states and representatives of real estate organization. The town planners working on these specific topics will be specially invited to participate, share their state experiences and give comments /suggestions in the workshop after the draft planning guidelines are circulated to the practitioners in advance. Civil Society partners working on urban planning issues would also be encouraged to participate in the workshop. The detailed schedule of the proposed workshop is provided on next page.

19

Annexure – II

Programme Schedule

Workshop on Town Planning Parameters for housing the urban Poor

14 th February, 2011 Venue: Hotel Lake View Ashok, Shamla Hills, Bhopal (M.P.)

Session Topic Speakers/Moderators 9:00 – 9:30 Registration - am Inaugural Session: 9.30 – 9.40 Welcome Address Prof. A.K.Sharma am Director, School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi 9.40 – 9.50 Presentation of Bouquets to am the dignitaries and lighting of the lamp 9.50 – 10.00 Opening Remarks Smt. Aruna Sundararajan, IAS am Joint Secretary (RAY) Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation Govt. of India 10.00 –10.10 Introduction to the workshop Prof. Neelima Risbud, am Co-ordinator - NRC, School of Planning & Architecture, New Delhi 10.10 –10.20 Address by Secretary, UDD, Shri S.P.S. Parihar am Govt. of Madhya Pradesh Principal Secretary, Urban Development Govt. of Madhya Pradesh 10.20 – 10.30 Address Principal Secretary, Shri Alok Shrivastava am Housing and Environment, Principal Secretary, Housing and Environment, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh Bhopal 10.30 – 10.45 Key Note Address Smt. Kiran Dhingra, IAS am Secretary, Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation (MoHUPA), Govt. of India 10.45 – 10.55 Vote of Thanks Smt. Deepti Gaur Mukerjee am Director, RAY, Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation (MoHUPA), Govt. of India 10.55 to 11.15 ------Tea Break------Technical Session : Town Planning norms for urban poor : State level case studies, Outcomes and Recommendations

20

Chair : Secretary MHUPA/ Additional Secretary & Mission Director, JNNURM Moderators: Prof. Kavas Kapadia, Shri S.K. Kulshreshta 11:15 – 11:45 Sharing case study of 6 Prof. Neelima Risbud, pm states on town planning Co-ordinator - NRC, School of Planning & parameters for urban poor : Architecture, New Delhi Findings and issues 11:45 – 12:15 Financial feasibility of Mr. Shiv Singh, Director Embark Advisors Pvt. pm planning norms for low Ltd. income housing/slum Planning & Real Estate Advisors upgradation through PPP 12:15 – 1:00 Outcomes/Recommendations Prof. Neelima Risbud, pm of Research Study of NRC, Co-ordinator - NRC, School of Planning & SPA Architecture, New Delhi 1:00 –1: 30 Questions and open - pm discussion 1.30 to 2:30 ------Lunch Break ------Group Discussion Session: Formation of 3 groups for discussion on sub themes 2:30 – 4:30 Sub themes to draft issues Group Facilitators pm for guidelines. 1. Land-use reservations • Sh. S. Mahagaonkar and mixed use Retd. Chief Town Planner (JDA, provisions, Land Policy Rajasthan) 2. Planning Norms for Urban Poor – DU/Plot, • Ms. Banashree Banerjee facilities and open space Urban Management Consultant standards 3. Development Options – • Ms. Uma Adusumilli Housing densities & Chief Planner, MMRDA FAR, for In Situ Upgradation and New Development 4:30 – 4.45 ------Tea Break ------Closing Session: Presentations and follow- up action 4:45 – 5:20 Detailed presentations from Chair pm each of the groups on the Ms. Deepti G. Mukherjee, draft issues & guidelines Director, RAY, Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation (MoHUPA), Govt. of India

5.20 – 5.50 Agenda for follow-up action Member/s of Technical Committee for pm preparation of Slum Free City Plan

5:50 – 6.00 Vote of Thanks Prof. Kavas Kapadia pm Dean of Studies, , School of Planning & Architecture, New Delhi

21

Annexure – III

List of Invitees

Workshop on Town Planning Parameters for housing the urban Poor

14 th February, 2011 Venue: Hotel Lake View Ashok, Shamla Hills, Bhopal (M.P.)

Sl. E-Mail/ Name Address Phone/Fax No. Mobile A. State Housing &Urban Development Departments Secretary (Housing) Govt. of Karnataka, Sh. M. Laxmi Room No.213 2nd Floor Vikas Sauda, Dr. Telefax: 080- sim.kar@nic 1 Narianan

B.R. Ambedkar Road,BANGALORE- 22251476, .in 560001(IHSDP) CEO, Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Tel: 23379983, delhishelter 2 Mr. Amarnath Board Govt. of NCT of Delhi Punarvas Fax: 23370965, @gmail.com Bhavan I.P. Estate, New Delhi-2. M: 9871895644 B. Commissioners Mr. Anjum Commissioner, Municipal Administration, a_parvez@ 3 9448378644

Parwez Karnataka yahoo.com C. HUPA Ministry Secretary, Room No. 225 -C Wing Ms Kiran Dhingra 4 Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty IAS Alleviation , GoI, New Delhi 110011 Joint Secretary(RAY) Room No. 116-G, Smt. Aruna 5 Wing Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Sundarajan,IAS Alleviation , GoI, New Delhi 110011 Director (RAY), Room No. 118-C Wing Ms. Deepti Gaur deeptigaur@ 6 Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty 9013554433

Mukerjee IAS yahoo.com Alleviation , GoI, New Delhi 110011 Team leader , GHK team, Ministry of shubhagato Mr. Shubhagao 7 Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation, GoI, 9811660176 @hotmail. Dasgupta

New Delhi 110011 com DFID / GHK Team, Ministry of Housing & Dr. Suman Sen suman1210 8 Urban Poverty Alleviation, GoI, New Delhi 997116006

Sharma @gmail.com 110011 DFID / GHK Team, Ministry of Housing & amukherjee. Ms. Anindita 9 Urban Poverty Alleviation , GoI, New 9910704713 ghk@gmail. Mukherjee

Delhi 110012 com DFID / GHK Team, Ministry of Housing & tsaikia@ 10 Ms. Tora Saikia Urban Poverty Alleviation , GoI, New 9650449102

gmail.com Delhi 110012

22

D. SPA Director, School of Planning and 11 Prof. A K Sharma Architetcure, New Delhi Prof. Kavas Dean of studies, School of Planning and 12 kapadia Architetcure, New Delhi E. State Town Planning Depatments Mr. Vinod Kumar 13 SUDA, Lucknow 9455551149 Yaduvanshi Municipal Corporation, skush@ 14 Mr. S C Kush 9818043232

Faridabad, yahoo.com Add.Chief Town Planner, Rajasthan mtaori10@ 15 Mr. Mohan Taori 9950722276

Housing Board, Jaipur gmail.com kharenanda Add.Chief Town Planner, CTP Office, 16 Mr. N K Khare 9460066508 kumar@redif Opposite Birla Tempel, Jaipur

fmail.com Mr. P. Naveen Specilist , Town Planning, MEPMA, naveenkp20 17 7893810331

Kumar Mucipal Administration Department @gmail.com mahashabd Mr. P. 18 DDA 98110799863 [email protected] Mahashabdey om 19 Anju Singh Project Officer, SUDA , UP 9897896036

Office of the Chief Town Planner, Sec 10 rjrawal@yho 20 Mr. Rajesh Rawal 9426367590

A, GandhiNagar o.com Tel: Senior Planner,Chennai Metropolitan 04428414855, Development Authority,Thalamuthu chithracmda 21 S.Chithra fax: Natrajan Building No 1 Gandhi Irwin @gmail.com 04428548416, Road,Egmore, Chennai 600008 M: 09444386303 Tel: Assistant Planner,Chennai Metropolitan 04428414855, Development Authority,Thalamuthu anuraga.ravi 22 R. Anusuya, fax:

Natrajan Building No 1 Gandhi Irwin @gmail.com 04428548416, Road,Egmore, Chennai 600008 M: 09444787968 F. Resource Persons Urban Development Consultant, Sector A, banashree_ Ms. Banashree 23 Pocket C. Flat No. 6 Vasant Kunj, New 9868214202 [email protected] Bannerjee Delhi- 110070 om Chief Planner (Retd.),Jaipur Development shailashash Shri Shashank 24 Authority, Plot No. 7-A, Keshav Vihar 9829058343 ank@yahoo. Mahagaokar Gopalpura Bye- Pass Jaipur- 302015 co.in Office:022- Chief (Planning Division),Mumbai 26591237, 022- Ms. Uma Metropolitan Region Development umaplanner 25 26590001-08,

Adusumilli Authority, Bandra-Kurla Complex, @gmail.com M:9821637475 Bandra (East), MUMBAI – 400 051 Mr. Shiv Prasad Director, EmbarkEstate Advisors Pvt. Ltd, shiv.singh@ 26 9999928014 Singh 37- Neeraj CGHS, B-1, Vasundhra embarkgrou

23

Enclave , Delhi--110096 p.com

G. others Dr. S.K. Urban Development Consultant, AO-27, kools66@ho 27 9313951557

Kulshreshtha Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi -110088 tmail.com idtrishna@g 28 Trishna Project Associate, CEPT 8980600145

mail.com F. BHOPAL Shri Baboolal 29 Minister of UD , MP Gaur Mr. K K Singh 30 PA, Minister of UD , MP Bhagel Principal Secretary, Ministry of Urban 0755-2442055 spsparihar@ 31 Shri S.P.S Parihar Dev. & Adminstration Mantralaya, Fax:0755-

hotmail.com Vallabh Bhavan, Bhopal- 462003 2574524 asbhadouria 32 Mr. Ashok Singh UAD, PMU, BHOPAL 9009635321

@gmail.com akumar@mp 33 Mr. Ashok Kumar CE, UADD 9425501281

urban.co.in Mr. Sanjeev sanjtpa@gm 34 SPA, BHOPAL 9425301469

Singh ail.com Email: Sh. Alok Principal Secretary (Housing & Tel: 0755– 35 pshousenv- Srivastava Envoirnment) 2551786 [email protected] Off:0755 Special Secretary, Housing & 552356, snmisra@m Shri S.N .Mishra Environment Department, Govt. of 36 Fax:0755 purban.gov.i ,IAS Madhya Pradesh. Mantralaya, Room No. 552591, n 325, Vallabh Bhavan, Bhopal- 462003 M:9827012820 Chief Engineer, Directorate of Urban Administration & Development Fax:0755 akhare@mp 37 Shri Ashok Khare Department,Bus Stand No. 6, Shivaji 2558975-76, urban.gov.in Nagar,Bhopal - 462016 M: 9425301281

Additional Director Town Planning (M.P.), bntripathi.tcp 38 Shri B N Tripathi 9425605777

E-5 Arera Colony, Bhopal 462016 @gmail.com Shri Yogendra Sharma, IAS Fax: 0731 Shri Yogendra yogesh26@ 39 Commissioner Indore Municipal 2434489,

Sharma yahoo.co.in Corporation Indore, M.P M: 9425614054 Commissioner Municipal Corporation , Fax:0755 40 Shri Manish Singh Bhopal Harshvardhan Complex, 1st Floor 2539806,

Mata Mandir Chauraha Bhopal M: 9425675440 Ph:0755 Commissioner,Directorate of Town & 2427091 ashishupadh Shri Ashish 41 Country Planning Paryavaran Parisar, E- Fax:0755 aya@hotmai Upadhyay, IAS

5, Arera Colony, Bhopal -462016 2427097 l.com

24

skmudgal@r Mr. Shivkant Twon Planner, Bhopal Municipal 42 942499977 ediffmail.co Mudgal Corporation, Madhya Pradesh

m natraj_krant 43 Dr. Natraj Kranthi Associate Professor, SPA Bhopal 9754477838 hi@rediffmai

l.com Prof. Manmohan HOD Deptt. Of Urban Plannig, School of 44 9893064636

Kapshe Plannig & Architecture, Bhopal HOD, Department of Architecture and alka.bharat 45 Dr. Alka Bharat Planning, Maulana Azad National Institute 9826296046 @yahoo.co

of technology, Bhopal 462051 m Project Director, Madhya Pradesh Urban Ms. Kalpana mkapshe@g 46 Services for Poor Govt. of Madhya 9425012310

Srivastava, IAS mail.com Pradesh, Shivaji Nagar Bhopal-462016 Deputy Director Communication, Municipal Support Unit, MPUSP 2nd roy@mpurb 47 Shri C.U. Roy 942500960

Floor, Palika Bhavan Shivaji Nagar Stop an.gov.in No. 6, Bhopal-462003 Mr. Javed 48 APRO MCB 9424499983 Farooqhi Mr. Ajay Kumar ajayvinodia 49 SPA, BHOPAL 9425012838

Vinodia @gmail.com arajit@gmail 50 Mr. Ajit Mali Indore 9826995534

.com 51 Mr. C M Shukla 7, Race Course Road, indore 9406801008

52 Mr. Hitendra 102, navneet Plaza, indore 9826061124

Mr. Ravi dpr.mpinfo.o 53 DPR, Bhopal 9425079181 Upadhaya rg swati.srivast Research and Training Officer, UAD 54 Swati Srivastava 9754034209 ava621@ga Bhopal

mil.com uksachdeva 55 Mr. U K Sachdeva Additional Director, UAD 94253011117 @rediffmail.

com Mr. Sanjay sanjayp332 56 UAD, BHOPAL 9827364427

Pandey @gmail.com alkaaggarwa l- 57 Alka Aggarwal Paryavaran Bahawan, Bhopal 9425300479 2009@rediff

mail.com 58 Dr. D Rayanna MPUSP, SD & Trainning, Consultant 9993176574

Mr. P. D. karkhanispa 59 WAP COS LTD. 9893026584

Karkhani @gmail.com 60 Mr. R K Agarwal WAP COS LTD. 9810433268

61 Modhukar HUDCO, BHOPAL 9893203918

25

Team Leader, MPUSP,Palika Bhavan, rpslateruk@ 62 Dr. Richard Slater Shivaji Nagar, Stop No. 6, Bhopal - 9995569811

yahoo.co.uk 462016 mayank@m 63 Mr. Mayank AO BMC 9424499900 purban.gov.i

n Mr. Jayesh Kuamr Joint Director, Town and Country vijayjk@gma 64

Vijay Planning, Sagar il.com vijay.tandon 65 Mr. Vijay Tandon SNPUPR 9815070974 @ghkint.co

m Architect and Urban Development Sh. Rajarshi Planner, MPUSP,2nd Floor, Palika archieroger 66 9429040892

Rakesh Sahai Bhavan, Shivaji Nagar, Stop No. 6, @gmail.com Bhopal-462016 (M.P.) kbhatnagar Mr. Kmalesh 67 MSU, MPUSP, UADD, BHOPAL 9425373601 @mpurban. Bhatnagar

gov.in Deputy Director Planning,Municipal sunilsingh21 Support Unit, MPUSP,2nd Floor, Palika 68 Shri Sunil Singh 9425150108 3@rediffmail Bhavan,Shivaji Nagar, Stop No.6

.com Bhopal-462016 sudhir.rathor 69 Mr. S. S. Rathor Joint Director, Town Planning, Bhopal 2427092

@gmail.com G. NRC Staff Prof. Neelima n.risbud@g 70 Coordinator, NRC, SPA, New Delhi 9891059875

Risbud mail.com dips_arch@ 71 Ms.Dipti Parashar Senior Urban Planner,NRC,SPA 9958416648

yahoo.com Ms. Rupali rupalimalhari 72 Project Associate,NRC, SPA 9650012158

Malhari @gmail.com ar.jyotidash 73 Jyoti Dash Urban Planner, NRC, SPA 9718288014

@gmail.com 74 Tara Chand Secretarial Assistant, NRC, SPA 9953178126

75 Vikas peon cum helper, NRC, SPA 9268889811

26