Why Karnataka’s Proposed Common Zoning Regulations Are More Of A Problem Than A Solution 

Recently, a gazette notification by Karnataka Urban Development Secretariat was put in the public domain inviting “suggestions or objections” from stakeholders. At first, it appeared, as if some notification regarding land use or zoning change has been put forward, a business as usual exercise with planning and development secretariats across states.

However, gazing a bit into the document, it stuck an iron-fist, because of the fact, that an executive order through a gazette notification (UDD 6 TTP-2017 dated 1 July 2017) augurs to nullify the existing zoning regulations in all the planning areas (i.e. where master plans have been approved) with a one single zoning regulation, i.e. Common Zoning Regulations (CZR) for the entire state. This is to facilitate “ease of doing business” by reducing turnaround time for approval of land and building plans through automation of the sanction process.

Constitutional Safeguards

A local planning area defines the statutory boundary for which master plans and zoning regulations are prepared hand in hand, guided by the context and socio-economic goals. This has been facilitated through 73rd and 74th constitutional amendments, which enshrine panchayats and municipalities as institutions of “self-government”. Further, municipalities are mandated with host of functions as per twelfths schedule (article 243 W) of the Constitution, wherein “urban planning including town planning” and “regulation of land use and construction of building” are item number 1 and 2 respectively.

Farm zoning regulation is not an executive exercise, as this order reflects, but is driven by a rigorous scientific process, further deliberated through stakeholder consultations. An exercise, where trade-off between socio-economic goals and carrying capacity of the planning area takes place (the latter construed through aspects such as soil conditions, flora fauna, and other vulnerabilities to the area). The government order, therefore, has blatantly overlooked both the constitutional ethos as well as the practice ethics.

Another key element that zoning regulations govern is conformance and compatibility of various activities within a land use. For example, in a designated ‘mixed-use’ land use category, what all other land uses can be proposed or in a ‘commercial zone’ which all commercial activities should be allowed to take place, are defined. To outline such items, cities and urban areas create growth scenarios and visions based on the endogenous growth potentials; clearly missed in the all-weather-one-fit CZR proposed for the state.

The gravity with which zoning regulations structure, the morphology and livability aspects therefore are enormous. These not only affect socio-economic profile of the area but of the citizenry as well. The very reason that constitutional provisions (through amendments) allowed such acts to be driven bottom up rather than top down.

Zoning Provisions

Looking into the substantive part of the regulations, it can be assumed that anything can come anywhere. A chaos, rather a structured growth, is nowhere adhering to urban planning principles. Three instances:

1) Power looms (up to 10 HP) and flour mills (up to 20 HP) can be proposed in commercial areas (Section 3.1.3). So are “warehouse and storage area for goods”. While the former are unambiguously small scale industrial units, the latter constitute logistical activities and need to be planned near a transport terminal.

2) The parks and open spaces commonly refer to areas freely accessible by citizens for recreation and play. They act as lungs to the city and help in reducing carbon footprint. In most of the cases, cities and towns struggle to reserve minimum areas proposed in the UDPFI guidelines (viz. model “Urban Development Plans Formulation and Implementation”guidelines issued by Ministry of Urban Development - MoUD). Purposely, the list of activities to be counted as parks and open spaces is abused and encroached upon by activities, which should be falling under public semi-public or other land use categories. The CZR is no exception. For example, under “special circumstances, open air theatres, indoor recreational uses, dwelling for watch and ward, sports clubs, libraries, milk booths, public toilets, (Section 3.1.7a) cemeteries and crematoria (Section 3.1.7b)” can be allowed and categorised under “parks and open spaces” land use.

3) Floor area ratios (or floor space index), an index of buildability, are typically designated through demand assessment analysis and infrastructure provisions in place; in case of CZR, the road width abutting the property is the only structuring element. Similarly, large residential activities (integrated townships and plot layouts) are allowed in agriculture land uses, unmistakably aiding speculative rather a structured growth.

The list of such ambiguities is endless and beyond the scope of this article.

Citizen Responses

Various citizen groups in Bengaluru have already voiced their objections and proposed a need for revoking CZR guidelines with #HosaZoningBeda (new zoning not required) through social media and other forums. Citizen action forums across state have upped their ante and have filed close to 10,000 objections, the last date for which expired on 30 July 2017.

Such provision or regulations, if proposed, will lead to unsustainable growth and exacerbate speculative activity. The productivity gains, out of agglomeration in urban areas, will be far lesser than the assumed additions through lower transaction cost, which the CZR is aiming at.