MARGAO
Ashford SCDC Resorts LLP on Friday said it had obtained requisite permissions from the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA), Town & Country Planning Department (TCP) and Cavelossim village panchayat for barricading its proposed project.
The company said GCZMA had permitted fencing and compound-wall works subject to conditions, while TCP had granted technical clearance for the proposed 50-room wellness and health-longevity resort. It said Condition 15 of the panchayat permission allows temporary MS sheet barricading of adequate height to protect workmen from dust and sound. The barricading, it said, was undertaken in accordance with the permissions and applicable GCZMA and MoEF requirements.
The company disputed allegations of cement or concrete being used in the No Development Zone (NDZ), citing an independent technical inspection conducted on September 5.
It said an independent architect, NABET-accredited EIA Coordinator and former GCZMA expert member inspected the site and conducted test excavations at randomly selected stanchions in the NDZ and permissible CRZ-III area.
According to the company, the inspection found metallic stanchions in the NDZ supported on prefabricated steel bases placed in pits stabilised with rubble stones and sandy soil. No cement, mortar, concrete or permanent footing was found in the NDZ, it claimed.
The company said the barricading was temporary, dry-assembled and manually removable. Cement-concrete footing, it said, was found only in the central permissible CRZ-III zone, beyond the 200-metre NDZ and within the 200–500-metre development zone.
It said the property comprises a 100-metre riverine NDZ, a 200-metre seaward NDZ and a central permissible CRZ-III zone, and argued that concrete in the latter should not be represented as being within the NDZ.
The company said it had replied to the Panchayat’s Stop Work Order through its advocate and submitted permissions and technical evidence, disputing any permanent footing in the NDZ.
On the September 10 incident involving MLA Venzy Viegas and others, the company alleged they entered the private premises without permission, raised slogans and used objectionable language. It said it would take appropriate steps to protect its lawful rights.
