the goan I network
PANAJI
Goa Bachao Abhiyan on Monday criticized the state government, including newly inducted Town and Country Planning (TCP) minister Vijay Sardesai, for his recent comments on the Regional Plan, stating these were confusing.
In a press statement issued by GBA secretary Reboni Saha and convenor Sabina Martins, the group said the multiple statements made by the government only showed its confusion and called for treating the Regional Plan and Outline Development Plan as two distinct entities.
“Multiple statements are being issued on the RP and ODPs exposing the confusion of the government, which treat the RP 2021 and the ODPs as two distinct entities exclusive of each other, in complete contradiction to planning norms,” they said.
Hitting out at Vijay Sardesai, the group has demanded for a clear process and criteria to be in place that would protect Goa’s ecosystem and identity.
“With a TCP minister who has ‘Goemkarponn’ at heart, we expect to have a clear process and criteria in place for protection of our ecosystems and Goan identity established before any work on the RP-2021 or RP-2031 commences,” they said.
They have also said the guidelines framed by the Task Force on RP 2021 created in October 2007 needed to be finalized adding that GBA would welcome any honest and meaningful dialogue with regard to planning.
On the issue of the ODP, GBA said the only agenda that was being addressed was that of increasing the built-up area, also called FAR. They pointed to the case of Corporation of City of Panaji (CCP) where the ODP is being challenged in court for non inclusion of stakeholders in the consultation phase.
“RP2021 was notified by November 2011 after three years of inclusive processes. It had most importantly clearly described criteria of Eco-Zones for protection and lowered built-up area in villages of low density. Rather
than work within the context of the notified plan, the last government proceeded to work outside the Plan with part areas arbitrarily transferred to the Planning Development Authority for ODP use as in the case of Mapusa,” they said.
In particular, they have pointed to the 20 percent extra FAR notification without a study on parking, carrying capacity and sewerage and fire safety would have disastrous effects and invite tragedy.
They have also pointed fingers and raised questions on contradicting orders and circulars allowing partial use of a notified plan but only on a case to case basis, the Tourism Master Plan that was prepared with no connection with RP2021 and the Investment Promotion Board (IPB) as being a means to override all other acts including eco-sensitive one like CRZ
and FCA.
