In a move that is diagonally opposite to what thisgovernment had promised, the Town and Country Planning has through the NorthGoa Planning and Development Authority issued a notification, on November6 to rectify errors in the OutlineDevelopment Plans of Mapusa, Panjim and Taleigao. A similar exercise is on theanvil for South Goa ODPs thereby bringing 40% of the population in the ambit ofland plan rectifications.
The move has been objected to by civil society groupsbecause 60% of the Goa population under Regional Plan areas, has seen allactivities come to a standstill as the confusion over the fate of RP 2021persists.
The notification on ODP though, is being seen as a backdoorattempt to allow construction to commence in the urban areas. NGPDA though,gave the public time till December 5 to respond with their objections, but didnot advertise the same in local dailies, which has irked people.
“This is not the first time that we have pointed out togovernment’s double speak on town and country planning issues but what it hasdone this time by not advertising is sinister and undemocratic” charges MinguelBraganza of Goa Bachao Abhiyan. The GBA has not only attacked the TCP forpushing through a notification clandestinely but has swung into action firstholding a consultative meeting on November 26 and then followed it up with avisit and physical inspection of the ODPs at NGPDA’s Office. NGPDA has askedfor people’s objections on ODPs from Panjim, Mapusa and Taleigao.
GBA had specifically asked what did the wrong zonesmentioned in the notification (see box) refer to. “When RP 2021 is in abeyanceand the zoning too is unclear, where did the issue of wrong zones arise?”questions GBA Convenor Sabina Martins.
Chief Town Planner S Putturaju however differs. “The ODP isnot being opened up and neither are we altering, reviewing or changing it ‘intoto.’ It is only minor corrections that people had been objecting about, thatwe are allowing to be rectified within the specific time period”. Putturajuadded. “We have a very limited scope for altering anything beyond the fourconditions laid down by the notification”.
People have also questioned whether the revised plan refersto ODP 2000 or ODP 2011. “There was a draft ODP 2011 in between and manyhousing projects got their clearances citing that draft” alleges Martins.However NGPDA Member Secretary Ashok Kumar explained that the revised planreferred to ODP 2011 and not the draft ODP 2011 or ODP 2000.
Sources in TCP reveal that the department has chosen toaddress only those ODPs that are under Chief Minister Manohar Parrikar, as wellas Deputy Chief Minister Francis D’Souza, keeping in mind the sensitivitiesattached to town planning of any kind in the state. “Time and again we havebeen raising the issue of including the Outline Development Plan in the ambitof Regional Plan. Plans have to be holistic and should include cities too.While RP 2021 is kept in abeyance, the idea of opening up ODP raises morequestions than dispelling doubts,” explains Martins.
GBA’s concerns are not unfounded. The notification talks ofrectifying ‘errors between original plan and the revised plan, wherein certainareas are omitted or wrongly zoned’. The recent case of CCP continuing withconstruction of its garbage treatment site on Eco Sensitive Zone-1 that includes mangrove forests, salt pans,water bodies and khazans located in Chalta No. 6 of PTS 56 is a stark exampleof how a Non Development Area is being violated, despite featuring in ODP 2011.Is that the sort of rectification that the NGPDA had on its mind then?
