Master unplanned: What’s killing our waterbodies?

The plan that was initially formulated in 2010 is supposed to be reviewed every 5 yrs
The polluted Cooum river near Madhuravoyal in Chennai | Shiba prasad sahu
The polluted Cooum river near Madhuravoyal in Chennai | Shiba prasad sahu

CHENNAI:  What’s causing the disappearance or reclassification of water bodies in the Greater Chennai Corporation? Is it the flawed Second Master Plan, or the absence of a review of the Plan that is to be blamed? A disproportionate increase in the built-up area points to rampant flourishing of illegal constructions.Builders, planners, and academicians have faulted the lack of review of the Second Master Plan, since 2010. The plan should be reviewed every five years as per norms. But planners in Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority have hardly followed the procedure, which in turn raises the question if the plan is flawed.

S Sridharan, chairman, Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India (CREDAI), Tamil Nadu, told Express that, in some instances, patta lands are inadvertently marked as water bodies. “CREDAI has now taken up the work of reviving water bodies and will not back any builder who attempts to build on water bodies. Credai Chennai has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Greater Chennai Corporation (GCC) for reviving 10 water bodies, and five such projects have already been completed,” he said.

Sources in the construction sector said, on many occasions, land owners were forced to approach the authorities for reclassification of their lands as private lands were inadvertently classified as water bodies in the master plan.The anomalies in Second Master Plan for Chennai, wherein low-lying areas have been classified as private water bodies, had been discussed at the highest level of state administration. The discussions pointed out that the fault lies with the planning division which failed to check whether the water bodies existed at the site or not. They just used remote sensing data but failed to share a clarification on it with village administrative officers.

The issue escalated when activists alleged that the Semmanchery police station was being built on Thamaraikeni lake bed at Sholinganallur. Alleging that the water body had been reclassified as ‘institutional use zone’ for the construction of the station, Arappor Iyakkam, a non-governmental organisation, challenged it in Madras High Court. It is learnt that a report has been submitted to the court.

But, if one goes by Auditor-General (AG) report, CMDA has approved 291 layouts in Chennai Metropolitan area, of which 127 are within 15 metres of water bodies. Strongly speaking against reclassification of water bodies, Subramanian said, “A water body can not be reclassified just because it has gone dry now. They play a key role in storing excess water during rains.”

While the first and second mastaer plans projected a total increase in built-up area by 330.58 sq. km (33,058 hectares) over the 50 year period between 1976 and 2026, the actual increase in the built-up area as worked out using satellite imagery over 37 years between 1979 and 2016 was 450.26 sq. km, thus pointing to large-scale illegal constructions.

The fault lies with the State government for not enacting the Flood Plain Zoning (FPZ) as mandated by Central Water Commission which in 1975 circulated a model Bill of FPZ. Association of Professional Town Planners (APTP) president K M Sadanand said details pertaining to reclassification were not published on CMDA website. “They do not publish the reclassified land details as they do for buildings,” he said. 

Related Stories

No stories found.
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com