Sir, We have come across a glaring lacuna in the whole process in reference to the Memo No. 9225/I1/2005 and comparing it to the actual process and found out that the Maps on display at HUDA Premises in Paigah Palace, Rasoolpura, Secunderabad are only Master Plan maps. The existing Land Use maps are nowhere to be seen. On requesting for the same the answer we got was “They are not required to be displayed”. We fail to understand the logic of this statement. The Memo issued by you, which was referred to in the above lines in Paragraphs, marked as No.7 and No.8 clearly specify that the Land Use has to be displayed.

We believe that an Existing Land Use Map is one of the most important documents for people to compare with the Master Plan and try to understand the proposed changes and the impacts it has on the overall development of a Zone/Area. Without being in a position to compare the existing and future scenarios simultaneously how is one supposed to come to any conclusions and accordingly submit suggestions or objections to your office?
In view of the above, we request you to immediately display the Land Use Maps along with Master Plan, come out with a printed version and further extend the date by at least 3 months

The Principal Secretary,
MA&UD Department
Secretariat
Hyderabad

Sub: - Objections/Suggestions on Draft Proposed Master Plan in HUDA Area.

Ref: - 1) Our Letter Dt: 07/06/2007
2) Your Memo No. 9225/I1/05 Dt: 26/05/2007
3) Our letter Dt. 12.6.2007
4) Our letter Dt. 14.6.2007

Capt.J.Rama Rao VSM, FIE,
Indian Navy (Retd)

Vice Chairman & Managing Director,
Hyderabad Urban Development Authority,
1-8-323, Paigah Palace , Rasoolpura,
Secunderabad – 500 003

c) Prohibition of Polluting Industries: The emphasis seems to be laid on Polluting Industries within 10 Kms radius, and the provision in Para 3 (f) –“There shall be total prohibition of location of industries in the prohibited zone” seems to be ignored.

It is therefore once again requested to undertake an in depth analysis and careful examination of various aspects of the change of land use, likely to result in due over- development leading to ecological disaster, within 10 Kms radius of the reservoirs

Looking forward for an early response
Thanking You

Yours Cordially

Capt.J.Rama Rao I.N. (Retd)

Copy to:
1.The Chief Secretary to Govt
2.The Principal Secretary to Govt, Dept of MA&UD

Forum

The Vice Chairman & Managing Director,
Hyderabad Urban Development Authority,
Paigah Palace ; Opposite Police Lines,
Begumpet, Secunderabad- 500 003

Sir ,

Sub: Group Discussion on “Environment Protection of Hyderabad ”

We thank you for your Letter no. 147 / HUDA / UF / D5 / 2006 dated 26-7-2006, inviting for the group discussion on 29 th July 2006, of the issues concerning with “Development and Protection of Environment”, like Greenery, Conservation of Lakes, Protection of Rocks etc in Hyderabad city

Leave Alone Natural Environment
What needs to be done first is to acknowledge that a system of natural ecological infrastructure exists every where, that it functions with or without our presence, and that when we interfere with its functions, the resulting effects are often cataclysmic- despite our attempts to reconstruct, duplicate or mend it. Therefore, it is in our best long-term interests to keep as much of this natural infrastructure –Water Bodies, Greenbelts, Conservation Areas, Rocks etc – as healthy and as intact as possible
Land Use & Environment

The other aspect is the quality of our lives is dependent on the quality of our environment, which is largely dependent on the quality of our Land-Use. Therefore the second and most important lesson to be learned , is the powerful influence that urban land use planning has on quality of our natural environment

Master Plan & Land USE

The Comprehensive Land Use & Environmental Protection should be the integral part of the Master Plan. The Protection & Preservation of natural resources and community's ecological infrastructure should be the major concern of the Master Plan. The Conservation and not mitigation of the damage being done, should be the focus of development, under universally accepted and established “Precautionary Principle” The Zoning Plans and Building Rules should be subordinate to Master Plan. But what is actually happening in Hyderabad is the other way

Urban Land A Commodity

As a result Hyderabad urban land is simply regarded as a Commodity and not part of larger continuum, intimately linked to the surrounding air, water, vegetation and life, inflicting environmental / ecological damage. If Hyderabad city endowed with heritage and nature will have to be saved for the future, comprehensive and integrated land use planning and management are required, instead of treating it as a Commodity for meeting short term needs, which amounts to selling the future of Hyderabad

Failure to Revise and Notify Master Plan 2020

It is therefore a futile exercise to discuss about “Development & Protection of Environment” in Hyderabad, when HUDA and the State Government have miserably failed to modify the Master Plan made in 1980 and notify the revised Master Plans 2010 / 2020, which were being debated since 1994 and resorting to indiscriminate change of land use and auction of all the available vacant lands just to mobilize funds, without public consultation

Thanking You

Yours Cordially
Capt.J.Rama Rao I.N (Retd)
Chairman

To:
Dr. Y. S. Rajashekara Reddy
Hon'ble Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh
Secretariat
Hyderabad

Sub: Comments on “ Hyderabad RevisedBuilding Rules, 2006” and appeal

Dear Dr. Y. S. Rajashekara Reddy Garu,

At the outset Forum For A Better Hyderabad congratulate the team for bringing out the “Hyderabad Revised Building Rules, 2006 [ HRBR-2006 ]” [G.O. Ms. No. 86, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M) Department, dt. 3.3.2006] while Master plans are lying in the cupboards – without Master plan/Zonal regulations bringing out building regulations is a futile exercise.

1) General: The HRBR-2006 is too generalized and over simplified to cater the needs of violators of laws at the cost of environment & general public. Under Annexures it state “ The government by Notification may modify, alter or add to the list of the areas given in Annexures below (Annexures I, II & III) . With this, politicians with the tacit support from bureaucracy of the day can play havoc on building regulations through manipulation of rules – this clause also will protect the politicians and bureaucrats from the Courts. That means, the revised rules worth nothing. In fact, this is in contradiction to Para 15 of G.O. Ms No. 423 M.A. dated 31 st July 1998 , “The government or any other Authority shall have no powers hereafter to relax any site from the provisions of these Building Stipulation either in part or in total”. Forum in its letter of March 18, 2005 addressed to Principal Secretary, MA on simplified building regulations urged to include this clause to avoid any mischief by politicians of the day. Forum now also reiterates its' urge to include this clause in the revised rules and also urge to exclude item/clause 5 of the Hyderabad revised building rules - 2006 from any such exemption clauses more clearly.

2) Water bodies: Though it carried separate item (item/clause 5) on water bodies, they lack clarity and highly susceptible to political and bureaucratic games [as presented in 1 above]. Through the destruction of water bodies and gardens the temperatures have already gone-up [contributing to global warming] and that require more power to contain the heat:

(a) Himayatsagar and Osmansagar lakes: These two water bodies are covered under item 5(h) “For areas covered under G.O. Ms. 111 MA dated 8.3.1996 (Protection of catchment area of Osmansagar and Himayatsagar lakes), the restrictions on building and development activity imposed in the said government order would be applicable”. However, this is defeated with other clauses in different items. For example: At item 9.1 it states that “High Rise buildings/Complexes shall be permissible only in areas other than those given in Annexures I & II”. Under Annexure II (B-2) it states that “List of areas prohibited from high rise buildings – outside MCH area - areas covered under G.O. Ms. 111 MA dated 8.3.1996 (Protection of catchment area of Osmansagar and Himayatsagar lakes) ”. Under Annexure III – Sky scraper zone – it says at (item x) “All along the outer ring road up to a depth of 500 meters on either side in areas other than those covered in G.O. Ms. No. 111 MA, dated 8.3.1996” – what about items i, ii – ix that fall under this GO? Finally, all these are overrun/superceded by the clause under the Unnexures [discussed in 1 above]. The issues pertaining to GO 111 must be brought out from the Annexures I to III to avoid any ambiguity or misuse or misinterpretation of GO 111 plus Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment dated 1-12-2000.

On 27 th March 2006 Vaartha daily newspaper carried out a report saying, “Golconda Hotels Group made available ‘Golconda Resorts & Spa' to public – this is supported by Tourism Department, Tourism department became a destroyer of environment --, which is on the bund of Osman Sagar Lake (Gandipet cheruvu). It is quite surprising who has given them permission in an area covered by GO 111 and this activity in addition require under environmental act to go for public hearing and get clearance from Pollution Control Board – Is HUDA and Pollution Control Board not aware of this activity or they overlooked the illegal activity as the party has high political connections? There are several such activities taking place in the prohibited zone but HUDA and Pollution Control Board is just watching the violations of GO 111 [and the 1-12-2000 judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court Order on this]. In the past Pollution Control Board rejected Golf-Course near Gandipet as well permission to several industries . Resorts come under category of Hotels that are prohibited by GO 111. Precautionary principle is applicable here as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court order of 1-12-2000. In the past, HUDA has given in writing and said orally to Hon'ble High Court and Pollution Control Board that they will see no such violations take place in the prohibited zone of GO 111.

(b) Musi River: Under item 5
(a) it states that “No building/development activity shall be allowed in the bed of water bodies like river, or nala, and in the Full Tank Level (FTL) of any lake, pond, cheruvu or kunta/shikam lands. Followed this under 5
(b-iii) it states that “The above water bodies and courses shall be maintained as recreational/Green buffer zone, and no building activity other than recreational use shall be carried out within – 9 meters from the boundaries of Canal, Vagu, etc. –
(item c) Unless and otherwise specified in the Master Plan/Zonal Development Plan, the space to be left in and around the Canal/Vagu (including the actual Canal/Vagu bed width and alignment) shall be minimum 15 m. This may be developed as Green Buffer/recreational and/or utilized for road of minimum 9 m width, wherever feasible”;
(d) Under Annexure III
(ii), it states “Sky scraper zone - Along River Musi outside present MCH limits”. With all these it is clear that builders could mutilate River Musi -- this is already happening with the tacit support from concerned authorities. At Attapur-bridge some body is filling Musi River with rubble and a bit further upstream some body put a board saying HUDA approved layout -- to identify such evil things you need a watchdog committees

Under Musi beautification the government is contemplating to spend around 900 cores and yet Revised Building Rules allow upstream of River Musi from MCH area to Himayat Sagar & Osman Sagar lakes for building activity along its banks and contaminate water of River Musi, they in turn contaminate the water treated in MCH area wasting 900 crores of public money. Alas! It is a national waste. It is proper to extend the clause instead upto MCH area on the upstream side it should extend up to the Himayat Sagar & Osman Sagar lakes . In fact Forum members in their submissions to MCH Commissioner on the Musi beautification after the JNTU workshop made similar suggestions and clearly brought out the need for such thing.

(c) Use of Buffer zone:
Item 5 (b) – It states that “The above water bodies and courses shall be maintained as recreational/Green buffer zone, and no building activity other than recreational use shall be carried out within [I, ii, iii, iv, c] ---“: What is meant by recreational/green buffer zone? Is it similar to those of Food Courts/Jalavihar around Hussain Sagar, where in commercial activities are being carried out by constructing permanent structures in which alcohol is also sold [is it ethical to permit to sell alcohol in a recreational place where wife – husband comes with their children to have breathe of fresh air] , constructed projections into Hussain Sagar water, etc – which means, giving the prime land to influential people at throughway price to establish commercial activity in violation of pollution control board consent for establishment order and court orders and encourage unsocial activities! This shall be a green buffer zone only. The road, if any, shall be outside this buffer zone only and not within the buffer zone – similar to Necklace Road around Hussain Sagar Lake.

3) The other issues: With reference to item 3, 4.1, 4.2 & 4.3: builders rarely abide these. A team can go round and see the factual situation prevailing in and around twin cities – the concerned government departments are simple spectators of these illegal activities [Ex. How many of them have the clear and established approach road of minimum 9 m Black topped Road ]. For successful implementation of such, there shall be watchdog committees all round.

The item 7: “There are no plot size stipulations based on use or occupancy of the building. The setbacks and height stipulations given hereunder are applicable for all types of buildings”. This is highly improper and malafide decision. This is against the basic zoning regulations. That is why Forum argued that building regulations must go with Master Plan/Zoning regulations. At present government is changing residential zones into commercial zones overnight causing hardships to public and at the cost of destruction of pleasant environment by cutting trees or filling the lakes, etc. This is unethical practice. The rules must follow the zoning regulations – based on use or occupancy of the building - [residential, commercial, etc.] otherwise it creates more problems in future to residents as well as to environment and contributing to global warming.

With reference to Greenery Clause: Item 7.1 [vi to viii, xi] & 9.9 – is highly biased by the shape of the plot. For example for a plot of 5m x 5m = 25 sq. m, the 1 m green belt on four sides means 16 sq. m; the same for a plot of 6m x 4m = 24 sq. m, 1 m green belt on four sides means 16 sq. m; the same for a plot of 7m x 3 m = 21 sq. m, 1 m green belt on four sides means 16 sq. m. Instead fixed width, by taking percent area this bias could be easily eliminated – in fact this was used in item 7.1 – viii & 9.9a. This is also true with setbacks. In the case of setbacks the minimum width required for fire service can be stipulated wherever it is applicable.

In the case of Table IV,
(i) Minimum road width should be 18 m; and
(ii) Minimum all-round open space on remaining sides should be in per cent area of the plot size by leaving minimum width required by fire services on all sides similar to that specified in Table VI to avoid bias based on plot shape and size. In the case of Table VI, separate residential building and use 30% and 20% while for the rest use 40% and 30%; above this group use 50% and 40%. Hospitals and residential complexes do not go on the same wavelength in terms of traffic/parking.

There is imbalance/fallacies in Table I and Table III by adhoc plot size limits selection and they vary from table to table and clause-to-clause and such fallacies gives raise the builder or owner of building violate the rules. Thus, it gives the impression that these rules are framed for benefiting the violators only. Let us take few examples under IIIB – less than 12.2 m road width.

From the above results it is clear that for a simple decrease in area by 1.33% [from 1500 sq. m. to 1480 sq. m.] the percent area under set backs increase steeply [in the above example it is 16.7%, which is equivalent to 250.5 sq. m.]. This happened just because 1480 sq. m falls under 750 to 1500 sq. m group and 1500 sq. m. falls under 1500 to 2500 sq. m. group and by changing plot shape for 1500 sq. m. plot, the area under setbacks changes from 53.8% to 64.8%. That is, by changing width and depth [shape of the plot with respect to road facing] the percent area under set back also changed drastically. In addition to these, the front set back under road width from 12.2 m to 30 m and above in the case of 100 – 200m, etc. have no meaning. This is arising basically because of meaningless Table I.

Therefore most of the tables, particularly Table III must be re-worked out to give realistic and meaningful [with no scope for manipulation] plot size vs road width vs height vs setbacks. Not only the plot size but also the shape of the plot shall define the setbacks and thus this must be accounted in the revision. These revisions must go with land use. There shall be huge penalties & demolition of such violations.

Table II was not prepared by taking into account the practical problems [traffic & air pollution, parking, etc.] with different activities in respect of road width. These are over simplified to benefit vested interests only. The table shall present more realistic by taking into account the present experience in different localities by keeping into account the future congestions. The revision must go with land use.

Based on the plot shape in addition to plot size and local weather conditions must be taken into account while stipulating items 7.1 [iii to xvi] similar to item 8.

Item 5 (g) relates to Banjara Hills- Jubilee Hills area covered by Block 1 & 2, and part of Block No. 3 of ward no. 8, MCH area, the building restrictions imposed vide G.O. Ms. No. 601 MA dated 5-11-1988 read with G.O.Ms.No.423 MA. dated 31-7-1998 would be applicable. Against this is also included Annexure II (A-3). With this can also be mutilated by the government whenever they want. This is already under taken by the public – near by the Lotus pond, near Prashashan Nagar, etc by individuals, Road No. 36 in Jubilee Hills was changed from residential zone to commercial zone overnight, government has sold through auction around 23,500 sq. m. area at the check-post for commercial venture and special GO was issued for 6-month period for construction of Hotels. When the government is developing Outer Ring Road and radial roads, where is the need to tamper the existing GOs?

Appeal: From the above brief discussion – though a bit harsh in the presentation -- it is very clear that the “Hyderabad Revised Building Rules 2006” was issued in a hurry to better serve the vested interests/violators of law. The rules must be for public and at the same time safeguard the environment but not to provide shelter to violators of rules. The Forum For A Better Hyderabad, herewith appeal Dr. Y. S. Rajashekara Reddy Garu, the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh that in the light of above brief discussion and by keeping in view the government's proposals such as Greater Hyderabad, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, etc.:

• First, the government shall bring out the Master plan/zonal regulations by using HUDA as planning body rather than making HUDA another center for real estate mafia. This is very important in regulating traffic and solving parking & air pollution, water pollution problems, etc in future;

• Government shall create watchdog committees with people of the locality with integrity for timely control of illegal construction activities;

• The ‘Hyderabad Revised Building Regulations – 2006” shall be re-worked out in light of the above presented brief discussion and that too after the Master plan/Zonal regulations are issued by the government – at present these are in draft form only. The revised rules shall include the clause “The government or any other Authority shall have no powers hereafter to relax any site from the provisions of these Building Stipulation either in part or in total” and also water bodies shall be free from government manipulations/exemption clauses. The government shall assign the task of revision of the rules to people with integrity and good understanding of the subject.

With Regards

S/d 26/3/2006

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
General Secretary
Forum For A Better Hyderabad

CC:-

1. The Chief Secretary, GOAP
2. The Principal Secretary, MAUD, GOAP
3. The Principal Secretary, E. F. S. & T., GOAP
4. The Commissioner, MCH
5. The Vice-chairman, HUDA
6. The Member Secretary, APPCB

Top

Capt. J. RAMA RAO VSM, FIE,                                                                              Tel: (040) 2332 1350

Indian Navy (Retd)                                                                                                   Mobile: 09393366000

                                                                                                                                         E-mail: captjrrao@eth.net

                                                                                                                                         540, Road No. 12, Banjara Hills,

                                                                                                                                         Hyderabad 500 034

                                                                                                      Date: 25th December 2005

Dr.Y.S. Rajasekhar Reddy

Hon’ble Chief Minister

Hyderabad–500 022.

          Sub: Rule of Jungle in Concrete Jungle of Hyderabad

Hyderabad Master Plan 1980

            This is to bring to the kind notice of the Hon’ble Chief Minister, that Hyderabad Master Plan prepared in 1980 continues to be in force even today with several Adhoc modifications, during the currency of which several unplanned and unauthorized developments have come into existence on the ground. The important developments taken place since then–Liberalized Economic policy, unmanageable Road Traffic problems, 2001 Census Data etc have serious adverse impacts on quality of life of the citizens

Revised Draft Master Plan 2020

          The draft proposals of Hyderabad Master Plan were being discussed since 1994, but the revised Master Plan did not see the light of the day. It is regrettable that undue delay is taking place in finalization of the revised “Master Plan 2020 of Hyderabad Metropolitan Area”, the draft of which was discussed in January 2001 and notified in January 2003. The draft plan in respect of the area covered by Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad is not notified even till to day.

Role of HUDA

             From the above, one gets the impression that HUDA, which is entrusted with the job of Urban Planning and Development, is mainly concerned with more of development / commercial activities, than the planning. As a result, the revision and finalization of the Master Plan, which is of vital importance for comprehensive, energy efficient and eco-friendly urban land-use, is being neglected and taking the back seat.

Change of Land Use

           Many of the Environmental problems, Traffic congestion, Automobile pollution, Flooding of Roads & Residential colonies etc, being experienced in Hyderabad, are mainly attributable to lack of proper Land-Use Plan and non-implementation of whatever the Land-Use plan exists. As a result, the Urban Land is being simply treated as a “Commodity” and not part of a larger continuum, intimately linked to the surrounding air, water, vegetation and life.

          Once the Master Plan is finalized and notified, the change of Land–Use should not be permitted at least for a period of 5 years from the date of notification of Master Plan. Any change of Land-Use, with particular reference to Water Bodies, Parks, Playgrounds, Lung-Spaces earmarked for Recreation and Conservation etc should not be entertained at all as it is gong to adversely affect the quality of life.

         All proposals for change of the Land- Use stipulated in the Master Plan, should have wide and elaborate public consultation, as was followed while finalizing the Master Plan. The Section 12 of AP Urban Areas Development Act, 1975 and the relevant Rules need to be modified, so as to prevent suvo-moto change of Land–Use by the Government  

Building Rules, Violations & Relaxations 

        The State Government, reportedly after holding discussions and deliberations at various levels, issued G.O. No.423. M.A. dated 31 st July 1998, to rationalize the FAR values and standards of Building requirements for different types of Buildings, uses and occupancies in Municipal Corporations and Urban Development Authority Areas.

. 

        Even these Rules, with regard to FAR, Road Width, Height of Buildings etc, which are very liberal and diluted when compared with the guidelines of The National Building Code and the Standards being followed in other Metros including that of Delhi. But they are being flouted by the builders, apparently with the collusion of the official machinery, which is entrusted with the task of carrying out mandatory inspections at various stages of construction of the building and issue “Fit for Occupation Certificate”

       The State Government also granted liberally relaxations and exemptions to the provisions of the G.O.423 in spite of the stipulation that “The Government or any other authority shall have no powers hereafter to relax any site from the provisions of these Building stipulation either in part or in full”.

Simplified Building Rules

        But regrettably, the State Government with out streamlining and strengthening the regulatory system for ensuring the “Rule of Law” by strict implementation of the Building Rules, issued Memo dated 15-01-2005, notifying the draft “Common Building Rules” in the name simplification of Building Rules. This is nothing but further diluting the existing Rules, which are very liberal and already diluted as stated earlier.  

Building Regularization Scheme (BRS)

           The State Government issued G.O.Ms.No. No 419 M.A. dated 30 th July 1998 with the view to facilitate the individuals, who constructed the buildings unauthorizedly or in deviation of the sanctioned plan up to 30-6-1998, to get them regularized by paying the penal amount prescribed for the purpose. This has sent the wrong signals that the illegal constructions can get away easily by paying the penalty, which is considered to be peanuts. Again there is a talk of declaring another BRS, which encourages only the “Rule of Jungle”, converting Hyderabad into a Concrete Jungle making things worse.

Traffic Planning

Recommendations

Conclusion

           In the light of recent the directive of Hon’ble AP High Court regarding Illegal Buildings and the Demolitions ordered in Municipal Corporation of Delhi, necessary steps may please be initiated to prevent further construction of illegal buildings or in deviation of the approved plans in accordance with the Rules in force

 Thanking you, Sir

Yours Cordially

Capt.J.Rama Rao I.N. (Retd)

Copy to 1) The Chief Secretary                                    

               2) The Principal Secretary, MA&UD            

               3) The Commissioner, MCH

               4) VC & MD, HUDA.