Urban News

The Hindu 18.08.2009

Centre keen to safeguard heritage structures

Staff Reporter

— Photo: M. Moorthy

Welcome: M. Ponnavaikko, Vice-Chancellor, Bharathidasan University, right, greets V. Narayanasamy, Union Minister of State for Planning, Parliamentary Affairs and Culture, at the inaugural of the third International Conference on Remote Sensing in Archaeology in Tiruchi on Monday. From left, Lewis Lancaster, Professor of Emeritus, University of California, Berkeley, USA, and SM. Ramasamy, Vice-Chancellor of Gandhigram Rural University,

TIRUCHI: Towards promoting nationalism, the Central Government is keen on identifying and safeguarding all heritage structures depicting diverse cultures, through the machinery of State governments.

Passage of Heritage Site Bill 2009 in Parliament later this year will pave way for codifying and documenting several lakhs of structures of heritage importance (in existence for more than 100 years), including the ones under private ownership, according to V. Narayanasamy, the Union Minister of State for Planning, Parliamentary Affairs and Culture.

At present, there were 3,500 heritage structures under the control of the Central Government, and 3,700 under the care of State governments. There was enormous potential in documenting art and architecture manifesting the entire cultures of ancient times in South India, Mr. Narayanasamy said, inaugurating the third international conference on Remote Sensing in Archaeology, ‘Spacetimeplace-2009’, organised jointly by the Archaeological Survey of India, Temple Survey Project (Southern Region), Chennai, in association with the Bharathidasan University.

The Department of Town and Country Planning (DTCP) would be empowered to prevent private owners of heritage sites from modifying the structures. The country would leverage its strength in space technology, he said, explaining how facts about the Sethusamudram issue could be determined through remote sensing applications.

Through the technology, documentation would gain authenticity and unsavoury predicaments could be avoided in future, he said, citing the instance of the country’s inability to secure the memorabilia of Mahatma Gandhi due to non-availability of records. Mr. Narayanasamy assured the Centre’s prompt action on the resolutions adopted at the conference.

Presiding over, the Vice-Chancellor of Bharathidasan University, M. Ponnavaikko, said that remote sensing applications not only carry the potential to trace the archaeological evidences of human race, but also helps in analysing geological changes and identifying mineral wealth.

Offering felicitations, the Vice-Chancellor of Gandhigram Rural University, SM. Ramasamy, said that archaeological finds were geological markers contributing to better understanding of riverine histories, coastal system, and natural disasters. Other speakers included Lewis Lancaster, Prof. Emeritus, University of California; D. Dayalan, Conference Coordinator; and T. Satyamurthy, Vice-Chairman.

The conference is held for the first time in India. The first conference was organised in October 2004 by the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing. In December 2006, it was held in Rome (Italy) at the National Research Council.

On the last two days of the five-day conference, the participants, mostly comprising foreign delegates, would visit various heritage sites in the State.

The Hindu 17.08.2009

Violations of building norms continue unabated city pulse

A. Srivathsan

— Photo: V. GANESAN

VIOLATions galore: The practice of flouting building norms continues to ail the city, affecting organised development and subverting the benefits of city planning.

CHENNAI: If the numbers are any indication, unauthorised constructions have not reduced significantly and blatant violations of building norms continue in the city.

An analysis, made by the Chennai Metropolitan Development authority (CMDA) in March 2009, shows that out of a sample of 97 building applications for completion certificate, 78 were rejected for ‘set-back’ violation, 52 for building more than what was permissible (FSI violation), 22 for parking violation and 25 for unauthorised floor addition.

The Madras High court in its 2006 order made completion certificate mandatory in order to obtain water and electricity connection. While it upheld the 1999 regularisation scheme that condoned unauthorised buildings completed before February 28, 1999, the other regularisation schemes introduced in 2000, 2001 and 2002 were rejected. The CMDA and local bodies were expected to put in place a better enforcing mechanism and work out measures that would curb building violations.

However, in the meanwhile, the State government through an ordinance passed in 2007 and subsequently re-promulgated in 2008 and 2009, extended the cut-off line for condoning unauthorised constructions to July 27 2007. The argument in defence of this ordinance was that the buildings completed after this date would strictly comply with norms and the authorities would ensure that.

In 2008, almost a year after the ordinance was passed, a report submitted by the CMDA showed that of the 3,808 buildings inspected, 2,006 were found violating building norms.

Consequences

The consequences of unauthorised developments are borne by the individuals and the city alike. It impairs organised development and subverts the benefits of city planning and the gullible buyers of illegally developed properties face various hardships.

Just before the apartment was to be handed over, Ms.Lakshmi (name changed) was informed by her apartment promoters that the completion certificate application was rejected since it violated the approved plan. This meant that she would not receive water and electricity connection. Though the developer was responsible and benefited from the violation, it was Ms.Lakshmi who had to face the consequence.

She had to pay additional sum of Rs. 2 lakh to the developer, for which receipts were not issued, to secure water and electricity connection.

R.L.Narayanan, an advocate specialising in property related issues, explains that when notice for demolition is served or penalty is levied on unauthorised construction, the owners will be held responsible and have to pay for it.

The developer or promoter can be implicated and costs can be recovered through civil or other legal proceedings if it is established that the information regarding violation was withheld from the buyer or he or she was kept in ignorance.’

Those who have bought plots in unapproved residential layouts face a different kind of problem. Many are often promised that houses can be constructed in these layouts, but what is less known is that such properties cannot be registered. As a result, no proper sale can be affected.

“They cannot be gifted either,” points put Mr.Narayanan.

Unapproved layouts

The problem of unapproved layouts is equally prevalent in the suburbs. The 2008 survey of Town Pancahyats within the Chennai metropolitan Area identified that between July 2007 and May 2008, 1222 unauthorised developments had come up. Sholinganallur heads the list followed by Kundrathur, Perungudi and Pallikaranai.

K. P. Subramanian, an urban planner and retired professor of Anna University, looks at the persisting building violations with alarm. “When many buildings exceed the permissible FSI as in the case of Usman Road T.Nagar, they bring in more people and vehicles than what the roads can handle. Insufficient provision of car parking adds to the woes. Buildings bridges or making master plans will not solve the traffic problem and the city cannot be developed in an organized manner, till rules are enforced,” he says.

It is a common complaint that large commercial buildings have come in primary residential areas in violation of land use rules. As a result and due to insufficient provision of car parking traffic snarls prevail. Safety of users is another issue that confront the city. By not providing mandated open spaces around the multi-storeyed commercial buildings rescue efforts during fire accidents have been difficult.

Susan Mathew, Vice-chairperson, CMDA, thinks that “the local bodies have the infrastructure to supervise the city better and in future they could take up enforcement and monitor the city closely while the CMDA would focus more on city planning issues.”

Recently, a complaint regarding a building violation was registered online with the Chennai Corporation by a resident near Gill Nagar, off Nelson Manickam Road.

The three- floor residential building was in violation of the rule and was not permissible on a 6-m road.

However, the engineer in-charge, despite the violation on ground, replied that the building is well within the norms and the complaint was closed. Subsequent enquiries and follow-up complaints have not yielded any reply or results.

According to P. Manishankar, President, Federation of Tamil Nadu Flat and Housing Promoters Association, the way forward will be to make the entire building application and approval system transparent and effective. “While the building rules have to be made flexible to reflect the ground condition, the buildings that have grossly violated the rules must be demolished,” he notes.