Initiatives such as GIS-based master & development plans for 500 AMRUT cities are encouraging but we are still far behind
Photo: iStock In India, master plans have a long historical relevance. The first master plan was implemented after independence in Delhi in 1962 under the Delhi Development Act, 1957, followed by other cities and towns.
It is a tool for determining the proportions of land and infrastructure required for various urban uses, as well as allocating land for different uses to produce harmonious and sustainable distribution of activities, while taking current and future requirements and aspirations into account.
Master plans, which are required for land-use planning, are viewed as a crucial component of urban development in the Indian development system, are governed by the individual state, town and country planning acts.
Master plans for towns and cities are prepared by development authorities, while urban local bodies and parastatal organisations of the federal and the state governments are in charge of providing urban services and preparing development plans. These include the Heritage City Development and Augmentation Yojana (HRIDAY), Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM), Smart Cities Mission and Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation (AMRUT).
A recent report by NITI Ayog titled Reforms in Urban Planning Capability in India claims that master plans are absent in 65 per cent of the 7,933 recognised urban entities. Many would contend that there is no reason for fear because communities with master plans nevertheless suffer multiple difficulties like flooding, pollution, traffic and so forth.
Master plans are mistakenly seen by state governments as one-time strategies, but they are truly processes that require regular interpretation and improvements. Cities in the 21st century, hence, need new strategies.
Conurbation and urban agglomeration may sound like a smart idea for cost-effective infrastructure, but it is not a scientifically solid approach as every location has a capacity and there is no scientific ceiling on population that makes the forecast the most crucial component of a master plan.
Due to a lack of carrying capacity considerations and scientific land-use planning, majority of the cities are facing development problems.
Initiatives such as the geographic information system-based master and development plans for 500 AMRUT cities are encouraging but, as seasoned urban planners, we must admit that we are still far behind. What about the settlements that aren't among the 500 AMRUT cities? Doesn't this settlement necessitate long-term urban development?
Maps were required for all settlements in India to regulate development as well as for qualitative spatial analysis and interpretation for future scientific land allocation. As map preparation is one of the first stages of a master plan, this scenario also depicts that the country has and continues to experience a severe shortage of qualified urban planners at the administrative level.
In India, development is a long-term strategy and involves political processes. The ruling political party was critical in directing the growth of cities and towns. Each political party has its own ideology and set of principles. Changes in government at any level imply changes in the approach, programmes, policies and schemes for urban development.
Furthermore, master plans prepared by one government are disliked by the succeeding government, resulting in only 5-10 per cent of master plan implementation.
Sometimes, a political approach changes a master plan’s entire sustainable approach, resulting in unsustainable practices in cities and towns. On paper, sustainable land-use planning is limited, whereas urban planning is gaining traction with parastatal agencies and development authorities.
Surprisingly, major organisations guiding Indian urban and regional development have never addressed “land-use planning” in their aims, missions or goals, despite developing the curriculum for professionals in charge of master plans.
This means that the above master plans and development plans are given priority. Undoubtedly, the nation is moving towards having infrastructure that is of the highest order, but space disputes are also developing.
Both professionally and academically, urban planners are specifically instructed to spot development facility shortfalls based on current and projected populations, instead of scientific land-use planning.
The irony is that urban planners employ the same thinking and approach in their professional lives, even though this activity was historically exclusively in the domain of engineers, economists and geographers in a variety of parastatal agencies.
Development authorities and competent urban planners should focus on long-term spatial development plans rather than developing a range of master plans. If not, India has to create a brand-new discipline called spatial planning.
India should be prepared to assist scientific land-use planning, particularly in settlements, with its possible upcoming National Spatial Planning Act.
Finally, it would be much preferable if a few cities, especially Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Bangalore, began to plan for population decline or dispersion at the planning stage itself, using the concept of carrying capacity.
Hopefully, India’s rise in the global sphere as a leader would also reflect its results and efforts in its spatial urban development milestones.
Views expressed are the authors’ own and don’t necessarily reflect those of Down To Earth.
We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless. You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.
.png)
Comments are moderated and will be published only after the site moderator’s approval. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name. Selected comments may also be used in the ‘Letters’ section of the Down To Earth print edition.