Chandigarh: Chandigarh’s proposed industrial-area reforms have faced 162 objections against just 15 representations in support, making them the most strongly contested of the Master Plan amendments examined by the screening committee. Stakeholders have raised concerns over higher FAR, zoning flexibility, mixed land use and construction intensity, with a recurring demand that infrastructure capacity be upgraded before allowing more construction.The expert committee headed by the deputy commissioner had proposed allowing industrial plots up to two kanal to migrate from the existing architectural control regime to a zoning framework, while retaining the option to continue under architectural controls. It also recommended FAR of 2.0, 60% ground coverage, a maximum building height of 68 ft 3 inches, plot fragmentation, more residential accommodation for industrial workers and staff, and mixed land use on identified parcels.The objections, however, were not uniformly against industrial growth. Much of the concern centred on the impact of the proposed relaxations on existing investments, Chandigarh’s planned character and already-stretched infrastructure.A key demand was that existing industrial plots and buildings be allowed to use the enhanced FAR without mandatory migration to the new zoning regime or redevelopment. Stakeholders sought “protected/deemed compliant” status for existing and CITCO-built structures, allowing additional construction without demolition or reconstruction.Several also favoured retaining Architectural Controls for existing and smaller plots to protect investments and Chandigarh’s urban character. They sought heritage review, infrastructure assessment and wider public consultation before the changes are implemented.Mixed use triggers strong oppositionThe proposed mixed land use in Industrial Area Phase III also drew significant resistance, with 28 stakeholders raising concerns against two supporting the proposal.Stakeholders warned that blanket mixed-use provisions could accelerate commercialisation, reduce industrial land and alter the character of areas planned for industrial activity. They flagged the possibility of incompatible land uses, congestion and additional pressure on arterial roads and utilities.Some sought extension of Mixed Land Use to Phases I and II, while others opposed the proposal altogether in the absence of detailed traffic, road, utility and infrastructure studies.FAR hike faces infrastructure hurdleThe proposed FAR increase to 2.0 and related relaxation in construction norms drew concerns from all 42 representations on development controls, although four stakeholders also supported greater flexibility.Even supporters stressed the need for infrastructure upgrades, citing likely increases in traffic, parking demand, air and noise pollution, waste generation and pressure on water, sewerage and other utilities.The feedback therefore seeks to link higher construction intensity with infrastructure capacity, rather than permit blanket relaxation.Marla plots seek flexibility without redevelopmentThe review of marla-sized industrial plots under architectural controls generated 34 objections against two representations in support. Stakeholders again sought enhanced FAR for existing structures without compulsory migration or redevelopment.They also sought greater flexibility for product display, warehousing, stocking, wholesale trade and allied industrial activities. One representation sought permission for all activities allowed under the MSME Development Act in Industrial Area Phase II, similar to the proposal for Phase III.The flatted-factory concept found no support, with one stakeholder objecting to restricting it to 14.65 acres and cautioning against commercial conversion of industrial land.
About The Author
