Chandigarh: Chandigarh residents have sent a clear message on the proposed Master Plan amendments: build the infrastructure before building higher. Representations before the Screening Committee show strong resistance to denser and taller housing, with concerns ranging from traffic and parking to water, sewerage, ecology and the city’s low-rise character.While some stakeholders backed densification to meet housing needs and use land more efficiently, opposition was stronger to most major residential proposals.Group housing: Density meets resistanceOf 47 representations on residential amendments, 17 were unrelated to the notified changes, dealing with issues such as building violations, apartmentalisation and land pooling.For group housing in Phase II, including govt housing, three stakeholders supported higher density but wanted roads, sewerage, electricity and parking strengthened first. Sixteen objected, raising concerns that excluding stilt parking from building height calculations could lead to more dwelling units, residents and vehicles.The proposed stilt+4 format was also seen as inconsistent with Chandigarh’s low-rise, green character, with some fearing that taller buildings could affect views of the Shivaliks and undermine the city’s original planning principles.The pushback was stronger in Phase III. Three stakeholders supported higher density, but 24 objected to the proposed FAR increase from 1.2 to 3.0 and building heights of up to 98 ft 5 in.Traffic, parking, water and sewerage capacity, community facilities and environmental stress emerged as key concerns. Stakeholders also questioned how taller buildings would alter Chandigarh’s urban form and sought firm development limits.A few, however, sought greater flexibility, including retaining the one-acre minimum site requirement instead of three acres and allowing cooperative housing for govt, PSU and defence employees.Maloya: Residents wary of losing green edgeThe proposed residential development on 178 acres in Maloya drew one representation in support and 13 objections.The main concern was that high-density development could eat into the city’s green peripheral edge and ecological buffer and affect views of the Shivaliks. Stakeholders also cautioned against excessive urbanisation of the periphery and its possible social, environmental and regulatory implications under the Periphery Control Act.They wanted development parameters for Maloya specified in the Master Plan itself, rather than left to building rules, along with stronger parking norms for high-density projects.IT Habitat: Demand for ecological scrutinyThe proposed plotted development in IT Habitat received one representation in support and four objections.Stakeholders questioned the shift towards plotted development when earlier planning approaches had favoured higher-density development in peripheral sectors. One concern was that housing should primarily meet the needs of IT Park employees rather than become a general residential development.They also sought a proper ecological assessment and formal MoEF&CC clearance before development.Manimajra: Height without capacity a concernThe proposed stilt+5 group housing in Manimajra also faced resistance. The Expert Committee, headed by the deputy commissioner, had recommended the development subject to augmentation of water supply, sewerage, drainage, electricity, solid-waste management and public parking after a technical assessment.Of the 47 representations in this category, 37 were outside the scope of the notified amendments. Among those relevant to the proposal, one supported it while nine objected.The concern was straightforward: Manimajra is already congested, and adding height without first establishing adequate infrastructure capacity could intensify traffic, parking, sewerage and utility problems.Proposals await nodThe Screening Committee’s report, submitted to the UT chief secretary, records strong concerns from residents over taller buildings, higher density, peripheral development, infrastructure capacity and Chandigarh’s heritage character. The Chandigarh Heritage Conservation Committee (CHCC) has since cleared the amendments, but the proposals are still awaiting approval from the competent authorities.‘Need to debate further’RK Garg, a city-based social activist, said, “When most of the stakeholders have raised objections and serious concerns over these proposed amendments, why is the administration still going ahead with them? There has to be a more transparent debate on these issues.”BOX 1 | For and againstAmendments/Clauses | In support | Raising concernsGovt housing in Phase II | 3 | 16High-density group housing in Phase II | 3 | 24Residential development in Maloya (Pocket 7) | 1 | 13Plotted development in IT Habitat | 1 | 4Manimajra group housing development (Pocket 6) | 1 | 9
