Bansal joins institutional objectors against Master Plan 2031 amendments
Former Member of Parliament from Chandigarh and former Union Minister Pawan Kumar Bansal has filed two rounds of formal objections to the Chief Architect, Department of Urban Planning, against the draft amendments to the Chandigarh Master Plan 2031 notified on May 22. His submissions are notable for their directness. The proposed amendments, he writes, will “dismantle that vision piece by piece and erode the very soul of Chandigarh.” The new model, he adds without qualification, “will serve only the builder-developer lobby.”
Height increase of nearly 275% sparks concerns
Bansal’s sharpest technical objection targets the proposed increase in maximum building heights from 36 feet to 98 feet 5 inches, a jump of nearly 275 per cent across multiple building categories. This single change, he argues, will “completely alter the character of the city and have an adverse impact on all civic services.” The city’s underground water, sewage and electricity systems were built for low-rise living. Raising massive apartment blocks into residential sectors will “inevitably result in water shortages, drainage failures, parking chaos and permanent gridlock on roads already under pressure.” He is equally direct on the absence of any scientific basis: the proposals, he notes, are not supported by any Traffic Impact Assessment, Environmental Impact Study, or “any other scientific town and country planning protocols.”
Density proposals deemed redundant
On high-density group housing in Phase II and III, Bansal argues that the presumed need to construct high-rises “to increase residential holding capacity” is “unsupported by any demonstrable need or expressed demand.” His submission notes that the Chandigarh Master Plan 2031 already provides for a density of 250 persons per acre for Pocket 7 near Maloya village, itself on the higher side, making the proposed high-rise overlay redundant and ecologically reckless. Phase I was originally planned at 30 persons per acre, Phase II at 60, and Phase III at 175, a carefully graduated framework the amendments would collapse overnight. The sanctity of village land as green buffer zones, he writes, “is being sacrificed in the name of increasing housing stock” while the Administration “appears to be losing sight of Chandigarh's unique urban planning character.” On the peripheral proposals, he is unambiguous: for Mani Majra’s Pocket 6, existing CMP provisions should continue and “high-rise development should not be undertaken.”
Selective support for some proposals
Unlike the blanket opposition of former Chief Architect Sumit Kaur, Bansal’s objection is calibrated. He acknowledges genuine merit in select proposals, making his dissent harder to dismiss as reflexive conservatism. He supports increased FAR and ground coverage for industrial plots, calling it “a long-pending demand” of industrial associations that could revive declining manufacturing activity, provided maximum permissible heights are reconsidered in consultation with senior architects and infrastructure augmentation follows immediately. He supports allowing bifurcation of larger industrial plots as reflecting “contemporary requirements.” He welcomes the revival of interest in Vikas Marg development, calling the area “a fine example of modern urban planning”, but insists the mixed land use must judiciously balance commercial plazas, institutional sites, and residential development to keep pressure on civic infrastructure minimal. On the IT Habitat, he is cautious: residential development there must be “limited to the number of dwelling units genuinely required for professionals working in the IT Park,” not used as cover for converting valuable land into general real estate. On schools, he adds a pointed coda: increasing FAR for educational institutions must not mean cramming more students into existing buildings. Outdoor sports space must be protected. New schools should be built to meet the deficit; existing ones must not be degraded.
Misreading of deregulation framework flagged
In a significant political observation, Bansal directly addresses the Centre’s Deregulation 1.0 and 2.0 framework that the Administration appears to be using as justification for the amendments. Its “purport,” he writes, “has apparently been misunderstood in its application to Chandigarh. It does not expect its ‘forced’ application where it is not needed.” This is a pointed rebuke: the national deregulation agenda was not designed to override the statutory protections of a UNESCO-recognised heritage city. He also flags the Administration’s apparent preference for flyovers, consistent with the High Court’s May 29 ruling scrapping the Tribune Chowk flyover, and notes that the much-delayed Metro project “finds no mention in the proposal,” despite being the most consequential mobility intervention the city needs.
Warning: Chandigarh risks becoming another Zirakpur
Bansal’s closing argument echoes every other institutional voice raised against the amendments: “Once Chandigarh loses its character, we will never be able to restore it. Urban planning mistakes of today will last generations and Chandigarh will become just another Zirakpur or Dhakoli.” Vast stretches of the tricity, he notes, already act as countermagnet centres for Chandigarh. Nothing warrants a reverse flow of population into a finite, infrastructure-constrained Union Territory. The screening committee, which has now received objections from the city’s former Chief Architect, its sitting MP, its former MP and Union Minister, and a binding High Court judgment, all pointing in the same direction, is yet to issue its findings.
