Master plan board rejects rise in floor area ratio in schools
In a major setback to the educational institutes in the city, the board of inquiry for Chandigarh’s master plan has recommended not to enhance the floor area ratio (FAR) of the private schools.chandigarh Updated: Jun 17, 2014 11:39 IST
In a major setback to the educational institutes in the city, the board of inquiry for Chandigarh’s master plan has recommended not to enhance the floor area ratio (FAR) of the private schools.
FAR is the ratio of the total floor area of a building to the area of land it is built upon. It refers to limits imposed on the constructed area of buildings.
The board of inquiry was constituted by the Chandigarh administration for hearing the objections or suggestion of the public before finalising the master plan of the city. The board in its re port stressed on not enhancing the FAR. However, the board is of view that additional land can be allotted to educational institutes to meet their requirements. The board has called for removing all reference regarding higher floor area ratio from the master plan.
There are over 100 private schools in the city. The management of various private schools had appeared before the board of inquiry stating that they were facing space crunch and cannot deliver quality education until required space was provided to them.
To meet the requirements of schools in cur rent times, the Independent Schools’ Association (ISA) urged the administration to increase FAR from 0.5 to .75 and allow them to cover 25% of the ground area from the earlier 15%. The FAR for private schools in Panchkula and SAS Nagar is 1.
ISA president HS Mamik said the decision would have a negative impact on private schools that were already struggling due to shortage of space.
MAJORITY SUGGESTIONS TURNED DOWN
The board did not acce pt majority of suggestions and objections submitted by residents and various bodies to be incorporated in the master plan. The urban planning department had received around 171 objections and suggestions, of which only 116 were considered for discussion.
The board turned down the suggestion for re-introduction of Apar tment Rules and redensification of gover nment houses. It was of view that redensification was a complicated and complex issue and would create lot of problems.
The board also did not consider the proposal to shift the police housing from Sector 17. In contrary to the demand of traders, the board recommended not to allow box type structures in commercial establishments of the first phase sectors.
To allow commercial use of farmhouses above one acre for holding social functions such as marriages, parties etc, the board suggested that rules should be framed to ensure that no inconvenience was caused to people like road congestion, traf fic problems.
The residents of villages had requested for regularisation of construction outside Lal Dora to which the board did not agree.