Environmental Regulations Impact Development Near Sukhna Sanctuary
A proposed 728-flat residential development in Chandigarh’s IT Park area has been rejected by the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, citing risks to the Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary’s migratory bird corridors. This decision follows similar precedents, including the Supreme Court’s 2019 scrapping of Tata Housing’s Camelot project near the sanctuary.
Housing Supply in Chandigarh
- Constrained Market: With Chandigarh’s population growing, housing shortages persist despite limited land availability.
- IT Park Area Challenges: The rejected project aimed to address demand in the tech hub but bumped against strict eco-zone rules.
- Wider Implications: Rejections create a ripple effect, pushing developers toward smaller-scale projects or peripheral areas.
Environmental Concerns and Regulatory Hurdles
| Factor | Description |
|---|---|
| Eco-Sensitive Zones | Proposed buffers (initially 100m, revised to 1–2.035km) aim to protect the Sukhna Lake catchment and Shivalik wildlife. |
| Legal Precedents | The Supreme Court has consistently prioritized ecological preservation over development in the region. |
| Multi-Agency Conflicts | Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh UT often clash over ESZ demarcations, delaying approvals. |
Case Study: The Tata Camelot Controversy
The 2019 Supreme Court order against Tata’s 52-acre project in Kansal village set a precedent for rejecting high-density development near protected areas. Key issues included:
- Violation of Le Corbusier’s Urban Plan: Construction north of the Capitol Complex breached Chandigarh’s foundational zoning.
- Political Entanglements: The project included Housing Board allotments for Punjab MLAs, raising ethical concerns.
Future Challenges and Opportunities
- Sustainable Urban Planning: We need to focus more on eco-green infrastructure in new projects.
- Legal Frameworks: Streamlining ESZ definitions could reduce inter-state disputes and clarify developer expectations.
- Alternative Locations: Developers might seek peripheral zones outside high-conservation areas but face infrastructure challenges.
This latest rejection underscores the clash between urbanization needs and environmental preservation in India’s planned city. While legal safeguards protect ecosystems, they also highlight systemic challenges in balancing growth with sustainability.