Eateries, markets, roads and historic cultural sites are protected by the Bangalore Development Authority’s Draft Revised Master Plan-2031, which for the first time in the city’s history imposes development restrictions in 12 heritage zones, apart from listing out 558 heritage sites.
The draft plan recommends for a city-level Heritage Committee led by BMRDA Commissioner, with three private members working in the field. An NOC from the committee is must for most development activities in these zones and the listed heritage sites.
In the 12 heritage zones, the height of buildings have been capped in many cases. For instance, the draft plan allows no new development on Queens Road, and no building taller than 12 m in Basavanagudi. No flyovers and other infrastructure is allowed in any of the zones.
Also in a first, the draft RMP takes nine sites, including the route for the Someshwara Temple Car Festival, the Bull Temple and Kadlekai Parishe, Koshy’s Cafe, Food Street V.V. Puram and Mosque Road, among others, as part of the city’s cultural heritage.
Drawback
However, private heritage property owners are not given compensation for the restrictions the government plans to impose on them. This is the biggest drawback of the plan, threatening thesustainability of the development restrictions itself.
Meera Iyer, co-convenor, INTACH-Bengaluru chapter, said no incentive for heritage property owners would amount to penalising owners who have preserved heritage properties. For instance, Ahmedabad has been giving heritage TDR, an incentive which the property owner can sell to maintain the property, a model of which can be adopted for the city, she said. “There are other means to compensate the property owner such as giving permission to run commercial establishments like a cafe or a book store even though it is a residential area, providing low interest loans,” she said.
But conservation architect Satyaprakash Varanasi says compensation is impractical. “If they are unable to maintain heritage properties, they can any day sell them. In many global cities, value of heritage properties is much higher than normal properties,” he said.
Mr. Varanasi said the focus of the plan was much on tangible heritage buildings and less on intangible ones. He argued for marking urban spaces in communities to build heritage for the future, and noted that the plan was silent on urban aesthetics.
