Haryana residents' welfare associations wary of report on stilt-plus-4 floors

Sumedha Sharma

Gurugram, July 1

While a Haryana panel in its recommendations has favoured stilt-plus-four (S+4) housing policy with riders, most of the stakeholders in Panchkula and Gurugram, districts impacted the most, have sounded a word of caution.

Voicing their concerns, residents have asked the government to reject the report, saying the proposal for infrastructure audit and augmentation was “impractical”.

While the report has recommended 12-metre road as a prerequisite for new S+4 floor construction, 62% of the exiting permissions have been granted for 9 to 10-metre-wide roads, with only 31% being 12 metres wide, they say.

“How will you expand a road if there is a park or school in the area? There is no scope for augmentation of road width in most of the existing sites. The area’s feasibility can’t be based merely on roads,” says Rakesh Jinsi, president, Residents’ Welfare Association, Sector 17, Gurugram. “The report is marred by confusion. You either have infrastructure to support it or you don’t. This is a disguised way of helping developers. The government should reject the report,” says Praveen Yadav of United Gurugram Residents’ Welfare Associations’ representing plotted sectors. The Home Owners’ Welfare Association, Panchkula, has also termed the report “anti-resident”, saying the committee seems to have not read the objections and apprehensions, and put riders as a mere eyewash.

“While some provisions such as non-usage of common wall for residents’ safety are appreciable, most of the aspects of the report will only benefit developers. We want the Haryana Government to revisit the report and restore the 2017 rules pertaining to density and height,” says the association.

Panchkula-based Army Chief General VP Malik (retd), while terming the report an encouraging attempt to address majority of concerns, said there was a need to probe as to why the bureaucracy was “allowing violations” in connection with construction. “The bigger question is why is bureaucracy permitting violations in the light of observations given by the office of Accountant General (Audit), which mentions that floor-wise apartmentalisation was permitted in state in contravention of statutory provisions of the Apartments Act?” he said.