See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/318223607

Assessing the Role of Master Plans in City Development: Reform Measures and
Approaches

Article · January 2016

CITATIONS READS

10 10,419

1 author:

Ramakrishna Nallathiga
National Institute of Construction Management and Research
271 PUBLICATIONS 629 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ramakrishna Nallathiga on 06 July 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Assessing the Role of Master Plans
in City Development: Reform
Measures and Approaches
RAMAKRISHNA NALLATHIGA*

Master plans have emerged as the standard instruments of planning

to be developed by urban local governments in India. Master plans
are forward planning tools that anticipate urban development and
make provisions for it on city space in terms of (a) the allocation of
land for various uses, (b) the regulation of its development and (c)
the provision of civic infrastructure. However, they have received
an increasing amount of criticism on several grounds. First of
all, plan-making process is not in-line with that suggested under
UDPFI guidelines and several States are at different stages of plan
development. Second, it is also held that the approach of master
plan is far too simplistic, especially to anticipate development
needs/ citizens’ aspirations; their very long tenure has been a major
hindrance to anticipate socio-economic and technological changes
over time. Third, most of the plans are not co-terminus with urban
local government, which leads to interventions at later stage or in
implementation stage by obtaining deviations from plan proposals.
Fourth it is also held that master plan formats fail to meet the
aspirations/ expectations of citizens (due to elite capture and lip-
service to public participation). Finally, the approach taken towards
plan implementation is fraught with financial challenges and also
the risks of legal challenges of land acquisition. Planning system in
Indian States needs to be overhauled and streamlined so that some
of the above challenges are met. Plans have to move beyond the
traditional straight jacket approach and adopt strategic and project
dimensions. Plan implementation needs to be given more serious
attention especially through pro-active proposals, incentive-based
policy, adoption of complimentary instruments and utilising land
based instruments. It is hoped that with reforms and renewal of
planning system, plan making and modified approach, the plans
would become successful in meeting their objective.
Key words: Master plans, City development, Planning process,
Plan implementation, Citizen aspirations and Reform measures

*Associate Professor, National Institute of Construction Management and

Research, Pune. email: nramakrishna@nicmar.ac.in
2/ NAGARLOK
VOL. XLVII-XLVIII, Part 4 & 1-4, Oct-Dec 2015, Jan-Dec 2016

1. INTRODUCTION

P LANNING has occupied much of the importance in India’s past.

Economic Planning had been central to its economy in the post-
independence era until the 1990s. While economic planning has been
changing the course towards changing over the last two decades with
liberalisation of economic activities, such changes in town planning
have not been coming forth. Town planning, or urban planning, is
an important instrument to plan and achieve urban development.
India’s strong historical past in the form of civilisation and associated
systems has been well researched by historians, e.g., Thapar (1990),
of which town planning was a characteristic of the civilisations more
than 2000 years ago. However, much of it was a concerted effort of
specific kingdoms prevalent at various points of time in history rather
than an outcome of documented and institutionalised procedures,
rendering it difficult to compare ancient planning systems with modern
planning systems. Like several other countries, much of the current
town planning system in India owes its origins to the British town
planning system, although the features and functioning of it are very
different from the British system. The British Town Planning System
is rather democratic, participatory, decentralised and uses legal and
economic principles in the design of its practice (Cullingworth and
Nadin, 2001).
India continued with a town planning system whose legislation was
framed by the British by adapting it to the requirements of the Indian
cities. The concepts and methods of the traditional Master Planning in
India owe their origin to the British town planning laws. The Master
Plans have primarily confined to the aspects of land use, physical
infrastructure and development control. However, they have received
an increasing amount of criticism on several grounds, which we will
examine in this article. The shortcomings of Master Plan approach have
already been noted as implied in Box 1.
We will discuss the underlying shortcomings of the current
approach taken towards town planning practice (both plan making
and implementation). Here, though we make reference to the town
planning in India, in general, our primary intention is with reference to
the process – formulation, implementation and evaluation of planning.
We will first take an overview of Master planning system developed
over time before critically examining the approach and process, with
lot of arguments and some amount of empirical data. Subsequently, the
need for reforms in town planning, including alternative approaches
like Vision/Strategy/Perspective Plan is discussed.
 ASSESSING THE ROLE OF MASTER PLANS IN CITY DEVELOPMENT /3
RAMAKRISHNA NALLATHIGA

BOX 1: SHORTCOMINGS OF MASTER PLAN APPROACH

• Large Master Plans are too static in nature and they take very
long time to prepare and are too infrequently updated (though
frequent case-by-case relaxations in plan with a view to serve
vested interests).
• Master plans rarely provide guidelines on the plan techniques of
implementation.
• Master plans rarely evaluate the costs of development they
propose or the methods of financing them.
• Master plans are often based on unrealistic appraisal of economic
potential of the planning areas and, in some cases, on the needs
of the citizens.
• Master plans seldom provide a compelling ratio of detailed land
use and elaborate land use regulation or control.
• Community or elected representatives or NGOs are not involved
in the planning process meaningfully.
Source: United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia Pacific, 1984.

Master Planning System in India

Master plans have emerged as the standard instruments of planning
to be developed by urban local governments in India. This was primarily
achieved through the Town and Country Planning Acts of various
states. These Acts have mandated the development of Master Plans for
the development of cities conceivable in the next 20 or 25 years. The
Master plans, or development plans, featured the land use plan – present
and proposed – and development control restrictions. In many Indian
States, this involves an estimation of future population, socio-economic
conditions and their infrastructural needs and the preparation of land
use and infrastructure plans for ensuring that the necessary facilities
are in place when the development takes place.
Master planning aims at improving the urban environment as the
efficiency of urban settlements largely depends upon how well they
are planned, how economically they are developed and how efficiently
they are managed. Planning inputs largely govern the efficiency level of
human settlements. In one sense, master planning is basically an exercise
of resource planning, generation, development and management (Tiwari
2002). The master plan, which was perceived to be a process rather than a
conclusive statement, provides guidelines for the physical development
of the city and guides people in locating their investments in the city.
4/ NAGARLOK
VOL. XLVII-XLVIII, Part 4 & 1-4, Oct-Dec 2015, Jan-Dec 2016

In short, Master Plan is a design for the physical, social, and economic
development of the city, and also to improve the quality of life as well.
The functions of the Master Plan / Development plan are as follows
(Tiwari, 2002):
• To guide development of a city in an orderly manner so as to
improve the quality of life of the people;
• Organise and coordinate the complex relationships between urban
land uses;
• Chart a course for growth and change, be responsive to change and
maintain its validity over time and space, and be subject to continual
review;
• Direct the physical development of the city in relation to its social
and economic characteristics based on comprehensive surveys and
studies on the present status and the future growth prospects; and
• Provide a resource mobilisation plan for the proposed development
works.
Master plans are forward planning tools that anticipate urban
development and make provisions for the same on city space in
terms of (Nallathiga, 2007): (a) the allocation of land for various uses,
(b) the regulation of its development and (c) the provision of civic
infrastructure. These plans were also supposed to make proposals/
schemes for the provision of various facilities and ensure that the basic
amenities/services are in place; in that process, they were also to guide
the urban development. This approach certainly assumes the State, or
government, as the major producer of all goods and services – public
and private, which was the thinking prevailing for a quite long time
in the history.

Master Planning Experience in India — Critical Assessment

The concepts and methods of the traditional Master Planning in India
owe their origin to the British town planning laws. The Master Plans have
primarily confined to the aspects of land use, physical infrastructure and
development control. However, they have received an increasing amount
of criticism on several grounds, which we will examine.

Improper Systematisation of Planning

First of all, the plan-making process in several Indian States itself
is not well laid down. The Necessary legal framework provided by the
Town and Country Planning Acts draw the bounds, the procedures
 ASSESSING THE ROLE OF MASTER PLANS IN CITY DEVELOPMENT /5
RAMAKRISHNA NALLATHIGA

and constituent elements. They do not provide any specific time

frame and organisation in order to complete the planning process in a
meaningful manner. As a result, each of the State follows/ adopts its
own approach and model that give a good amount of variation and the
resulting uncertainty to the outcome. Moreover, different towns/cities
in a State prepare plans at different time points and the State planning
agency is pre-occupied with preparing the plans over a period of time.
This gives the non-harmonious outcome of different Master Plans in
different states within the State. This is reflected in the status of Master
Plans in a State as shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1: STATUS OF MASTER PLANS IN ANDHRA PRADESH (AS AT 2002)

Total No. of Urban Local Bodies 125

Total Master Plans sanctioned 73
No. of Towns covered under Urban Development Authorities 22
No. of Master Plans pending with Municipalities 03
Master Plans under approval by Government 04
Master Plans under preparation 08
Master Plans to be prepared 07
Source: Office of Director, Town and Country Planning, Government of Andhra
Pradesh

Inadequate Processes
Town planning is an instrument for orderly urban development;
however, not many towns in every State have development plans
for their towns. The process followed is not in-line with the desired
process, such as that suggested under UDPFI guidelines , and several
States are at different stages of plan development across the cities and
towns in them. Most of the plans are not co-terminus with urban local
government, which leads to interventions in master plan at later stage or
in its implementation stage by obtaining deviations from plan proposals.
Much of the development plan/ building permission is made at the hands
of the officers of urban local government (bureaucrats) and the members
of urban local council (politicians) that leads to elite capture and lack
of accountability to the decisions taken. The lack of appropriate master
plan in itself leads to mis-appropriation of powers in the vested interest
groups that manipulate urban local government (bureaucrats-politicians)
to allow development that they want on city-space. Citizen participation is
given lip service through consultations and plan proposals are subject to
too much manipulation and political interference (form of elite capture).
6/ NAGARLOK
VOL. XLVII-XLVIII, Part 4 & 1-4, Oct-Dec 2015, Jan-Dec 2016

TABLE 2: STATEWISE STATUS OF MASTER PLANS/ DEVELOPMENT PLANS OF

TOWNS AND CITIES IN INDIA

Sl. No. Name of State/U.T. No. of Master No. of Master Total

Plans Approved Plans under
Preparation
1. Andhra Pradesh 88 8 96
2. Arunachal Pradesh -- 2 2
3. Assam 28 32 60
4. Bihar 2 8 10
5. Chhattisgarh 28 64 92
6. Goa 13 -- 13
7. Gujarat 116 14 130
8. Haryana 31 -- 31
9. Himachal Pradesh 18 -- 18
10. Jammu & Kashmir 2 -- 2
11. Jharkhand 5 -- 5
12. Karnataka 96 7 103
13. Kerala 18 32 50
14. Madhya Pradesh 69 78 147
15. Maharashtra 175 -- 175
16. Manipur 3 -- 3
17. Meghalaya 2 6 8
18. Mizoram 15 -- 15
19. Nagaland 10 -- 10
20. Odisha 68 26 94
21. Punjab 12 53 65
22. Rajasthan 63 121 184
23. Sikkim 4 17 21
24. Tamil Nadu 117 50
25. Tripura 1 -- 1
26. Uttar Pradesh 84 48 132
27. Uttarakhand 17 -- 17
28. West Bengal 17 -- 17
Union Territory
29. A&N Island -- 5 5
30. Chandigarh -- 1 1
31. Dadra & Nagar Haveli 1 -- 1
32. Daman & Diu 1 -- 1
33. Delhi 1 -- 1
34. Lakshadweep -- -- --
35. Puducherry 4 -- 4
Total 1233 657 1890
Compiled by: R. Srinivas, Town and Country Planner, Town and Country Planning
Organisation, Government of India
Source: AMDA News Bulletin, Volume I, Issue 3, p. 13 (July-September).
 ASSESSING THE ROLE OF MASTER PLANS IN CITY DEVELOPMENT /7
RAMAKRISHNA NALLATHIGA

Improper Plan Design

It is also held that the design and approach of master plan is
becoming far too simplistic, especially in anticipating development
needs/ citizens’ aspirations; their very long tenure has been a major
hindrance to anticipate socio-economic and technological changes
over time horizon. This is due to the technical nature of planning
that fails to capture socio-economic changes as well as technological
changes in a meaningful manner. Much of the estimation and planning
of infrastructure services assumes outdated norms, standards and
technology of the past, which have a legacy effect on planning. This
also results in the lack of proper link between infrastructure planning
and implementation. The format of planning emphasises too much
on land use and does not provide adequate room/ opportunity to
come out with proper ‘urban design’, that takes into account of the
vertical space. This is becoming important in the context of continuous
expansion of city limit/ boundary and the ongoing debates of compact
city development as guiding choice (Nallathiga 2008). The integration
of land use and transport planning is vital given the fact that transport
is a key determinant of land use and “leads” development, which is
sometimes ignored (Meshram, 2006). In fact, urban land use planning
and transportation planning have to go hand in hand rather than one
preceding/succeeding to another.

Inadequate Procedures
It is also held that the master plan formats fail to meet the aspirations/
expectations of the citizens due to not only elite capture taking place at
top level but also lip-service given to public participation in planning
process. The consultation procedures (in the form of objections and
suggestions) that are followed in plan making are inadequate to ensure
proper public participation in plan making. Plan making procedures
also do not provide adequate attention to stakeholder consultation
in order to understand the issues and priorities, and, as a result, they
are not aligning themselves well with urban development priorities.
The decision makers are now on look out for other means/ strategic
instruments for achieving the development objectives. Planning system
in Indian States needs to be overhauled and streamlined so that some
of the above challenges can be met. Procedural guidelines have to be
evolved for the public participation in planning.

Poor Implementation Linkage

Finally, the approach taken towards plan implementation is fraught
with financial challenges and also the risks of legal challenges in the
8/ NAGARLOK
VOL. XLVII-XLVIII, Part 4 & 1-4, Oct-Dec 2015, Jan-Dec 2016

cases of land acquisition. Planning system in Indian States needs to

be overhauled and streamlined so that physical plans have some link
to the socio-economic system and public finance (inter-governmental
tier of financing). Planning time horizons have to be well integrated
with the financial planning cycle as well as annual budget cycle of
local government so that the proposal will find some reflection in the
fiscal plan of urban local government. It also needs to be well linked to
the development of land, financing and land administration in order
to become more realistic. Plans have to move beyond the traditional
straight jacket approach and adopt strategic and project dimensions.
Plan implementation needs to be given more serious attention especially
through pro-active proposals, incentive-based policy, adoption of
complimentary instruments and utilising land based instruments. It
is hoped that only with reforms and renewal of planning system, plan
making and modified approach, the plans would become successful in
meeting their objective and enable the citizens in meeting with their
aspirations.

Improper Outcomes
Yet, there is a widely held view that the Master planning methods
adopted over the last few decades in India have not produced a
satisfactory physical environment (Tiwari, 2002) and have not been
effective in the outputs as well as outcomes (Meshram, 2006). The
planning process in the past has been unduly long and largely
confined to the detailing of land use aspects. Functionally, master plans
paid inadequate attention to the provision of trunk infrastructure,
environmental conservation and financing issues, the last one rendering
them to be unrealistic proposals without budgets (Meshram, 2006).
Moreover, master planning approach lacked a holistic view of urban
development and did not deal with interconnecting issues. For example,
in most cities, master plans have not been translated into socio-economic
development plans and investment programmes and, often, the physical
planning exercises were restricted to core urban areas without much
integration with the peripheral areas and rural hinterlands (Tiwari,
2002). Attempts to adopt an integrated development plan approach,
based on national, state and regional strategies and recognition of the
spatial and functional linkages between settlements of different orders
have not been made much (Meshram, 2006).
In summary, the following are the major criticisms of Master Plan
approach as practiced in the country (CGG, 2008):
• The Plan projects and details the ‘end state’ scenario for 20-25 years
and is not detailed enough for short and medium-terms actions.
 ASSESSING THE ROLE OF MASTER PLANS IN CITY DEVELOPMENT /9
RAMAKRISHNA NALLATHIGA

• The Plan is mostly static and not amenable to quick mid-course

corrections.
• There are inordinate delays in master plan preparation and approval,
and in addition, acquiring land is one of the main handicaps in the
speedy and successful implementation of the Master Plan.
• There is inadequate participation or involvement of the local bodies
in the master planning process; they take the Master Plan as given
for implementation.
• The mechanism for public participation is ineffective in the process of
development planning, in both its preparation and implementation.
It is more a top-down than a bottom-up approach and does not
reflect the aspirations of the community at large.
• The Master Plans prescribe impractical densities and high layout
standards in an effort to improve the quality of life in a city. These
are generally higher than what the city population, particularly the
poor, can afford.
• Estimates of financial outlay do not match the development works
envisaged in the Master Plan. The strategies for raising resources
required for plan implementation are seldom an integral part of the
plan.
• The absence of machinery for systematic and continuous collection
of data on the movement of land and tenement prices undermines
the implementation of the Master Plan.
• Though a significant portion of the development is due to the
initiative of the private sector, the private sector is not involved
adequately in plan preparation.
• An institutional and information system does not, generally, exist
for plan monitoring. Since the budgetary system does not explicitly
take into account the requirement of plan implementation, problem
of resources is not periodically highlighted.
• As the Master Plans in the past did not adopt an integrated
development planning approach, the required integration of existing
and planned uses, spatial and economic development planning,
rural and urban planning, transportation and land use planning,
and physical and financial planning has not taken place in most
cities.
10 / NAGARLOK
VOL. XLVII-XLVIII, Part 4 & 1-4, Oct-Dec 2015, Jan-Dec 2016

• It is increasingly being realised that the plans need to have

operational elements in terms of finance and operating mechanisms
to support its implementation.

Reform Agenda and Alternate Approaches

Reform Agenda

(a) Streamlining Development Plan Making Process

The plan making by the States and urban local bodies has to
follow the standard format of plan making prescribed under the UDPFI
Guidelines, which call for
• Preparing long term perspective plan (in lieu of general
development/master plan) of socio-economic development at 20-
year time horizon;
• Preparing medium term development plan at every 5 years (co-
terminus with period of local government) in line with perspective
plan;
• Preparing annual plans giving details of physical and financial
improvements; and
• Developing projects/schemes of execution with proposals for
adequate investments/ finances.

(b) Improving the Governance of Plan Making

When it comes to providing public service, governance matters.
The governance of planning process has to improve significantly by
adopting several changes in the current system of plan making. This
calls for the following not-all-inclusive steps:
• Consulting all major stakeholders while preparing perspective
plans, deliberating on the view points in order to set priorities and
addressing their concerns
• Allowing public-participation in land use/ development plans
through the strengthened process of inviting objections/ suggestions,
addressing them in the plan and then communicating it with public
• Improving the transparency of plan making through
– (a) public display of maps in key public locations, offices of local
government, designated offices/stores and on internet,
– (b) providing information/ data upon request, especially when
it comes through the provisions under RTI Act 2005
 ASSESSING THE ROLE OF MASTER PLANS IN CITY DEVELOPMENT /11
RAMAKRISHNA NALLATHIGA

• Making planning officers accountable for the decisions taken,

especially in the cases of making/doing favours in terms of allowing
deviations, change of use and development permission as well as
allocations
• Making the planning departments and local government to become
compliant with Right to Information Act provisions in a time bound
manner

(c) Streamlining of the Planning/Development Permission Process

Currently, there is a weak linkage between plan formulation and
plan implementation, which is done through planning/ development
permission and limited amount of land acquisition, which is leading
to sub-optimal outcomes. There is a need to enhance the flow of land
for the allocated used by streamlining land use conversion (from
agriculture/rural to non-agriculture/urban) by a variety of internal
process improvements such as:
• Reducing the time taken to change land use by setting a time limit
of not more than 30 days;
• For large cities, making it mandatory to have either regional plan or
fringe area plans providing for development in areas adjoining them;
• Making conversion process more rational by making it subject to
scrutiny by regional plan/ fringe plan;
• Bringing change process under automatic permission system in
urban areas within their jurisdiction;
• Revenue authority to have minimum role in the conversion
permission process;
• Standardising application processing by various departments
with service standards and improving the process transparency of
building permission through better monitoring systems;
• Introducing IT and its applications into the processing of applications
and award of permit; and
• Instituting strong inspection and monitoring systems.

(d) Improving the Implementability of Plan

The plans have to make a clear assessment of ground level
conditions and simulate them to future scenarios. They have to develop
a direct linkage between plan objectives/provisions and practical
12 / NAGARLOK
VOL. XLVII-XLVIII, Part 4 & 1-4, Oct-Dec 2015, Jan-Dec 2016

development projects. Land related information and issues need to be

dealt with in a strategic manner and in association with private parties
wherever they are a party that gets directly affected by the decision.
• Assess the land use changes and future development requirements
and provide for them explicitly in the physical plan;
• Estimate the financial requirements of the above and either budget
it or make use of other means of development e.g., PPP;
• Assess the infrastructure development requirements and prepare
investment/ financing plans for meeting the same;
• Develop/float separate schemes for achieving the goals/ objectives
of development plan; and
• Review and revise the development plan at a pre-set periodicity in
order to be in line with ground situation.

(e) Complimentary Instruments/ Schemes

There are several other instruments and approaches that can be
used for making the master plan/ development plan operational,
especially with reference to the development of amenities/ facilities that
it proposes. Some of them may be purely financial instruments (such
as various choices of market finance) but some of them may be purely
alternative approaches that can be categorised into:
• Operational instruments/schemes that make operational plan
for financing the development of land as per development plan
involving tools like
• Reservations of land for amenities
• Transferable Development Rights
• Town Planning Schemes
• Special Townships
• Financing instruments that make use of market investments/finance
for developing infrastructure and providing amenities using
• Funding channels of Government
• Market Finance (Debt, Bonds, etc.)
• Public-Private Partnerships
 ASSESSING THE ROLE OF MASTER PLANS IN CITY DEVELOPMENT /13
RAMAKRISHNA NALLATHIGA

Alternate Approaches
There are few alternate approaches that have been emerging
in the country that follow a different suite/format of planning by
encompassing some of the above shortfalls into the design process
(whereas this trend is well followed by the Latin American cities). The
following case study shows that Mumbai city has come out with such a
trend which has set a bold approach that is drastically different from the
underlying approach and aspects of development plan of the City that
was prepared by urban local government. In fact, it gave tremendous
push to city development and got approval by State government.
The Cities Alliance, an arm of the World Bank, has now come
out with a practice hand book that suggests the methodology for
undertaking the preparation of Strategic Development Plans for the
City development (Cities Alliance, 2006). In fact, it suggested that India
needs many such bold plans such as that of Mumbai in order to set a
different tone to the development of cities. The Mumbai case study
below discusses methodology and process used in such strategic plan
as well as broad features of it.

Case Study: Mumbai’s Vision Plan

Mumbai’s Development Vision
Mumbai’s historical past when it was the urbs prima Indiae soon
disappeared when the manufacturing industry, particularly textile
mills, began to move away for various reasons. With a declining
manufacturing and yet emerging service sector, the hitherto position
of the economic hub of the country itself came under clouds of low
economic growth and declining quality of life – costly housing,
poor amenities, long commute, etc. At the same time in an era of
globalisation, it needs to compete with other cities in attracting
investments from across the globe on one hand and service the global
markets with competitive products of its firms. Therefore, the city
needed interventions that would improve its position not only within
the country but also across the world, and to steer into this direction a
vision plan was prepared with the aim of transforming the city into a
world class city offering globally competitive environment conducive
for investment inflow from across the globe. The interventions would
not only cater to the businesses but improve the quality of living of all
citizens across the board. This was initiated by Bombay First, the city
policy research and advocacy non-profit organisation, and executed
by the McKinsey, the globally renowned consulting firm. The vision
statement of the plan reads as in Box 1.
14 / NAGARLOK
VOL. XLVII-XLVIII, Part 4 & 1-4, Oct-Dec 2015, Jan-Dec 2016

BOX 1: MUMBAI’S VISION STATEMENT FOR 2013

Mumbai’s aspiration is to become a world-class city in the next

10-15 years. In order to achieve this, it needs to be distinctive on the
dimension of economic growth and above average on quality of life.
It will therefore need to step up economic growth to 8-10 per cent
by becoming one of Asia’s leading service hubs, with a fast-growing
manufacturing base in the hinterland. On the quality of life dimension,
it needs to move from average to above average on mass transport,
from poor to above average on private transport, housing, safety &
environment, financing and governance. It also needs to improve to
above average in water/sanitation and education to world class in
health care.

Vision Setting Methodology

The vision plan for the development of Mumbai was not done on
an ad hoc method, but it followed a methodology that combined using
the analytical, consultative and deliberative processes in setting the
vision and the underlying aspirations so that they can be targeted to
be achieved over a ten-year time horizon. The methodology, therefore,
followed an analysis through benchmarking studies of the peer cities
(or, emulate-worthy cities) and the learning from successful city
transformations for laying down the aspirations of city development.
A consensus on these aspirations was achieved through wider
consultations with major stakeholders–key government institutions
and agencies, business groups/chambers of commerce, and non-profit/
non-government organisations.
For the purpose of benchmarking, about ten cities were considered,
of which three were Indian cities, and the parameters of benchmarking
included:
• Mass transport
• Private transport
• Housing
• Environment and Safety
• Water and sanitation
• Healthcare
• Education
• Resource generation
• Governance
 ASSESSING THE ROLE OF MASTER PLANS IN CITY DEVELOPMENT /15
RAMAKRISHNA NALLATHIGA

For ensuring that the aspirations based on the benchmarks

would lead to right kind of transformation, it was felt that case
analyses of few such successful transformations was required, for
which two international cases, i.e., Cleveland and Shanghai, and
two Indian cases, i.e., Hyderabad and Bangalore, and three recent
examples – Surat, Nagpur and Thane were chosen. The learning from
these cases has helped in building consensus on city development
strategy in the consultative workshops with the stakeholders. The
city development vision was therefore structured through combining
city development needs with the aspirations laid down through
bench mark studies.

Structure of the Vision Plan

The vision statement above summarised the intents and aspiration
of the city’s development in the future. The broad structure of the vision
plan is shown in Figure 1, which features the strategic actions needed
for achieving the vision goals.
The above strategic actions lay down directions for city development
to primarily deal with economic development, physical infrastructure,
social infrastructure, development financing, governance improvement,
quick wins or immediate interventions and implementation mechanism.
The strategies actions and specific initiatives for achieving the vision
are outlined in Table 3. Besides this structure, a blueprint outlining the
interventions, institutions, financing and implementation structure for
achieving Mumbai development vision has also been prepared which
can be found in Bombay First-McKinsey (2003) and it is also described
in Nallathiga (2006).
The vision plan presented a set of actions that need to be undertaken
in order to realise the aspirations spelt out in the city development
vision. However, inevitably, the implementation of these actions lies
in the hands of the state government, local government and other
government agencies. The process would not have gone a step further
without establishing an appropriate implementation mechanism.
Also, legitimacy to the vision plan was possible only through official
promulgation. A Task Force was, therefore set up to carefully study the
recommendations and suggest actions in the broad themes. The Task
Force in association with the thematic sub-committees had finalised a
vision plan with the suggestions more or less in line with the earlier
vision plan. The various constituents of government – state, local and
agencies – gave undertakings and their own set of actions broadly in
line with the vision plan. These deliberations and collaborations were
facilitated by a host of non-profit organisations led by the Bombay First.
16 / NAGARLOK
VOL. XLVII-XLVIII, Part 4 & 1-4, Oct-Dec 2015, Jan-Dec 2016

Dramatically
increase housing
availability and
affordability
Enable
Improve and
implementation
expand mass and
through
private transport
committed public-
infrastructure
private resources

Development
Generate
momentum Vision Plan Upgrade other
through quick physical
wins
for Mumbai:
infrastructure
2013

Raise adequate
Boost economic
finances through
growth to 8-10
financing
per cent
mechanisms
Make governance
more effective,
efficient and
responsive

Fig. 1

The final vision plan for Mumbai has been put forth by the Government
as GoM (2005) spelling out proposals based on the earlier report and
task force findings.

Summary and Implications

Master plans or Development plans have been the origins of
change in the urban environment – both physical and socio-economic
– in India for the past several decades. The result of this traditional
planning approach in the form of master plans is turning out to be
frustrating because of the unrealistic plans; long time taken for their
preparation and approval, ill-adequately or inadequately thought or
planned proposals, etc. These features of plans and plan making together
with implementation hurdles are forcing the exploration of alternative
methods. Moreover, urban planning in the past was primarily
influenced by central planning principles of the post-independence
era and assumed the characteristics of monopolist. In the liberalised
era and globalised world, the planning processes have to serve the
economic and social objectives of the society through creation of a
 ASSESSING THE ROLE OF MASTER PLANS IN CITY DEVELOPMENT /17
RAMAKRISHNA NALLATHIGA

growth enabling physical environment. This changing context itself

calls for identifying alternative approaches and strengthening existing
planning mechanisms and institutions. The latter has been discussed
to some extent in the decentralisation of development planning to local
level under the Constitutional (74th Amendment) Act, together with
the responsibility of resource and financial management, but the former
requires new approaches that complement the traditional planning, one
of them is the vision planning or perspective development planning,
which is discussed in the article.
However, they failed to meet the expectations of the citizens
as well as the decision makers for several reasons: their design and
approach were far too simplistic in anticipating the citizens’ needs
and aspirations; their very long tenure has been a major hindrance
to anticipate socio-economic changes over time horizon; further, the
restrictive approach taken to their implementation without adequate
flexibility to meet the changing needs of hour has been acting against the
spirit of urban planning. Essentially, it is because of these inadequacies
in the plan design, plan making and plan implementation that there
is a need felt now on steering an alternative course for achieving the
city development goals. Vision plans, in this context, have emerged as
alternative instruments useful for achieving the city development goals
over a medium to long term; and they are increasingly becoming popular
in the cities across the USA as well as elsewhere. It serves as an example
worth emulation to other Indian cities that are aiming to improve their
urban environment. Mumbai’s experiment is considered as bold and
highly ambitious (Cities Alliance 2006), while other cities can evolve
different models to provide a perspective of the city’s development in
the next ten year time horizon.

References
Bombay First – McKinsey (2003), Vision Mumbai: Transforming Mumbai into
a World Class City, Report submitted to the Government of Maharashtra,
Mumbai.

Cities Alliance (2006), ‘The Role of City Development Strategies’, Guide to City
Development Strategies, Cities Alliance, Washington DC.

CGG (2008): Managing Urban Growth using Town Planning Schemes in Andhra
Pradesh, Report Submitted to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, June, 2008.

Cullingworth, B. J. and V. Nadin (2001), Town and Country Planning in the UK,
Routledge, London.

GoM (2005), Transforming Mumbai into a World-class City, Report of Chief

Minister’s Task Force, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai.
 18 / NAGARLOK
VOL. XLVII-XLVIII, Part 4 & 1-4, Oct-Dec 2015, Jan-Dec 2016

Harris, N. (2002), ‘Cities as Economic Development Tools’, Comparative Urban

Studies Project Policy Brief, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

Joburg (2002), iGoli: City Development Plan of Johannesburg, Presentation made

by the team of Joburg initiative and the World Bank representatives to the
Bombay First on May 17, 2004.

Meshram, D. (2006), ‘Master Planning Approach: Constraints and Prospects’, In,

P. S. N. Rao (ed) "Urban Governance and Management: Indian Initiatives",
Kanishka Publishers, New Delhi.

Nallathiga, R. (2008), ‘Contradictions of sustainable urban development: The choice

of compact city development approach’, ITPI Journal, 5:2, 55-59.

_____________(2007), ‘Development planning or development control: The changing

focus of plans and plan making in Mumbai’, ITPI Journal, 3:4, 28-35.

_____________ Nallathiga, R. (2006), ‘Envisioning city transformation: the case of

Strategic Vision Plan for Mumbai’, Urban India, XXVI (1): 1-18.

_____________ Nallathiga, R. (2004), ‘The impacts of density regulation on cities

and markets; evidence from Mumbai’, International Journal of Regulation and
Governance, Volume 5, No. 1, pp 13-39.

Rondinelli, D. A., Johnson J. H. and J. D. Kasarda (1998), ’The Changing Forces of

Economic Development: Globalisation and City Competitiveness in the 21st
Century’, Cityscape:A Journal of Policy Development and Research Volume
3, No. 3, pp 71-105.

Scott, A. J. (2001), Global City-Regions: Trends, Theory and Policy, Oxford University
Press, UK and Europe.

Tiwari, D. P. (2002), Challenges in Urban Planning for local bodies in India <http://
www.gisdevelopment.net/application/urban/urban00037pf.htm> (Retrieved
on August 20, 2006)

Thapar, Romila (1990). "The History of India", Volume I and II, Penguin Books,
New Delhi.

UNESCAP (1994), Guidelines: Sub-national Area Planning and Sustainable

Development of Secondary Cities in Countries of Asia and Pacific – A
Methodological Approach, United Nations Economic and Social Commission
for Asia Pacific, Bangkok.

View publication stats