Urban development process: a bottom up view

The municipality in its function of regulating building construction engages with households with the home owner being the representative. The Almora building bye-laws address the home owner as the primary person responsible for a building (Government of Uttarakhand, 2015). The application for seeking permission to build is submitted by the home owner to the municipality (ibid.). However, the home owners, in their turn, deal with a gamut of other actors while buying land and constructing their houses. This section provides a description of the urban development process from the household level. It draws from 150 household level surveys where home owners answered questions on acquiring land, applying for municipal permission and building their homes (for details on the selection of these households, see Section 3.5). Based on this survey, the process of urban development can be divided into 4 steps each of which is discussed in detail below (to be read from left to right) .

Figure 5.6 Urban development process from a household level (own compilation)

Acquiring land

Among 150 respondents, 36% had built on ancestral land and claimed to be in legal possession of it at the time of construction. The remaining 64% respondents had bought the land either through private or government agencies. Land that was bought had to be registered with the Land Record’s Office of Almora to have legal validity. This transaction was on the basis of a revenue map at the Land Records Office which was last revised in 1942 (see Figure 5.7). It is in essence a cadastre map and indicates plot number, dimensions and ownership but did not provide any information on land safety and suitability to be used for construction.

Figure 5.7 Part of the revenue map, Almora (Land Records Office, Almora, 2017)

The legalization of land deals in urban areas is typically coupled with land use plans to ensure that urban development takes place in designated areas (Ministry of Urban Development India, 2015). However, as Almora does not have land use regulations at municipal level, the process of acquiring land is decoupled from municipal purview. Here the state displays a transverse engagement with the households where the process of registration of land is regularized, however the responsibility of the state to inform or deter the potential buyer from purchasing land unsuitable for human habitation is not practiced.

Preparing building plans

After acquiring land, households work towards preparing a building plan for approval. An example of two such plans is provided in Figure 5.4 and Figure 5.5. It can be seen from Table 5.1.that the local level bye-laws do not have provisions that discuss land safety or site suitability. This, in addition to the absence of a land use plan, indicate towards an absence of information or regulation on land use and siting safety. Structural safety is elaborately discussed in national and state guidelines through earthquake safety regulations, building of retaining walls and toe walls to provide safety and discouraging large scale land modification. These guidelines are missing from the local codes which only allude to the preparation of an earthquake resistant drawing through a certified engineer without elaborating these or cross referencing to earthquake safety standards. Drainage and height restrictions are discussed in the bye laws.

With regards to follow up and monitoring of construction, while the state level guidelines detail out a scheme for step-by-step inspection of the work, local level bye-laws only mention fines to be levied in case regulations are not followed. The value of these fines are typically low (Rs.1000) and can be paid by residents who typically pay Rs.36,00,000 for a 200 sq. meter house (Joshi PC 2017, personal communication, 20 February). Corruption is another aspect that can hinder the effective implementation of the building regulation. However, that is beyond the scope of this dissertation. The problem of appropriateness of the building regulations and the problem of implementation is summarised by the municipal chairperson as (Joshi PC 2017, personal communication, 20 February):

“People want to just build. They don’t want to get maps approved and not pay tax. The olden houses had place left for drainage called Karadi. Now people stick (their houses) to mountain and then complaint that dampness comes in. Sunshine is also cut off by surrounding buildings. Dead bodies have to be tilted to take it out. If heavy rainfall happens and no drainage is there then it will wash down houses. Norms must be revised for the hills. 7.5 m high building is allowed. Anything higher than this has to need structural engineer unto 12m. This is dangerous for hills. But people still make it.”

This statement captures three aspects that the building bye-laws fail to address: a) Responding to the physical context of a mountain i.e. slopes

b) Addressing disaster risk

c) Provisions for ensuring implementation

At the time of this research the municipality accepted plans from certified draftsperson, architects or engineers. The process of registration was based on the qualification of the drafting person or agency which ranged from engineering degrees to diploma certificates (Joshi PC 2017, personal communication, 20 February). A sample of a building plan for a two floored structure submitted to the municipality for approval can be seen in Figure 5.4.

Among the 150 households surveyed, a majority of 42% of the households prepared building plans with the aid of a draftsperson (see Figure 5.8). Others relied on a gamut of building professionals ranging from engineers to masons. However, as was demonstrated through two sample maps produced through this process (see Section 5.2) these maps address the building regulations established by the municipality but do not address risk in the built form.

Figure 5.8 Household choice of building professional for plan drafting in Almora: (own compilation)

Municipal permission

The permission to build is obtained from the municipality against an application and a building plan complying with building regulations. The home owner is responsible for preparing this application. The municipality did not have a record of rate of failure or success of the applications (Joshi PC 2017, personal communication, 20 February). Plans were either accepted or were recommended for corrections (ibid.). Seeking municipal permission for building construction was a well-established practice within the surveyed households. Only 2 out of 100 households in the surveyed, within the municipal limits, has not taken prior approval. This distinguishes the case of Almora from risk and informality literature where the land is occupied without legal sanction (Nathan, 2008; Claghorn and Werthmann, 2015). The Census of India further confirms this as only 1% of all households in Almora are registered as slums (Census of India, 2011b). Furthermore, municipal permission on building application is a pre- requisite to get water and electricity connections. This mechanism ensures that households are proactive in seeking building permission. For the municipality, house registration is also linked to house tax collection, which is a main source of municipal revenue. However, the effectiveness of this process is questionable as permission is granted against building regulations that do not sufficiently address risk in the first place.

Building construction

Building construction was found to be a process decoupled with building design and permission. The households engaged with a different set of building professionals after obtaining building permission. Here one marks a shift from certified professionals engaged for

42% 25% 7% 6% 10% 10% n=150 Self+Draftsperson Engineer Contractor Architect Mason Do not know

plan drafting to masons and contractors as being the primary group responsible for construction (see Figure 5.9). The building regulations recommends engaging certified building professionals or registered contractors, however a check mechanism is missing in the building regulations to ensure this (see Table 5.1). This transversal shift of households choice for building professionals opened the research to a new set of actors, primarily contractors and masons, who were not visible in municipal regulations (Government of Uttarakhand, 2015) or theoretical risk governance frameworks (Renn and Klinke, 2013) but played a critical role in addressing risks owing to their position as actors primarily engaged in building construction. Figure 5.9 Household choice of building professional for building construction in Almora (own

compilation)

This section addressed the process that households engage in while undertaking the construction of their houses. Two points of divergence were noted from the government framework described in Section 5.2. First, in the absence of a land use plan, households do not engage with the municipality when acquiring land. The state’s involvement in this case is limited to the registration of the land deal. Second, households engage with a large set of informal building professional. These professionals are in the blind spot of building regulations and theoretical framework (Masson, 2015; Murray, 2017). The next section discusses another set of actors, beyond households and building professionals that the municipality engages with to address urban risks.