Those who secured approval but had yet to begin construction told to submit plans again. PHOTO: EXPRESS
This was decided at a meeting of the board, the apex decision-making-body of the civic agency, on Thursday.
Chaired by Islamabad Mayor and CDA Chairman Sheikh Anser Aziz at the CDA headquarters, the board discussed four agenda items.
It rejected a summary for granting President house allowance to CDA employees from BPS-1 to 16 (non-gazetted) at Awan-e-Sadar Building. However, three other summaries were approved.
The planning directorate had submitted a summary to increase the covered area of agricultural farms from 4,850 square feet to 10,000 square feet. However, the board approved to enhance the covered area of agricultural farms from to 9,500 square feet
A CDA official said that that the Directorate of Regional Planning had prepared the summary for increasing covered areas on Aziz’s directions in a bid to stop illegal constructions by four influential farm owners.
Agricultural farms are meant to grow vegetables and fruits to meet food needs of the capital. In this regards, the CDA had leased around 610 agriculture plots to individuals and institutions in the eight suburbs of Islamabad such as Chak Shahzad, Murree Road, Kahuta Road, and Tarlai Kalan.
Of these farmlands, the CDA had allowed owners to construct buildings over an area of 250 square feet. However, in 2003, on the recommendation of architect wing, the covered area was enhanced to 10,000 square feet.
A 2012-13 survey conducted by the CDA discovered that as many as 400 agricultural landowners (over half of all who were provided with farmland) were not using the land for farming. Instead, they had built marriage halls and villas on the farms.
In 2013, former chief justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry took suo motu notice over the by-law violations and had asked CDA to halve the covered area from 10,000 square feet to just 4,850 square feet.
However, landowners went to court against the CDA move. Recently, the Supreme Court of Pakistan referred the case back to the civic body for an amicable resolution in consultation with the stakeholders.
In this regard, a meeting with stakeholders from Chak Shahzad was held at CDA headquarters.
The meeting was also attended by Deputy Mayor Chaudhry Rifat Javed, CDA Member Planning and Design Asad Mehboob Kiani, CDA Member Estate Khusal Khan, CDA Legal Advisor Hafiz Hifzur Rehman and stakeholders including Waseem Sajjad, Salman Akram Raja and Shujat Azim.
After detailed deliberations in light of the apex court’s directions, the participants suggested that the covered area for construction of houses, including the owner’s residence, garage for machinery and accommodation for workers in farms would be enhanced from 4,850 square feet to 10,000 square feet.
It was further decided that no permission, whatsoever, would be granted for increasing the covered area while any violations and areas covered beyond permissible limits would be demolished.
Residents who had completed construction and had obtained completion certificates from the civic body, however, would not be affected by this decision. But those who had obtained approval from CDA according to the prevailing parameters but had yet to commence construction would be required to resubmit their plans so that it is in line with the new policy.
Per the new policy, commercial or business activities such as wedding receptions or warehousing other than for agricultural equipment, would not be allowed.
The board also approved a summary submitted by CDA Directorate of Finance for disbursement of pension to CDA officers through all commercial banks, National Saving Centres in Pakistan.
Additionally, the board also approved a summary submitted by CDA Member Planning and Design regarding layout plan for Sector F-14 and a partial plan of Sector F-15 near GT Road.
Sector F-14 had been launched in 2004 by the Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation (FGEHF).
Published in The Express Tribune, June 23rd, 2017.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ