LUDHIANA: Members of a public action committee have voiced strong opposition to the draft Punjab Unified Building Rules 2025. They argue that the proposed regulations are even more detrimental than the land pooling scheme previously withdrawn by the state government due to public pressure, claiming it will exacerbate traffic congestion and other issues, undermining its intended purpose.
The objections were presented by PAC (Mattewara) representatives—Jaskirat Singh, Kapil Arora, Kuldeep Singh Khaira, and Amandeep Bains—before the director of town and country planning on Thursday.
The housing and urban development department had solicited public feedback on the Draft Punjab Unified Building Rules 2025. The activists raised concerns about the looming deadline for submitting objections, which is not widely known. They called for an extension of at least 30 days and requested an official email for submissions, arguing that without these measures, citizens are denied a fair chance to engage in the process.
The activists stated that no resident wishes for overcrowded, unsafe, or unlivable environments in their city or state. They criticized provisions such as unlimited Floor Area Ratio (FAR), increased densities, habitable basements, commercialization of residential properties, and weakened fire safety regulations as factors that would transform towns into concrete jungles.
They accused the draft rules of favoring developer profits over the welfare of residents and urged for the withdrawal of such clauses. Instead, they called for the development of rules focused on livability, preserving green spaces, infrastructure capacity, and safeguarding Punjab’s social and cultural balance through transparent consultation.
The activists expressed concerns over the unlimited FAR and building heights proposed in the draft, fearing it would lead to overcrowding and strain infrastructure. They advocated for caps on FAR ratios at existing or lower levels and called for density norms to align with studies on water supply, sewage, traffic, and environmental factors.
Additionally, they pointed out safety issues with allowing basements to be used for habitation, arguing that this is ill-advised in flood-prone areas of Punjab. They suggested that basements should instead be designated solely for parking and utilities.
Regarding commercial use in residential zones, the activists asserted that the allowed limit of 50% for dwelling units would disrupt local peace and should instead be capped at 10%, applicable only in designated mixed-use areas. They also noted that setting 25% of site area as open space, regardless of FAR, diminishes per capita green cover at higher densities and recommended open space allocations based on density.
They criticized the approach of permitting unlimited FAR and heights solely based on road width, arguing for comprehensive traffic and infrastructure assessments before granting additional FAR. Furthermore, they advocated for restricting self-certification of building plans to 10 meters, rather than the 21 meters proposed. They pointed out the inadequacies in addressing parking demands and the integration of public transport, and warned that super-tall buildings would pose risks beyond the current capabilities of Punjab’s fire brigades. They emphasized the need for careful consideration of how increased sewage, waste, and demand would impact local waterways.
