NHB Conference
Plan Sanctions
for
Affordable Housing PPP Projects
Ramesh Ramanathan
Chairman
Janaadhar Constructions
About Janaadhar Constructions (P) Ltd.
Janaadhar Constructions Pvt. Ltd. is a for-profit affordable housing development company, focused on
bringing well-designed, quality homes for the urban under-served LIG population. The majority stake in
Janaadhar is held in a Section 25 not-for-profit company Janalakshmi Social Services (see below)
About Janalakshmi
Janalakshmi (literal translation, ‘People’s Wealth’), is a ‘social business’. It embraces market principles while
pursuing a social objective. To accomplish this, Janalakshmi has been designed in a 2-tier structure: forprofit operating companies for investors; and a (Section 25) not-for-profit holding company called
Janalakshmi Social Services - in which promoter stakes are held. Funds in Janalakshmi Social Services can
only be used to address social issues. This 2-tier structure addresses one of the key criticisms about the social
business sector that has arisen in India - about promoters generating wealth from the success of their
initiatives. In Janalakshmi’s case, while investors can get the returns that they deserve for putting up capital,
all promoter stakes are held in the Section 25 company, thereby ensuring that there is no personal
enrichment for promoters.
Contents
• Background and Context
• RAY and its implications
• Bangalore Case Study
• Challenges in Plan Sanctions for Affordable Housing
• Streamlining Plan Sanctions for Affordable Housing PPP
• What it can look like
• Benefits of Affordable Housing Plan Sanction Process
• Suggested next steps
Bangalore Case Study – Agencies and Statutes
Agencies involved in
plan sanction stages
Level
Agency
Relevant Statutes
National Building Code of India 2005
National level
MoEF
Karnataka Town and Country Planning
Act, 1961
State level
KSPCB
Karnataka Municipal Corporations’ Act
BIAAPA
BDA Act
Fire Department
Bangalore Metropolitan Region
Development Authority Act 1985
Para-statals
BMRDA, BDA
BESCOM
BWSSB
City Level
BMRDA
MoEF
KSPCB
BESCOM
BWSSB
BIAAPA
BBMP
Environment (Protection) Act 1986
Air (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act 1981
Karnataka Fire Department Statutes
Bangalore Metropolitan Region Development Authority
Ministry of Environment and Forests
Karnataka State Pollution Control Board
Bangalore Electricity Company
Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board
Bangalore International Airport Area Planning Authority
Bangalore Case Study – Timeline of sanction events
Note: These steps begin AFTER land acquisition has taken place – an independent process that takes
anywhere between 12 – 24 months
Apr ’09 May
Jun
Jul
Plan Version: A
Aug
BC
95 days
Plan Version:
A
AH Developer [scheme preparation &plan submission]
MoEF and KSPCB: [plan evaluation and approval]
BMRDA /MoEF/KSPCB
Sep
Oct
DE
Nov
F
C
94 days
B
Dec Jan ‘10 Feb
G
A
120 days
C
B
Bangalore Case Study – Details of activities
Submittal
Date
Remarks
Meeting between client/architect on project brief
09-Apr-09
Final Scheme Presentation to Client
30-Apr-09 40 days required for preparing sanction drawings
Development Plans Submitted to BMRDA:
Version-A
Phase-01,02 - S+G+3 and Phase 3-B+G+8 Commercial Block (Area of
50,000 Sft) Facing Road
S+G+3 floors only, Outline of Commercial revised (area reduced 50,000
07-Aug-09
Sft T0 15,000 Sft = 3%). Unclear Guidelines.
Version-B
Version-C
Version-D
08-Jun-09
S+G+3, Distribution of Commercial space in 2 location, demarcation of
visitors car parking. Arbitrary Decision
S+G+3 floors, Area Calculation format revised for CA, Open spaces etc.
15-Sep-09
No Standard Format Available.
13-Aug-09
Version-E
25-Sep-09 S+G+3 floors, Area Calculation format revised for CA, Open spaces etc.,
Version-F
Nala profile as per tippany. Refer back to village records. Civic amenities,
05-Oct-09 green open spaces relinquished to BMRDA on October 3rd 2009. 25% of
site?
Version-G
23-Nov-09 Revision of Visitors car park location. Arbitrary Decision
Version-H (Submitted with commercial space
separation)
Signed copy development plan received from
client
25-Nov-09
Commercial space separated from Residential and earmarked as
landscape area. BMRDA denied accepting this earlier.
22-Dec-09
Submittal of Detailed Floor plans to BMRDA
Version-A
31-Dec-09 Floor plan revised as per approved Development Plan
Version-B
Version-C
28-Jan-10 Area statement revision. No Standard Format Available.
Demarcation of 2 wheeler parking in Stilt floor, Section/Elevations for all
15-Feb-10 Blocks. Not required as per by-law
Signed copy of floor plans received from client
02-Mar-10 Plan sanctioned only for G+ 3 floors
Challenges in Affordable Housing Plan Sanction
• Complexity of rules
 Faulty urban planning and by-laws, restricting FAR and building
height
• Ambiguity in interpretation
 Ill-defined zoning laws, resulting in fragmented design/approval
process and sub-optimal outcomes
• Time delays
 Multiple agencies/iterations/ambiguity causes enormous delays
• Uncertainty
 Overall uncertainty in the process has two consequences
– Reduced risk-appetite from Developers to enter this space
– Increased desired returns to offset uncertainties
Making PPP in Affordable Housing a reality
• Improve access to clear land for developers
 Crucial element to address
 Not discussed in this presentation
• Streamline the Plan Sanction Process
 Strategic Issues
 Tactical Issues
 Operational Issues
• Simplify access to subsidies
 JNNURM/RAY subsidies on capital/interest not easily available to
private developers
 Not discussed in this presentation
Streamlining Plan Sanctions – Affordable Housing
Development Plan (AHDP) Sanctions
• Strategic Issues
 Densification
–
–
–
–
–
Community perspective
Min/Max persons/hectare standards based on location/ context/climate
Diversity of unit types
Allow for incremental growth
Open / Built space ratio based spatial / temporal standards
 Integrated Use
– Land use should permit Live/Work/Play/School/Leisure automatically
– Community needs oriented mixed use models
– Create participative communities
 Sustainable Development
– Low or zero carbon developments
– Passive & Active climate oriented design to optimize energy
consumption
– Reduce, Reuse, Recycle philosophy in the design
– Meet Griha standards
Streamlining Plan Sanctions – Affordable Housing
Development Plan (AHDP) Sanctions
• Tactical Issues
 Single Window Approvals for Plan Submissions
 Simplified access to subsidies and other benefits (e.g. Carbon
credits etc)
 Examine self-certification
• Operational Issues
 Rationalise building regulations like set-backs/parking/roadwidth etc to reflect EWS/LIG requirements
 Establish SLAs for turnaround times for sanction processes
What it can look like – Total Cycle time of 18 months
Month1 Month2 Month3 Month4 Month5 Month6……………
Month 15 – 18
Land Acquisition completed
AHDP* Plan Sanctions completed
Construction Phase
Delivery
completed
• 2-Step AHDP Sanction Process
 Step 1: Qualifying criteria for AHDP window
– Project details/Financials/Construction details etc
 Step 2: AHDP Sanction window
– Layout Plan with unit sizes etc.
– Plan for Civic Services
What it can look like – Total Cycle time of 18 months
• Benefits of the proposed AHDP Sanction process
 Removes Uncertainty
 Reduced Timelines
 Improves Economics and Market Functioning
 WIN-WIN-WIN-WIN
– For Affordable Housing Clients
– For the AH PPP Developer
– For Union/State/Local governments
Thank You!
Background and Context –Rajiv Awas Yojana
• Support provided by MoHUPA under RAY
 Financial support
– Existing slum-based support
– Surveys/maps/slum-free city plans/training
– Part 2 State plans for preventing new slums
 Capacity building/tools
• Admissible components
 Integrated development of existing slums
 Development/improvement/maintenance of services
 Convergence with other schemes and connectivity infrastructure
 Creation of affordable housing stock, including rental housing
Bangalore Case Study – Environmental Clearances
Submittal of plans &
documents to MOEF
Version-A
Version-B
Version-C
Final acceptance copy received
from MOEF/KSPCB
Date
Remarks
06-Jun-09 Phase -01, 2 G+3 floors Phase -03 B+G+8
load calculation, Design brief, UG Sump, OHT,
09-Sep-09 Water balancing
Central Ground Water Board-Water Availability,
12-Dec-09 NOC from Deputy Commissioner
Mar '10
Environmental Clearance from MoEF required if
1.
2.
3.
4.
Project involves developing more than 20,000 sq. metres
Project serves 1,000 persons or above
Discharges sewage of 50,000 litres per day or above
With an investment of Rs. 50 crores or above
Bangalore Case Study – Timeline of sanction events
Step
Scheme Presentation to Client by
Architect
Statute(s)
Agency
Time
-
AH
Developer
1 Month (April
2009)
Submittal of Plans to Airport Authority
BMRDA Norms,
BIAAPA Norms
BIAAPA
May – June
2009(1.5 months)
Submittal of Plans to Fire Department
Fire Department
Rules, NBC Rules
Fire Dept.
June – August
2009(3 months)
Submittal of Plans to KSPCB, MoEF for
Env. Clearance
Environment
(Protection)
Act 1986)
KSPCB,
MoEF
June– March
2010(8 Months)
Submittal of Plans to BESCOM, BSNL
BESCOM,
BSNL
August- September
2009 (1 month)
Submittal of Plans to BWSSB
BWSSB
Submittal of Plans to BMRDA for
Sanction
BMRDA Act 1985,
National Building
Code of India
2005
BMRDA
June 2009 – March
2010