DG Sindh Environmental Protection Agency

In reference to the public hearing held in KMC on 22

nd
July 2014
regarding Grade Separated Traffic Plan near Park Towers.

Our objections and recommendations are as follows:

1. The Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) study the
presentation of which was done by the consultants should be
scrapped. The entire house agreed with this recommendation.
Some of the reasons are mentioned below:
a. The study misinformed the public that stake-holders were
consulted. The following present in the hearing voiced that
they were not consulted at all (particularly the elected
representatives) or with whom post-approval consultations
were held only to appease them:
i. MNA of NA 250 in whose constituency lies the
project.
ii. MPA of PS 113 in whose constituency the traffic is
being released (DHA).
iii. MPA of PS 112 in whose constituency the project is
being implemented.
iv. FPCCI whose building is on the road next to Point
and who represent all trade organisations in
Pakistan.
v. Defense Housing Authority.
vi. Stake holder residents like Mr Shaheen Merchant
who presented objections and alternate proposals in
the hearing.
vii. Shehri who also presented their objections.
b. The EIA study was totally biased and evidently in support
of the builder and the KMC plan. It was not balanced as it
did not show concern on any environmental issue except
that the project should be completed immediately.
c. The EIA stated that upon completion there will be noise
reduction which is a ridiculous statement as evident in
studies throughout the world that traffic increases when
bridges and underpasses are made, resulting in increase in
traffic noise.
d. They misinformed the public that they had consulted with
the members of the Manadev Mandir governing body.
e. All positives were from the builders lobby and there was no
study of the social impact of the project on the residents of
the area.
f. Particularly ignored were the residents of Neelum Colony
who live immediately adjacent to the project
2. The KMC did a presentation justifying the project. We have the
following objections and suggestions:
a. It is surprising that the matter was not brought before the
public. It was done without transparency and in very fast
manner where approvals were given within days and
weeks. Such processes in most efficient societies take
enough time to make sure there are no miscarriages. The
biggest argument of the poor methodology adopted to
appease a builder and with questionable enticements to
expedite led to a huge public outcry and the area is in a
mess. KMC has been highly irresponsible and has
degraded its reputation.
b. It is evident that the project was designed to support a big
building called Bahria Icon Tower.
c. KMC and civic bodies should have made sure first that the
infra-structure of water, roads, parking exists before giving
approvals. It is surprising that because high levels of
corruption are involved approvals of commercial buildings
are given first and then infra-structure catches up at great
public cost and inconvenience to the residents. Meanwhile
the builders have made their huge bucks and are gone.
d. There were no alternatives presented to the existing plan?
Why? Does not the public deserve to evaluate other
options that were considered?
e. There was no visual model of the impact of the project
with reference to Jahangir Kothari promenade This is
surprising as at very low cost a model could have been
shown. There is a legal limitation around Quaid-e-Azam
Mazar of multi-story buildings so as not to encroach the
visibility and beauty of the monument.
3. It is a shame that the Jahangir Kothari promenade has already
been encroached upon and part of the structure destroyed.
4. Handling traffic problems without improving the metro system or
public busing and only through bridges and underpasses serves
to pick up the load and drop it into another crossing. As
appropriately quoted it is like extinguishing fire with petrol as it
encourages more traffic load also.
5. We strongly recommend that the proposals and objections from
DHA, Shehri, the elected representatives, and the public be
given importance which unanimously and clearly rejected the
project as it stands and voiced serious suspicions on the
workings of the civic agencies to the detriment of the public at
large.
6. In future SEPA should play a more effective and pro-public role
as compared to what has been done until now as some members
of the public, including us the elected parliamentarians of the
area have voiced their concern on the pre-determined direction
of the hearing.

There is a huge dugout at the site causing tremendous inconvenience
to the public. A quick decision should be made to modify the existing
plans incorporating other options and suggestions for traffic
improvement that have been made, and to prevent further damage to
the archaeological sites.

If such an expeditious process is not adopted, then at least the dugout
has to be filled up immediately and the place restored until an
improved model is adopted to change and facilitate the traffic flow in
this area.

Signed/

Dr Arif Alvi MNA from NA 250
Mr Samar Ali Khan MPA from PS 113
Mr Khurrum Sherzaman MPA from PS 112
Dated 28
th
July 2014