Sri Vijaya Puram, April 22: Concerns have been raised over the Draft Master Plan for the Great Nicobar Island Development Area, with objections and suggestions submitted seeking a clear distinction between strategic Greenfield project zones and long-established revenue villages. The issue centres on how planning regulations are proposed to be applied across newly envisioned development areas and already settled habitations.
Member of Parliament Bishnu Pada Ray, has submitted detailed feedback to the Administration, supporting structured development while opposing the extension of complex urban-style planning norms to existing village settlements. He has stated that while strategic infrastructure and large-scale project zones require comprehensive planning frameworks, such mechanisms should not be imposed uniformly on traditional villages.
The MP has clarified that he is not against development in Great Nicobar. He has endorsed the need for formal planning instruments in areas designated for major infrastructure, trunk services, environmental safeguards, and coordinated institutional development. However, he has drawn a clear distinction between newly planned zones and villages that have evolved organically over time.
According to his submission, revenue villages in Great Nicobar are established habitations shaped by agriculture, fisheries, trading, and local services. He has argued that applying rigid land-use zoning, subdivision regulations, setback requirements, parking norms, and layout controls, typically used for planned urban expansions, would be inappropriate for these settlements.
He has warned that such an approach risks over-regulation of long-settled communities and could create administrative burdens that are neither fair nor contextually suitable. In his view, the draft framework appears to extend a heavy planning structure into areas where simpler governance systems are more appropriate.
The MP has also highlighted that the current draft appears inconsistent with the Union Territory’s stated policy direction of deregulation and reduction of compliance requirements. Referring to existing policy recommendations, he has stressed the need for minimal zoning, broader permissible land use, reduced prior approvals, removal of redundant clearances, and a principle where activities are allowed unless explicitly restricted.
He has observed that instead of simplifying governance for villages, the draft introduces multiple classifications, additional layers of regulation, and increased administrative oversight. He has described this as contrary to a light-touch regulatory approach suited to long-established rural settlements.
To address these concerns, he has proposed a dual-track planning approach. Under this suggestion, detailed master planning would apply to new strategic and project-driven zones, while existing revenue villages would be governed under a simplified framework. This would include limited zoning, default mixed land use, a restricted negative list of prohibited activities, easier norms for routine construction, and outcome-based regulatory mechanisms instead of procedural approvals.
The MP has urged the Administration to reconsider the provisions affecting existing villages before finalising the master plan. He has reiterated that development in Great Nicobar must proceed but should be guided by administrative realism, policy consistency, and fairness toward long-settled residents.
He maintained that while strategic zones can follow structured planning systems, revenue villages should not be treated as newly created urban townships subjected to heavy regulatory frameworks.
