PANJIM: An inspection carried out by the Town and Country Planning (TCP) Department of a structure/restaurant at Calangute, has found that the building was not built as per the approved plan issued by the GSCCE in September 1996.
The inspection was conducted by the Deputy Town Planner Zaidev R Aldonkar as per the directives of the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The Court while hearing a miscellaneous civil application filed by Roshan Azavedo had directed the TCP Department to inspect the structure/restaurant at Calangute and to find out whether it corresponds to the approved plans.
The site inspection report states that as per the approved plan dated September 26, 1996, the building consists of 12 shops with a staircase block. But all 12 shops situated on the ground floor were amalgamated and converted into one shop having mezzanine floor (intermediate floor). Also there were variations in the height from plinth level to bottom of mezzanine floor slab and above the mezzanine floor slab to bottom of the first floor slab. Thus the total height was more than 4.50 metres, which was not as per the approved plan dated September 26, 1996 by the GSCCE.
Further the mezzanine floor (intermediate floor) covers entire ground floor are expect staircase blocks. However, the same could not be ascertained since the area was sealed, states the site inspection report.
It has been stated in the inspection report that permission/NOC needs to be obtained from the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) with regard to alteration in construction with the approved plan as it falls within 500 metres from High Tide Line (HTL). Thereafter the applicant need to obtain necessary technical clearance order from the TCP Department and construction licence from the local authority.
Azavedo had approached the Court seeking to de-seal his premises stating that he had obtained consent to operate from the Goa State Pollution Control Board (GSPCB). But the Calangute village panchayat had rejected his application for renewal of trade licence on grounds that restaurant was being operated on the first floor when in fact the approved plans show that the first floor was meant only for residential purposes.
