ELAZIG GUNISIGI NEWSPAPER – December 2012
IS THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING PLAN BEING FOLLOWED?
I have shared my thoughts on the Malatya - Elazığ - Bingöl - Tunceli Planning Region 1/100,000 Scale Environmental Planning Plan, the Plan Explanation Report, the Plan Provisions, and the Plan Research Report in previous weeks. The second public review period for the plan ended on the first day of November. Within the legal timeframe, the commission formed worked diligently to prepare the plan corrections reflecting the actual situation of Elazığ as much as possible. The commission's report was sent by the Provincial Directorate of Environment and Urban Planning to the Ministry.
This 14-page report, along with its annexes, is of great importance for Elazığ's future. It might be helpful to recall the key points of the commission’s objections:
- The Urban Development Area proposed for the city center of Elazığ is inadequate and does not even reflect the current situation. Although there are areas located in the southern section of the newly constructed Southern Ring Road, which are already designated for construction, these are not included in the Urban Development Area on the relevant maps (K42 map).
- One of Elazığ’s most important residential development areas is the Şahinkaya and Sarıçubuk regions. Şahinkaya Village is even on its way to becoming a central district and has zoning plans. Furthermore, the neighboring 38th district, Çayda Çıra, has been approved by the municipal council. Despite these developments, the fact that areas, including the existing TOKİ housing, are shown as agricultural land in the urban development area is a major obstacle to the city's growth.
- Fırat University being located in the city center is an advantage. The university's campus has a significant impact on student housing choices. Therefore, the preservation of the university’s land is vital.
- There has not been enough planning for Public Institution Areas, which require large areas. The lack of such areas in the 2040 vision represents a major weakness in the planning process.
- Non-residential urban areas should be re-evaluated.
In order for a city to reach the level it deserves, its future must first be predicted with accurate and visionary foresight. The initial public review of the Environmental Plan revealed significant deficiencies. In the second public review, many of these issues remain unresolved. Even though the review period was short (only one month), the commission members, under the leadership of the Directorate of Environment and Urban Planning, produced a thorough report.
I call it a serious report, because it was prepared based on scientific data and consultations, not just words, with the future of our city in mind.
The report has been prepared, finalized, signed, and sent to the Ministry. So, is it over now? Is everything done? Actually, everything should begin after the report is sent to the Ministry. The requests outlined in the commission’s report must be integrated into the environmental planning plans and maps. Who is responsible for following this up? Naturally, it is the political will. Whether it be the members of parliament, the mayor, etc., it is crucial that these follow-ups happen. I’m not suggesting it’s not being followed up (honestly, I don't even want to entertain the possibility in such an important matter), but the lack of public communication creates concerns.
As someone who was involved in the commission, people ask me wherever I go about the status of the plan. From a technical standpoint, I express that the commission has done its part, but the issue should be addressed by the politicians.
I would like to ask the relevant authorities on behalf of our citizens: Is the Environmental Plan and its maps being followed up at the Ministry and by the drafting firm? If it is being followed, what stage is the work at? Have the corrections and adjustments requested by the commission been made?