Growth Without Infrastructure

 

Growth Without Infrastructure: Who Is Accountable for Urban Approval Failures?

New residential apartments are coming up every other day across rapidly growing urban pockets. Construction activity is relentless, approvals are granted at speed, and urban skylines continue to change. Yet, beneath this visible growth lies a persistent and unresolved concern. Basic civic infrastructure has not kept pace with development.

The approvals granted to these projects are not incidental. They pass through multiple layers of scrutiny involving planning authorities, local bodies, and utility departments. Building plans are sanctioned, statutory fees are collected, and compliance certificates are issued. However, once residents move in, the lived reality often exposes a serious gap between approvals on paper and preparedness on the ground.

 

Questions That Must Precede Approvals

Before granting permission for large residential developments, certain fundamental questions demand clear and verifiable answers.

Has any authority confirmed that adequate drinking water connections exist not merely on paper, but in actual supply capacity? Has the drainage infrastructure been evaluated for the additional load imposed by hundreds of new households? Are stormwater systems capable of handling monsoon conditions once natural runoff areas are replaced with concrete surfaces?

Equally critical is mobility. Are approach roads designed to handle increased public and vehicle movement? Are they wide enough, safe enough, and properly connected to support the daily traffic generated by large residential communities?

These are not optional considerations. They are essential prerequisites for livable urban development. Yet, approvals continue to be issued without visible coordination between planning authorities, water supply agencies, drainage departments, and road authorities. The consequences are predictable and repetitive. Congestion, flooding, water shortages, and daily inconvenience become the norm for residents.

 

Approval Fees and the Question of Utilisation

Developers pay substantial sums to obtain statutory approvals. These payments are often justified as development charges, infrastructure fees, or regulatory costs. It must be clearly acknowledged that these costs are not absorbed by builders as goodwill gestures. They are ultimately passed on to homebuyers through the pricing of apartments.

This raises a critical question. What purpose do these fees serve if basic infrastructure remains absent or inadequate?

If residents continue to struggle for drinking water, proper drainage, and usable roads despite purchasing homes in approved developments, the credibility of the approval process itself comes into question. Approval fees cannot be treated as mere administrative tolls. They are collected with the implicit assurance that the surrounding civic ecosystem is capable of supporting the development.

When that assurance fails, accountability cannot be deflected.

 

Residents Paying Twice for the Same Infrastructure

A troubling pattern has emerged. Homebuyers pay once at the time of purchase, bearing the cost of approvals and compliance indirectly. They then pay again as residents through taxes, special contributions, or private arrangements to secure water supply, improve roads, or manage drainage failures.

What should have been basic civic provisioning becomes an extended exercise in petitioning multiple authorities. Infrastructure that ought to exist before occupation is instead pursued after residents begin to suffer. This is no longer an exception. It is increasingly becoming the norm.

The bare minimum needs that citizens have the right to expect safe roads, dependable water supply, and functional drainage are now treated as requests rather than obligations. This inversion of responsibility undermines the very purpose of urban governance.

 

Responsibility Cannot Be Left Undefined

Courts have, in several instances, clarified that builders cannot be held responsible for infrastructure outside project boundaries. While this position may be legally sound, it cannot result in a vacuum of responsibility.

If builders are not responsible, and residents are not responsible, then responsibility must lie elsewhere.

Planning authorities, local bodies, and utility agencies cannot operate in isolation. Approvals granted without coordinated infrastructure readiness do not represent governance. They represent abdication. When such lapses occur repeatedly, they cannot be dismissed as isolated oversights. They reflect systemic failure.

Urban development cannot proceed on the assumption that deficiencies will be corrected later. Once thousands of residents occupy a development, infrastructure gaps become permanent constraints rather than temporary issues.

 

The Case for Pre Approval Accountability

What is required is a fundamental shift in approach. Infrastructure readiness must precede approvals, not follow occupation. Inter departmental clearances must be substantive and verifiable, not procedural formalities. Capacity assessments for water, drainage, and roads must be mandatory and subject to public accountability.

Most importantly, responsibility must be clearly fixed. When approvals are granted without ensuring basic preparedness, the authorities involved must be answerable. Growth without accountability is not development. It is a deferred crisis.

Cities cannot afford to expand by transferring the cost of poor planning onto residents. Urban growth must be supported by infrastructure that is planned, funded, and delivered with coordination and intent.

If approvals continue without accountability, residents will continue to suffer despite doing everything right complying with the law, paying for their homes, and contributing to the citys economy. That outcome is neither fair nor sustainable.