As the developers of Mall of Asia in Hebbal, battle the order of the Bengaluru Police Commissioner preventing public access to the mall in court, what emerges is that better coordination between government agencies could have prevented the drama.
Though the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike issued the partial Occupancy Certificate to the builders, Sparkle One Developer Mall Limited on 22 May 2023, the traffic police started checking with the mall situated on Hebbal Road about the traffic arrangements only on October 11, just two weeks before the proposed opening of the mall. The Hebbal traffic police then asked for documents and what measures had been taken to manage traffic as the footfall was expected to be 20,000 people on the day of the opening. The letter sent by the traffic inspector of the Hebbal Traffic Police station also asked how the mall was going to manage its traffic on other days. The mall then met the traffic police and also sent letters to them outlining their measures and a point-by-point response to queries raised by cops.
After the mall opened on October 27, the cops received several complaints about the mall, but these were mainly about noise pollution. It was only after December 20, that police suddenly received complaints that the congestion created by people headed towards the mall was creating a serious problem for the surrounding residents and the general flow of traffic. Almost all the letters produced by the police complaining about the traffic headed towards the mall and obstructing others were sent around December 25 and 30.
But what prevented traffic police from raising the matter with the mall developers weeks or months before its inauguration or the Christmas holidays? The Mall of Asia building is not tucked away in a back road. It is on the prominent Ballari road on the way to the Airport. The building itself is of five floors (excluding ground floor) and two basements and houses two floors of tech park, two floors of 14-theatre multiplex and numerous shops.
The problem lies in the fact that BBMP gives Occupancy Certificates to builders without taking specific permission or having any consultation with the traffic police. In the mall’s case, the Commissioner of Police did issue a no-objection certificate, though it isn’t clear what the NOC was for. This is why the Sparkle One Developers contended in court they had obtained all the necessary sanctions, approvals, and No-Objection Certificates (including the police) from the concerned authorities prior to building the mall and had constructed the same, strictly in accordance with the permission granted.
While traffic cops have been demanding that such enterprises should obtain permission from them to prevent traffic snarls, there has been no attempt to assess such permissions at the time the buildings get approval from even the police department.
Civic activist Ravichander said multiple departments need to be involved, with BMBP being the lead agency. “There is a role for others, but currently they operate in departmental silos. We do not have a holistic way of looking at new projects before sanctioning them. We need to have an impact study of such new commercial projects just like we have an Environmental Assessment Impact,” he said.
But he also dismissed the police’s proposal that the mall should have 10,000 parking spots; it currently has around 2,500. “We are stuck in the 1990s thinking when we need to think 2040. There is no solution to Bengaluru traffic sans large-scale promotion of public transport and walkability options. This insistence on loads of in-house parking just ends up promoting private transport. We missed a trick in not developing larger commercial buildings over underground metro stations. It would have helped metro financials too,” he added.