Construction of high-rise at heritage site challenged in SHC

KARACHI: The Sindh High Court on Thursday directed the provincial authorities and a private bank to file their replies on a constitutional petition against the permission granted to construct a 32-storey building on Lloyds Bank, a protected heritage building constructed in 1932, on I.I. Chundrigar Road.

A two-judge bench also issued notice to the provincial government’s law officer and adjourned the hearing to a date to be later pronounced by the court office.

The petition was filed jointly by the Public Interest Law Association of Pakistan through its president Saad Amanullah Khan, Shehri-Citizens for a Better Environment through its vice-chairperson Sameer Hamid Dodhy, Nazim F. Haji, Shahid Khan, Khatib Ahmed, Ayesha Tammy Haque, Arif Belgaumi and Roland DeSouza.

The petitioners pleaded to the chief secretary, secretary of the culture, tourism and antiquities department, chairman of the advisory committee constituted under Section 3 of the Sindh Cultural Heritage, director general of the antiquities and archaeology department, Sindh Building Control Authority and Silk Bank Limited as respondents.

The petitioners submitted that Silk Bank intended to build a ground-plus-32 floor building on a protected heritage and immovable antiquity — Emirates Bank International Ltd (Lloyds Bank) in sheer violation of Articles 4, 9, 14 and 28 of the Constitution, Antiquity Act 1975, Sindh Cultural Heritage (Preservation) Act 1994, Sindh Environmental Protection Act 2014 and Sindh Building Control Regulations 2002.

They said the culture department had called a public hearing on April 18 at a local hotel on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the high-rise building project of the bank that wanted to construct “Silk Bank Office Tower Building” as described in the EIA report.

The petitioners said the EIA hearing was well attended but questions related to the requirements of a public hearing under law were raised. The EIA report was not made available to the public and neither was the NOC nor any real detail to allow members of the public to prepare themselves for the same.

The civil rights campaigners said the project was proposed on the three-storey Lloyds Bank building which was structurally and functionally intact. It is not in any state of dilapidation or disrepair other than what can be expected of a building of its age.

They said the building was constructed in 1932 and was reminiscent of “our architectural heritage from that time period”. It is near to another historic monument, Merewether Tower, which is even older than the Lloyd’s Bank building and was constructed in the 19th century.

The petitioners said the project proponents proposed to demolish the ancillary building and erect a 33-story tower on this property. The footprint of the tower will occupy the location of the ancillary building, the small open court and a large part of the heritage-listed Lloyds Bank structure.

They pointed out that the intended project was being constructed on the structure that was declared a protected heritage over two decades ago through a notification by the provincial government.

They said the respondent bank had failed to satisfy participants of the public hearing, including leading architects of the city and faculty of different institutions on architectural design of the project and others working in protecting the public’s interest from being manipulated and abused by the private interest.

The petitioners contended that the culture department and the SBCA had no power under the law to grant NOC for major alteration in immoveable antiquity and protected heritage.

They argued that the permission for alteration in immoveable antiquity had been granted in violation of the Antiquity Act 1975 and the Sindh Cultural Heritage (Preservation) Act 1994.

The petitioners requested the court to declare that the permission for alteration in a protected building was in violation of Articles 4, 9 and 28 of the Constitution, as well as the antiquity and cultural heritage acts.

They also asked the court to restrain the respondents and all those acting on their behalf from altering, damaging, demolishing, defacing or mutilating the protected heritage Emirates Bank International Ltd.

Source: Dawn News