| File Note: |
Sir, the reply of the observations raised by ZO, are as under:
Sr. No. Observations raised by ZO Reply submitted by RO
1. RO has not mentioned the total no. of rooms, capacity of banquet, seating capacity etc. of the project. The project proponent has applied for Restaurant having 1800 persons capacity.
2. RO has not mentioned the water calculation vis-à-vis room/ restaurant capacity. As per feasibility report total water demand for the project is estimated to be 81 KLD. Approximately, wastewater generation @ 64.8 KLD, will be generated from the flushing purpose and will be discharged onto land (2 acres) for plantation in the area to be developed as per Karnal Technology as informed by pp.
3. RO has not mentioned disposal arrangements proposed by the pp including season wise disposal arrangements proposed by the project proponent with the online application, alongwith its season wise adequacy Same as above.
4. The PP has submitted a lease deed for 02 acres of land area, alongwith the online application. However, name of village, Tehsil has not been mentioned in the said lease deed. Further, the industry has also not uploaded jamabandi of the said land alongwith the online application form. RO needs to clarify regarding this. The pp has submitted the lease deed. However, the pp was contacted telephonically several times regarding detail of land but till date pp has failed to submit the said document.
5. RO has not commented upon the distance of the proposed site of the project from various setting parameters as per the notification dated 25.07.2007 & 30.10.2009, as observed during the site visit. The pp falls adjacent to the Ropar-Chandigarh highway and outside the Municipal Council limits. There is no phirni of village/ designated residential area / school/ residential area comprising of 15 pucca houses within 100 mtr of the unit. However, hospital, service station, one no. industry i.e. Shine Metal Tech Private Limited is adjoining to the said unit.
6. RO has mentioned in the agenda note that the consent fee deposited by the project proponent is adequate for one year. However, as per the details mentioned in the visit, column, the project open has already started construction activity at the site. As such, RO is required to check the adequacy of fee vis-à-vis date of start of construction activities at the site. The matter regarding date of start of construction work at site was discussed telephonically with the representative of the unit several time but till date he has not submitted any document regarding the same.
7. RO has not mentioned competency in the note/agenda note. Sir, the competency lies with the Senior Environmental Engineer of the Board.
From above, the pp has not submitted the required documents to the Board even after repeatedly coordination. As such, it is recommended that the case of the project proponent may be returned, please.
|
