Our Recent Posts

Archive

Tags


The Zoning Regulations (Amendment) Act 2020 just notified focusing on Heritage framework and guidelines under the Town and Country Planning Act, is a strong step forward in the Heritage Protection in Karnataka. Read Gazette Notification here.


If there’s one thing and one thing only that heritage needs it is regulations and guidelines. From time immemorial heritage enthusiasts who have been standing up for crumbling walls, lakes and culture, this has been a constant refrain. During every point of confrontation, whether it was Balabrooie, Cubbon Park or Janatha Bazaar, the primary focus has been reactive and heavy on confrontation, energy and pointless, circuitous interaction. The #HeritageBeku Team ourselves have made it very clear that this series of interactions undermined the collective intelligence of Bangalore as well as wasted time & resources in backtracking. The most obvious and simple solution always was a framework which helped the government machinery define the role of heritage and the role of people in preserving it, going forward. To this purpose several meetings were held with many senior government officials including representations made to the chief secretary over two meetings, several letters and updates.


During the outarge around Cubbon Park with a seven story building apparently coming up, despite #HeritageBeku being on the forefront of the CubbonPark Ulisi campaign, they categorically stated that as a strategy, any future interactions would focus only on heritage from three persp-ectives -


Heritage Law, Heritage Education & Heritage Foundation. Clearly the Heritage Laws or Regulations are paramount and this was a single focus in every conversation and demand from the government, starting from our original online petition, a manifold and detailed objections to the revised master plans 2031, as well as our letters and petitions to the government. As a citizen initiative #HeritageBeku is very keen to ensure that a non-partisan yet passionate group of citizens with a strong interest in the cities heritage can create a collaborative wraparound and direction to a sustained and driven preservation of heritage.


There have been many attempts at either a law or planning regulations permutations and combinations have been mooted over the last 15 years and have been discarded, shelved or put into cold storage. Heritage Veterans like Naresh Narasimhan, earlier BATF, Intach, Sanjay Sridhar and Ashwin Ramesh have been part of a long journey. Therefore it was particularly interesting to see the UDD notification of the zonal planning regulations duly notified yesterday which covered the scope of Heritage regulations in the state.The original gazette was apparently listed in September 2019 , but strangely most of us never saw the draft , let alone had the opportunity to react or give suggestions on that .


A quick once over of this document does not permit us to go into sufficient detail and understanding of the finer details, implications and legal impact of this document. Its quite a comprehensive document covering all aspects of heritage, spatial contiguity and several controls in place. The Heritage Conservation Committee (HCC) seems to be given apparent weight and authority, but still has a largely advisory role. However a few top level takeaways which wee truly appreciated all the efforts that have been made to make heritage strong and intrinsic component of planning the city, be it the master plan or any changes and modifications and heritage zones. The effort to create a Heritage Fund to preserve and promote heritage is also notable and clearly shows that the authorities are listening to the citizens, particularly the detailed notes that Heritage Beku had presented in its RMP31 Objections as well as the several letters written to the chief secretary and other senior government officials on the subject. The concern however does remain with the unique composition of the Heritage Conservation Committee for Bangalore limited to the original Arts Commission as defined by Section 51 of the The BDA 1976 laws, and the BDA being the de facto Heritage Conservation Committee in charge given its Planning Authority status. The concept of transferable development rights or TDS has not been detailed and needs to be re-looked at given Bengaluru's unique situation, the TDR issue will be a rather complicated and knotty , which we would far rather avoid. We will update this article as and when information is received and the Heritage Beku Team has some time to apply itself to the framework and dealing with this definitive step forward by the government.




We would certainly like to express our appreciation that the government has listens intently to citizens concerned about heritage, and evaluated its own critical role in preserving the the intangible and tangible heritage of our beloved state. We are confident that with partnership with several heritage organizations, conservationists, historians academics, citizen initiatives like #HeritageBeku and so many others, we will certainly have a resurgence and greater ownership for conserving and promoting Hetitage for a beloved city and state.


Places Matter

Updates and suggestions from experts


@Champaka Rajagopal (Professor and Urban Planner)


1. Composition of Heritage Committee:

Include two civic representatives, an urban designer, urban planner, elected representatives from the city (BBMP) and state government to ensure commitment.


2. Powers and functions of the committee.

The committee presently has only advisory role. Ascribe executive powers to the committee by including elected representatives from the BBMP. The committee must prepare a heritage conservation and adaptive reuse framework, remedial framework for structures of importance under threat, zonal regulations in the RMP and monitoring and evaluation framework for implementation. Entrust role for the committee in monitoring of execution and evaluation of outcomes. Any changes to methods adopted for listing of structures, compensation, etc., must be approved by the committee.


3. Point no.2: In cases where master plans have incorporated zonal regulations for heritage conservation through a consultative process with civil society, such as in Bengaluru, it is imperative that the master plan supersedes this Gazette Notification.


4. Point no. 7: Provide incentives to private owners in the form of tax relief or other monetary benefits.


@Laxmi Nagaraj , Urban Planner


First of all it only applies to places declared as “heritage”. Declaring places as “heritage” itself is a HUGE task

2. There are several reservations cited with no clarity.

3. Composition of the committee Government heavy, civil engineer should be expert in conservation of structures and conservation techniques, Forest Dept representative should also be there and environmentalist with sustainability and conservation expertise and most important QUALIFIED urban planners and urban designers with experience ( not Government employees working in BDA, BBMP etc). BDA has power to appoint two additional non members, they could even be appointed under this provision

4. Committee has to recommend grading into grade 1, grade 2 and grade 3 which itself is a HUGE task

5. Criteria is so GENERAL, with Government heavy committee everything can be over ruled.

6. The best part - Development permission to be given by Planning Authority which I am assuming is BDA and/or Karnataka Town and Country Planning which do not have any staff who can understand the nuances of these regulations and accordingly give approval. This is where “capacity building” that I was talking about earlier comes in. They have to be trained.

7. More emphasis is on repairing, altering, adding rather than conservation

8. No implementation and enforcement mentioned at all.

9. Public participation lightly mentioned but not strongly emphasised.

This is like all the regulations I have reviewed in India that are too general with not enough “ teeth” for it to be a strong document that can be relied on


It does mention buildings under control of PWD etc to be declared heritage but there may be other contradicting regulations that may allow them to do what they want and residential owners have to maintain at their own expense. The reason they sell or demolish is that they can’t maintain. My comments are very critical but this is my reaction whenI see how casually policies are developed.


@Prof Yashaswini Sharma ,HOD Dayanand College of Architecture

A few points to be considered:


1. A bureaucrat mustn't head a HCC. It effectively puts committee in Govt control.

2. There are too many Govt officials in the HCC

3. TDR needs to be carefully monitored

4. Grade I & II Heritage buildings with private owners could be allowed to use the structure for hospitality keeping in mind heritage norms. When it is used for commercial purpose, it should effectively be used for boutique shops and the like which didn't strain the structure much.

5. Incentives to private owners need to be formulated in a better manner aiming of course to help them maintain the structure.

6. A list of experts with heritage expertise must be made available so that even private owners know whom to approach when any maintenance work is required.

7. Structural engineer in the HCC must have expertise in Heritage Conservation

8. More than one Heritage Conservation architect should be part of committee ideally


Further pointers on next steps and structure from Ms @Champaka Rajagopal


Institutional arrangements: Organizational structures and regulations


People: Competencies and capacity to address complexities of heritage conservation 

Data: Method and criteria for listing and documentation of heritage structures

Systems: Technology geoportal- for transparency and contracts - so that incompleteness in contracts do not derail the data and implementation processes. 


It would be imperative that the Zonal Regulations for Heritage Conservation are taken further to elaborate these four dimensions with clarity. Considering that we are now in the nascent stage, the most important aspect would be to define the institutional arrangements. As Professor. Vasavada has sharply pointed, there are two issues: One, of taking cognizance of pre-existing institutions (Bangalore Arts Commission) and perhaps building upon them (or permanently dissolve it). Two, of establishing regulatory incentives (which can easily become manipulatively used). A third, is what you and I discussed, to emphasize, a collective responsibility for heritage, as it belongs to the city. To this end, institutional arrangements, must explain clearly, the obligations and voluntary responsibilities of the state and local government organizations, social responsibilities of private agencies, social responsibilities of civil society representatives and any other organizations involved (each one specifically, along with possible scenarios for purpose of communication and communication protocols between them - these must be anticipated by the Heritage Committee and drafted in meticulous detail - however, this will not be set in cement - it is a dynamic document subject to change within some essential non negotiable principles of heritage conservation); the proceedings of these must be available as public access, ideal (the danger is that scrutiny makes government officers and others risk averse). 


On regulations, it is important that the Zonal Regulations not just show regulations but infact, regulatory processes. What will be the process of implementing these regulations and how can we make sure those are in the right direction and interest of heritage conservation, which is value driven, not merely money led. These processes need to be reflected in the organizational structures above and roles and responsibilities of each organization. 

For the initial discussions with Town Planning these are the main points, as we are in the nascent stage. If Town Planning has already deliberated on these through the last ten years, it would be great to know what they have considered viable for the city. HB's role may be to assist TP department to facilitate and organize one such workshop, to establish the initial composition of the Heritage Committee, get in principle commitment from private organizations and deliberate on the roles and responsibilities/ chart out the scenarios for communication protocols.


@Prof Rabindra Vasavada- Architect, Professor, Expert


The guide lines included here for criteria for evaluation and categories of listing and on various aspects of heritage conservation guidelines - are all important area of concern and it is now always better to follow international UNESCO and our own INTACH Charter.  UNESCO has done huge amount of background work which can be very useful to follow. This has to be partly reformulated in our context and accepted as a basis for our regulations. 


The listing and grading criteria mentioned are a carry forward Of what is followed in other states. What is missing is a standard format for listing as this is very important for actual follow up. INTACH Delhi has a standard format which is accepted nationally and this should be included. 


The composition of Heritage Committee in the state also appears too complex with a list of about 21 members overall. I can never understand how effective such a committee would be with an officer of the level of Deputy Commissioner heading it. I am not sure whether some of the members would be of higher level than such a head! The other issue is the kind of composition and the level of experience stated for members. I feel such a Committee would only be a formality to follow but will have no authority to safeguard the heritage. The idea of assigning additional task of functioning as Heritage Committee to the already existing Bangalore Arts Commission with additional members may not be a good idea. I feel the roles and responsibilities of both may not be similar. This can also result in confusion of goals. For Bangalore there has to be a very strong HCC with authority not only to recommend but also execute. 

The most important point of incentives is really relegated to simple mentions. This would really require tremendous attention. TDR seems like a standard solution as a master stroke though this is the most dangerous proposal but favourite solution with all authorities! It has failed in Bombay, Ahmedabad and is no solution unless honestly, seriously  controlled.  It can be misused. This aspect which is most important is simply not attended with seriousness. The allowable change of land use into commercial is also a dangerous incentive without very carefully controlled reuse as only home-stay with B&B and never commercial hotels or restaurants!! I think this aspect needs very careful thought. This can also lead to serious gentrification! In Ahmedabad I had suggested that this entire aspect be handled by a Trust with authority to manage the heritage. Incentives can really be a matter of deep malpractice too. This is a very serious point requiring multiple inputs. 


In Ahmedabad in my experience I had worked specifically on the guidelines for the historic city which were worked out to safeguard the Outstanding Universal Values. These were accepted partially by the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority for  their proposed Master Plan 2021. But this still is waiting to be transformed in the detailed Heritage Regulations. So you can appreciate how peripheral is the interest of the authorities in sincerely pursuing the Heritage Conservation. 


In an overall review of the present document you have given, I would summarise separately as bullets and send you separately. I still think that doing so may not really make much difference as what needs careful consideration  is the entire document which needs a very careful draft which also meets with the standard of international practices in heritage conservation. 



Suggestions on Heritage Regulations for Karnataka (As requested by Priya Chetty-Rajagopal and Sanjay Sridhar on April 26th April 2020) Rabindra J Vasavada: Architect (rajavada@hotmail.com) The following points are suggested to be considered, besides the one explained above: 2.1 The Committee appears to be very large and its leadership appears to be not empowered by a senior level officer of the government. The other members included also appear not experienced enough to sit on this important committee. Bangalore must have an empowered separate Heritage Conservation Committee with executive authority 4. Criteria for Listing: What is the source of this criteria? There is a standard established earlier by INTACH Delhi. Is this referred? This must help establish the ‘value’ of heritage. 6. Restrictions on development, re-development, repairs etc.: This aspect really needs very careful considerations from Conservation Experts and shall be discussed within the committee before finalising the regulations. This will address to the basic issue of Conservation Policy and approach. 11. TDR: This is a very serious issue and shall be very carefully addressed as it is highly vulnerable to malpractices. 12. Incentives: Change of land use need to be very carefully defined. It would only include commercial so as not to disturb the fabric of the heritage property. Normally only Homestay with B&B and small tourism related commercial is preferred. No other functions would be sympathetic. 13. guidelines for visual integrity and the aspects affecting the location and setting of the heritage property need to be well defined considering the category of heritage. 14. The Repair fund could be created by the local authority; it is very important that each local authority has a Heritage Conservation Department to manage all the aspects of conservation. Normally the local Authority can earmark a budget for repairs and the Heritage Department shall have the required manpower under a Conservation Architect to undertake such works and also monitor the status of heritage structures. 15. Under the current practices adopted by the Government, CSR funds could be diverted towards conservation works. Public Private partnership models also could be explored by the Local Authorities which could be managed by the Heritage Department. I feel the creation of Heritage Department under each local authority is very important to support the Heritage Conservation Committees (HCC) at District levels. This Department works under the HCC and the Local Authority to implement the suggestions coming from the HCC and Local Authority. The Heritage Department is also empowered to manage all aspects of Heritage Conservation under the Local Authority. The structure of this department could be worked out depending on the requirements of heritage conservation. But this is an important addition to the Local Authority.

The other State departments, like PWD and administration have to facilitate the Heritage Department in its functioning, however, the control of all the conservation related works shall be placed under the Heritage Department.


-Rabindra J Vasavada Architect FRAS

Architecture, Conservation and Historic Building Restoration. 

Former Founder Professor and Head: Post Graduate Programme in Architecture and Settlement Conservation, Faculty of Architecture, Head: Centre for Conservation Studies, CRDU, CEPT University 

Ahmedabad 380009 India

Former Head: Technical Committee of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation for UNESCO World Heritage City Dossier for Historic City of Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad was inscribed on World Heritage List in July 2017.

Former Adviser: Ahmedabad World Heritage City Trust Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. 


Inputs from Veena Krishnan, Lawyer


NOTE ON ZONAL REGULATIONS (AMENDMENT) 2020

The Zonal Regulations (Amendment) 2020 have been framed under the provisions of Section 13E of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 ("KTCPA").

Section 2(11) of the KTCPA defines the term "regulation" as zonal regulations governing land use made under the KTCPA. Section 13E of the KTCPA gives the State Government the power to make amendments to the regulations. Therefore the Zonal Regulations (Amendment) 2020 constitute an amendment to the zonal regulations pertaining to land use made by various Planning Authorities such as the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), Bangalore Metropolitan Region Development Authority (BMRDA), Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Area Planning Authority (BMICAPA), Bangalore International Airport Area Planning Authority (BIAAPA), etc.

Regulation 1(3) of the Zonal Regulations (Amendment) 2020 states that the said Regulations are applicable to heritage sites, heritage buildings, heritage precincts and natural features declared as such under the provisions of Section 2(1ea) and Section 2(1eb) of the KTCPA.

Section 2(1ea) defines the term "Heritage Building" as a building possessing architectural, aesthetic, historic or cultural values which is declared as a heritage building by the Planning Authority or any other competent authority within whose jurisdiction such building is situated.

Section 2(1eb) defines the term "Heritage Precinct" as an area comprising heritage building or buildings and precincts thereof or related places declared as such by the Planning Authority or any other competent authority within whose jurisdiction such area is situated.

It should be noted that the final decision of what is a Heritage Building or a Heritage Precinct rests with the jurisdictional Planning Authority. However, the Zonal Regulations (Amendment) 2020 empower the Planning Authority to declare these details based on the advice of the Heritage Conservation Committee.

The terms "Heritage Sites", "Heritage Buildings", "Heritage Precincts" and "Natural Features" are referred to Regulation 1(3). However neither the Zonal Regulations (Amendment) 2020 nor the KTCPA define the terms "Heritage Precincts" and "Natural Features".

Regulation 2 provides for the appointment of a Heritage Conservation Committee (the "Committee") for Heritage Buildings and Heritage Precincts for all districts except Bengaluru. As regards Bengaluru, the Regulations prescribe that the Art Commission constituted under the provisions of Section 51 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 shall constitute the Heritage Conservation Committee. However, Section 51 does not prescribe any details such as number of the members, tenure, etc. of the Art Commission which appears to have been wound up in the year 2002.

Regulation 2 prescribed the tenure and quorum for the meetings of the Committee. It is not clear if these provisions are applicable to the Art Commission as well.

Regulation 2(2) empowers the Committee to "prepare a list of buildings, artefacts, structures, areas, precincts of historic, aesthetic, architectural, cultural or environmental significance and a supplementary list of natural features of environmental significance or scenic beauty including sacred groves, hills, hillocks, water bodies (and the areas adjoining the same), open areas, wooded areas etc., to which these regulations shall apply from time to time, and grade them according to the heritage value". It is not clear if stand-alone trees that do not form part of a grove/garden are also included within this provision. Further this Regulation does not specifically empower the Committee to frame policies in respect of natural heritage such as groves, hills, trees, water bodies, etc.

Regulation 3 calls upon the Planning Authority to notify the list of Heritage Structures, Heritage Buildings, Heritage Precincts and additions thereto based on the advice of the Committee. However no specific timeline as been denoted for the completion of this process.

Regulations 4 and 5 prescribe the criteria for listing and classifying Heritage Buildings, Heritage Precincts, etc. However, no criteria have been prescribed for listing and classification of groves, hills, trees, water bodies, etc. Regulation 4(k) sets out "Natural Heritage Sites" as one of the criteria for classification. It is not clear if groves, hills, trees and water bodies would fall under this classification.

Column 3 of Regulation 5(d) [which is applicable to buildings and precincts of important townscapes] provides for development permission to be granted by the Planning Authority based on guidelines to be framed by the Government in consultation with the Committee. There are no timelines issued for this process.

Regulation 6 states that "no development or re-development or engineering operations or additions or alterations or repairs or renovation, including the painting of buildings, replacement of special features or plastering or demolition of any or part thereof of the enlisted buildings, precincts and natural features, including the compound wall, shall be allowed, except with the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority, in accordance with these regulations". The second proviso states that only in exceptional cases, for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Planning Authority may refer the matter back to the heritage conservation committee for reconsideration. The second proviso is not clear. Does it refer to those cases where permission is not granted by the Local Planning Authority?


Regulation 8 inter alia states that in case of Heritage Precincts and Natural Features, where it is deemed necessary by the Committee, development permission in the form of commencement certificate shall be granted in accordance with separate guidelines prescribed for the respective precincts or natural features, which shall be framed by the Archaeology, Museums and Heritage Department (AM&HD) in consultation with the local authority, on the advice of the committee. It is not clear if this commencement certificate would be issued for development or re-development of the Heritage Precincts and Natural Features. Further, insofar as natural features such as hills, water bodies, rocks, etc. are concerned, the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act as regards usage of kharab land would prevail over and above the provisions of these Regulations and the KTCPA. Further, there is a reference to separate guidelines to be framed by the AM&HD in consultation with the Local Authority on the advice of the Committee. The term "Local Authority" which is different from the Planning Authority such as BDA, BMRDA, etc., is defined under Section 2(3a) of the KTCPA as "a municipal corporation, municipal council, Town Panchayat or Grama Panchayat; and a local authority is a ‘local authority concerned’ if any land within its local limits falls in the area of a plan prepared or to be prepared under the KTCPA". Therefore, the reference to the term "local authority" would mean the BBMP or similar authority. The term "local authority" is used in a few other instances in the Regulations. The functions of the Planning Authority and the Local Authority require to be properly bifurcated and clarified.


The provisions of these Regulations would appear to prevail over and above the provisions of the KTCPA and the Master Plan, in case of any conflict. One example would be with respect to Regulation 9 which states that any road widening or building line shall be in accordance with these Regulations.

Regulation (3) states that "no widening of the existing roads under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 or Master Plan shall be carried out in a manner which may affect the existing heritage buildings (even if they are not included in a heritage precinct) or which may affect the enlisted natural features". The term "natural features" requires clarity. Does it include trees?

Regulation 10 refers to Master Plan reservations on Heritage Buildings or Precincts. This term is not defined under the KTCPA or under the Regulations.


Regulation 11 refers to the grant of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) in case of loss of Development Rights. More clarity would be required on the criteria for grant of TDR, the extent of TDR that would be granted, etc.


Pics: Courtesy Ron The Bangalorewalla


15 March 2021


The Chief Secretary

Government of Karnataka

Vidhana Soudha

Bangalore 560001

Email: cs@karnataka.gov.in


Dear Sir:


Subject: Maintenance and Preservation of the Heritage Space at Mysore Tobacco Co, 17 Richmond Road


We are keen to bring this above matter to your kind attention. After this state government company folded up in 1983, the offices at Richmond Road and Whitefield along with the space they occupy have fallen into disrepair. This is true of many buildings elsewhere in Bangalore, and we do hope that will also be duly actioned and its history preserved.


We understand that the plan is to get a heritage tag for the Richmond Road space as per the Board Meeting and possible use as a government office, based on this 2014 press article . In fact, in the Karnataka State Agricultural Produce Processing and Export Corporation Limited Board Meeting of 5 Nov 2018, the Chairman and MD specifically passed the matter (Point 2 on Page 33 & 34) to ensure protect the heritage structure. (see end of letter).


However, since there is neither use nor proper upkeep, we are deeply concerned that this beautiful one-acre Gothic heritage building, and grounds may fall into further disrepair and crumble. We would request you to kindly ensure that the building and grounds are retained as heritage, some form of restoration taken up by conservationists (work could involve excellent professionals through a two-tier national competition which can be supported/conducted by Heritage Beku and other specialists) and also adaptive reuse for a government space – like an arts museum, heritage and culture center, office for the crafts council, tourism etc be undertaken. This will not only allow it to be preserved and maintained but also loved, used and part of our beloved city heritage.


We look forward to hearing from you and discussing how we can support you in this initiative.


Thanking You,

Yours Sincerely,



Priya Chetty-Rajagopal

Heritage Beku


CC: Secretary Agriculture

CC: All concerned


Extract from Board Meeting 5 Nov 2018

Maintaining and reviving the heritage structure of the registered office of the Company.

The Hon’ble Minister and Chairman of the company after inspecting the registered

office building of the company, owned by The Mysore Tobacco Company Limited

to be merged with the Company, has directed Managing Director of the company

to explore the possibility of getting the building declared as heritage building and

to protect the same as per the existing norms and guidelines prescribed for the

purpose.


The Board accordingly passed the following resolutions instructing and authorizing

the Managing Director of the Company to engage the services of agencies who are

involved in identifying and reviving heritage structures for the purpose of reviving

the Registered Office of the Company as a Heritage Structure and obtain detail

report on such revival of the Structure and take appropriate action in this regard.


“RESOLVED THAT, approval of the Board be and is hereby granted to

engage the services of agencies who are involved in identifying and reviving

heritage structures for the purpose of reviving the Registered Office of the

Company as a Heritage Structure and obtain a detail report on the proposed

revival of the Structure.”

“FURTHER RESOLVED THAT Managing Director of the Company be and

is hereby authorized to negotiate with such agencies for fixing the


Page 34

34

remuneration for their services referred above, accordingly issue work order,

obtain reports from them, make payment against their services and do all

such acts, deeds and things to give effect to the foregoing resolutions” ‘

5 March 2021

Ms. Sheuli Burman

Chief Postmaster General, Dept of Posts & Telegraphs

Karnataka Circle, Beau Lieu, Palace Road

Bangalore 560001


Dear Sheuli:


Subject : Reconnecting – and a tie up with Department of Posts at Bangalore/Karnataka

It was such a pleasure to reconnect with you after such a long time and to also know that you have taken over as Postmaster General for Karnataka! What a wonderful thing that you are back in Bangalore and with such an impactful & senior responsibility. What also was so delightful to know was that not only are you personally supportive of heritage and the specific restoration and enhancement off your beautiful head office Beau Lieu, but also delighted to be part of ongoing heritage initiatives of interest to the city. Heritage Beku, a leading citizen initiative, a voice of the city, has made impact on preservation and policy – and our collaborations have also been the key stone of that.


The Postal Department , Karnataka is blessed with several unique landmark or heritage buildings , and it would be wonderful to partner with you on this and get more people to appreciate them. There can always be some simple yet interesting partnerships and initiatives going forward. To start with, I had mentioned The Palace Trail which is a Model Ward Initiative supported kind courtesy BBMP Commissioner, our nodal officer for Ward 93 . This coincidentally starts from Palace Road’s first heritage building in the trail – our very own Post & Telegraphs Circle Office HQ Beau Lieu and ends at the Bangalore Palace , allowing people experience and interact with landmarks and heritage along this unique route. This works closely with other related departments who also are either part of the walkability/cycling infrastructure like DULT, Smart City, Major roads, related interest areas like Tourism, Horticulture , BWSSB, Bescom , Janaagraha et al. In fact we already have MOU with DULT and Dept of Horticulture to promote heritage. We would love to do the same with you.


You had some specific interest points on the originals plans and drawings of Beau Lieu, given that you would like to restore the building to its original. I do know that one of our members Intach had also spend some time restoring a few small parts, and I hope that we can widen the reach out to a large group of conservationists to ensure that the detailing and restoration does happen as it should. It is really a shot in the arm to note your own interest in this space. Another stunning building Poorna Prasad was temporarily the P&T Foreign Mail Service office in the 90’s and has now gone back to its original owners. The imposing GPO while not heritage exactly, is a beautiful tribute as well.


Since the Palace Trails actually starts with Beau Lieu, we do hope that you will actively support being part of the local community with this incredible building and its history and we can work out some interesting initiatives and ideas to collaborate, so that both locals and visitors gain insight into both the Postal Department as well as story of the P&T office heritage headquarters. Your being on our jury on our proposed annual Heritage Awards would be nice.


Ideas we would love to explore include connecting Posts and Heritage via a special postcard of Beaulieu or a special edition stamps, encourage people to use AR based postcards to mail their older relatives on Elders Day or Heritage Day, creating more quaint post boxes (West End has the oldest, I think) have a once a month tour of the building, even quizzes, so people know space and history better.


Thanking You,

Yours Sincerely,


Priya Chetty-Rajagopal

Pic: Courtesy Indian Express