Parallel criticisms apply to minimum standard regulations, e.g., room height, window space, incorporation of proper ventilation facilities and safety precautions in the apartments being offered for sale in Cochin. Not only do the minimum requirements tend to become the accepted normal standard, but also since they are decided centrally, they impose certain rigidity. With buildings, there must be enough flexibility to cover individual cases, e.g. with respect to a historic building, where special features have to be preserved. Indeed, because all these developments tend to be heterogeneous in character, there is much to be said as to the measures to be taken for controlling such issues on a case-by-case basis, rather than by general regulation.

Also, when granting planning permission to develop a particular piece of Real Estate Cochin city development authorities and the concerned local authorities can impose special conditions covering the provision of public services, such as access roads and open spaces, a community center, low-income housing units, etc. Obviously the extent of such possible ‘planning gain’ varies from project to project, and planning on a case-by-case basis permits flexibility in the conditions imposed.

Finally, while (as we have seen) some distributive effects are often inherent in planning decisions (e.g. countryside recreation facilities involving high transport costs and low-density housing standards that benefit the rich more than the poor), intervention by taxation would be far more favorable to the rich since they are in a better position to pay in order to proceed with a particular costly development scheme. Even then, in Cochin, implementing a particular government policy has been quite easy due to the flexible attitude of a vast majority of the people in assimilating the necessary changes. This was amply reflected in the way people reacted to the Nedumbassery International Airport project earlier.

isn't this just an off-topic advert for a real estate in C...???