The Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority (KCZMA) has found that the factory buildings for a slaughterhouse waste processing unit in the industrial development area in Edayar, located close to the banks of the Periyar river, come under the no-development zone, in violation of the provisions of the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification 2011.
The report was filed before the Southern Bench of the National Green Tribunal in the case against the ‘consent to establish’ provided by the State Pollution Control Board for the project. The tribunal had asked the KCZMA to ascertain whether there was any violation of the CRZ Notification 2011 or 2019, if any, which was in force at the time of setting up of the unit.
The District Industries Centre had allotted 1.8 acres at the industrial development area for the unit meant for manufacturing meat meal from poultry waste. The report said that the distance between high tide line (HTL) of the Periyar river and the main building was 13.6 metre. The distance between HTL of the river and the effluent treatment plant was eight metre.
The width of the water body was 80 metre and the CRZ area remains applicable up to 80 metre from the high tide line of the river towards landward side. It is categorised as no-development zone of CRZ III as per CRZ Notification 2011. As per Clause 8 III of CRZ Notification 2011, the area up to 200 metres from HTL on the landward side in case of seafront and 100 metres along tidal influenced water bodies or width of the creek, whichever is less, has to be earmarked as ‘no-development zone’ of CRZ III category.
The width of the water body adjacent to the constructed buildings is 80 metre and the no-development zone of CRZ III is up to 80 metre from the HTL of the Periyar river towards the landward side. The constructed buildings come under the purview of Clause 8 III A (i) (ii) and (iii) of the CRZ Notification 2011. It is stated that the project proponent had not submitted any application to the KCZMA to obtain CRZ clearance even though the project proponent should have sought prior clearance, according to the report.
