Zoning rules overlooked in UDA approval for ultra luxury Thummulla project?

The Urban Development Authority’s (UDA) approval of an ultra luxury high-rise twin tower residential complex in Thummulla, Colombo, has raised serious concerns amid strong opposition from local residents.

A closer inspection has revealed several alleged violations of zoning regulations and planning guidelines.

Key issues highlighted in the investigation include:

Zoning violations – The land in question falls under both a Special Residential Zone and a Medium-Density Development Zone as per UDA's own planning regulations. However, approval was reportedly granted by treating it as part of a Mixed Development Zone, which carries more lenient guidelines.

Frontage manipulation – The required minimum frontage for such developments is 30 metres, but the plot allegedly falls short of this requirement. Despite this, it was treated as having 40 metres, allowing the project to move forward.

Height irregularities – In areas zoned for special residential development, the maximum permissible height is 50 metres. In this case, however, approval was reportedly granted for a building rising to 130 metres, more than double the legal limit.

Regulatory breaches – The project’s approval appears to be in clear violation of UDA’s planning and design regulations, raising red flags about potential abuse of regulatory discretion.

Adding to the controversy, it has been revealed that UDA officials and even the subject minister were present at the foundation-laying ceremony of the project just one day after the planning approval was issued in response to a request from the private company behind the development.

Local residents are calling on the authorities to urgently investigate these irregularities, stating that the project not only disregards existing regulations but also sets a dangerous precedent for future developments in the city.

Meanwhile, sources from the Presidential Secretariat say that a special investigation has been launched into allegations that a senior UDA official may have been personally involved in facilitating the approval on behalf of a private business, raising serious concerns over possible corruption and misconduct.