• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Dsp thrissur ch8
 

Dsp thrissur ch8

on

  • 1,316 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,316
Views on SlideShare
1,316
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
13
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Dsp thrissur ch8 Dsp thrissur ch8 Document Transcript

    • << CHAPTER 7 < CONTENTS >District Spatial Plan - Thrissur URBAN PROFILE 113 Chapter – 8 URBAN PROFILE In this chapter the trend of urbanization of 2001. The population figures of the State as per censusThrissur District is assessed and is compared with the 2001 are shown in the Table 8.1.level of Urbanization of the State so as to ascertain the There is an increase of about 400% in the totalposition of the District in the State scenario. population of Kerala within a century. During this pe-8.1 TREND OF URBANIZATION – KERALA riod rural population has increased by 300 %. Rural population content in Kerala has declined from 92.89% At the turn of the 21st century, Kerala had a popu- to 74% of the total population within a century. This islation of 63.96 lakhs, of which 59.42 lakhs were in its an indication on the trend of urbanization in Kerala thatrural areas as per Census 2001. This constituted 92.89% has happened in a century.of the total population of the state. At the end of the Table 8.1: Population (2001) of Kerala at a glance 2001 Person Males Females Growth rate Total 31838619 15468664 16369955 9.42 Rural 23571484 11450785 12120699 10.05 Urban 8267135 4017879 4249256 7.64 Source: Census of India - 200120th century the total population in Kerala has in- The population figures of the immediate past, iecreased to 3.18 crores (31838619) of which rural popu- last three decades are analyzed here (see table 8.2).lation is 2.35 crores. This means that the rural popula- There is a steady decline in the population growthtion constitutes about 74% of the total population in rate over the last three decades. Population growth rate Table 8.2: Trends of population growth of Kerala - 1981-2001 Year Total population Growth rate of Growth rate in urban total population population 1981 25453680 19.24% 37.64% 1991 29098518 14.32% 60.97% 2001 31838619 9.42% 7.64% Source: Census of India - 2001 Department of Town & Country Planning, Kerala
    • 114 URBAN PROFILE District Spatial Plan - Thrissurwas 19.24% in 1981 and it reduced to 9.42% in 2001. But the urban population growth rate has drasti-During the period 1981-91 population of 36.45 lakhs cally declined to 7.64% in 2001 with a decrease of 87.5were added to the previous decades population, % over the preceding decadal urban population growthwhereas during the period 1991-2001, population of rate. At the same time the growth rate in total popula-only 27.4 lakhs were added within. The growth rate of tion has decreased from 14.32 % to 9.42% only with aurban population of Kerala over the last three de- decrease rate of 34.2%. This indicates that over the lastcades shows that it is in a transition phase. Over the three decades there is spread effect of population intolast two decades (1971-81 and 1981-91) growth rate in the rural area. This is an indication to the planners tourban population was on the rise, 37.64% in 1981 and take the planning of rural areas seriously than before60.97% in 1991. (see table 8.3). and subsequently address the reasons for the spread Table 8.3: Trends in urbanization of Kerala - 1981-2001 Percentage of Growth rate of Growth rate in Year Total Urban urban total urban Polpulation Population Population Population Population 1981 25453680 4771275 18.74 19.24 37.64 1991 29098518 7680294 26.39 14.32 60.97 2001 31838619 8267135 25.97 9.42 7.64 Source: Census of India - 2001 Fig 8.1: Urban area of Thrissur DistrictDepartment of Town & Country Planning, Kerala
    • District Spatial Plan - Thrissur URBAN PROFILE 115effect of population to rural areas. Census Town, Iringapurom Census Town, Thaikkad Cen- sus Town, Paluvai Census Town, Pavaratty Census Town,8.2 CENSUS URBAN AREAS IN THRISSUR DISTRICT Brahmakulam Census Town, Venmanad Census Town, As per the 2001 census, the population of Thrissur Kolazhy Census Town, Pottore Census Town,District is 2,974,232 which constitute about 9.34 % of Puranattukara Census Town, Nadathara Census Town,the total population of the State. Of the total popula- Marathakkara Census Town, Avinissery Census Town,tion of the district, 839433 is urban population. That is Palissery Census Town, Chevvoor Census Town,28.2 % of the total population of the District is in the Vallachira Census Town, Methala Census Town,urban areas of the District. There are thirty urban areas Nenmenikkara Census Town, Puthukkad Census Town,viz, Thrissur Municipal Corporation, Kunnamkulam Koratty Census Town, Pookode Out Growth, and EriyadMunicipal Council, Chavakkad Municipal Council, Out Growth, in the District as per 2001 census. The de-Guruvayoor Municipal Council, Kodungallur Municipal tails are shown in figure 8.1 The details of census townsCouncil, Irinjalakuda Municipal Council, Chalakudy is shown in table 8.4.Municipal Council, Akathiyoor Census Town, Perakam Table 8.4: Census Towns & Out growth in Thrissur District - 2001 Sl.No Name of Census Town Name of Grama Panchayat/ Wards numbers Muncipal council 1 Akathiyyoor(C.T) Porkulam Ward No.4,5,6,7 2 Perakam(C.T) Pookode Ward No.8,9,10,11,12,13 3 Iringaprom(C.T) Pookode Ward No.3,4,5,6,7,8 4 Thaikkad(C.T) Thaikkad Ward No.2,3,4,5,6,7 5 Paluvai(C.T) Pavaratty Ward No.1,2,7,8,9,10 6 Pavaratty(C.T) Pavaratty Ward No.1,2,3,4,7,8,9,10 7 Brahmakulam(C.T) Elavally Ward No.1,2,9,10,11,12 8 Venmanad(C.T) Pavaratty Ward No. 4,5,6,7,8,9,10, 11, 12 9 Kolazhy(C.T) Kolazhy Ward No. 4,5,6,7,8 10 Pottore(C.T) Kolazhy Ward No. 2,3,4,8,12,13 11 Puranattukkara(C.T) Adat Ward No. 7,8,9,12,13 12 Nadathara(C.T) Nadathara Ward No. 1,3,8,9,10,11 13 Marathakkara(C.T) Puthur Ward No. 12,13,14,15,16, 17,19 14 Avinissery(C.T) Avinissery Ward No.3,4,5,6,7,10 15 Palissery(C.T) Avinissery Ward No.1,2,8,9 16 Chevvoor(C.T) Cherpu Ward No.1,2,3,4,5,10, 11, 13 17 Vallachira(C.T) Vallachira Ward No.1,2,3,4,8,9,10 18 Methala(C.T) Methala Ward No.1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, 9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17 19 Nenmanikkara(C.T) Nenmanikkara Ward No. 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, 11 20 Pudukkad(C.T) Pudukkad Ward No. 1,2,3,8,9,10,11 21 Koratty(C.T) Koratty Ward No. 1,2,3,4,5,12, 13,14,15,16 22 Pookode(O.G) Guruvayur Ward No.21 23 Eriyad(O.G) Kodungallur Ward No.25 Source: Census of India - 2001 Department of Town & Country Planning, Kerala
    • 116 URBAN PROFILE District Spatial Plan - Thrissur8.3 URBAN POPULATION CONTENT (EXISTING) It can be summarized that urban population has The process of urbanization of an area can be as- increased by 236 % against an increment of 315% in thesessed in relation to its urban population content. The extent of urban area. Urban population and urban areaurban population content of Kerala state is 26%, of the district increased during 1971-2001 period. Butwhereas that of the District is 28.2%, which clearly points the increase in population is less than the increase inout the fact that the process of urbanization in Thrissur the urban area. This indicates that there is a chance ofdistrict is slightly more than that of average state fig- migration of further densification of the urban areas ofure. On comparing the urban content of all the 14 Dis- Thrissur.trict of the State, it can be seen that Thrissur District is 8.4 GROWTH RATE OF URBAN POPULATIONpositioned in the 6th rank. The graph (see fig 8.3) shows the decadal varia- There is a steep increase (From 11.74% to 21.1%) tion in the urban population of Thrissur District fromin the urban content of the total population for a pe- 1971 to 2001. The total urban population of the Districtriod from 1971 to 1981. The urban area of the district has increased from 249845 to 839433 in a period of fourduring this period (1971-1981) shows an increase of decades. The variation during this period was not uni-131.87 sq km. The sudden surge in the urban popula- form. A steady increase in the urban population is ob-tion during this period correspond to this increase in served from 1971 to 1991, but during the period fromarea. A slight increase in the urban population and ur- 1991 to 2001 there is comparatively less increase in theban area is noted during the period from 1991 to 2001. urban population.(Table 8.5). Table 8.5: Thrissur District - variation in urban content 1991-2001 Year Total Population Urban Population Percent of urban Urban area in Population Sq. km 1971 2,128,877 249,845 11.74 83.43 1981 2,439,633 514,783 21.1 215.3 1991 2,737,311 720,216 26.31 301.2 2001 2,974,232 839,433 28.2 345.85 Source: Census of India - 2001 The increase in urban areas of the District as indi- The graph (see fig 8.4) shown below depicts thecated in the corresponding years census figures, is growth rate of urban population against the growth rateshowed the fig 8.2. In 1971 the extent of urban area in of population over the last two decades in the District.Thrissur District was 83.43 sq km, which has increased When the population growth rate of the District hasto 301.2 sq km in 1991. The increase of urban area of the declined from 12.21 to 8.66, the urban populationdistrict was not uniform from 1971 to 2001, but the in- growth rate has declined from 39.9 to 16.55 during thecrease was high during the period from 1971 to 1981 same time period (1981 to 2001), indicating a possibil-and from 1981 to 1991. There is only slight increase of ity of considerable reduction in the migration of popu-urban area during the last decade, i.e. during the pe- lation to the urban areas of the District. The growthriod 1991 –2001. rate of urban population is more than the growth rateDepartment of Town & Country Planning, Kerala
    • District Spatial Plan - Thrissur URBAN PROFILE 117 Fig 8.2: Extent of urban area of the Districtof the district. There is a reduction in growth rate the Figure (fig 8.5) depicts the variation of popula-rural and urban scenario, but it is found that the urban tion growth rate of various local government of Thrissurareas exhibit faster growth indicating a constant mi- district. From the figure it is clear that growth rate isgration to urban area. This may be due to the educa- maximum at Kunnamkulam Muncipal Council. Growthtional, medical and Infrastructural facilities available rate of population of Thrissur Municipal Corporation isin the urban areas of the district. less than the surrounding Grama Panchayats. But the Source: Census of India - 2001 Fig 8.3: Total urban population during various decades Table 8.6 compares the growth rate of urban popu- Grama Panchayats that are census towns show morelation of the State and the District. This shows that there growth rate than the surrounding Grama Panchayats.is a huge decline in the growth rate of urban popula- There are 11 census towns located near Thrissur Mu-tion of Kerala; more or less the same decreasing pat- nicipal Corporation. Guruvayur Muncipal council andtern is seen in Thrissur also, but the rate of decrease is Chavakkad Muncipal council show less growth rate thanjust half that of the state. the surrounding Grama Panchayats. Grama Panchayat parts of which are census towns via Akathiyoor Census Department of Town & Country Planning, Kerala
    • 118 URBAN PROFILE District Spatial Plan - Thrissur Table 8.6: Growth rate of urban population – Comparison with state 1981-91 1991-01 Kerala 60.89 % 7.69 % Thrissur 39.9 % 16.55 % Source: Census of India - 2001 Fig 8.4: Population Growth Rate- Comparison with District Fig 8.5: Growth rate of population 2001- Local Govt. wise variationDepartment of Town & Country Planning, Kerala
    • District Spatial Plan - Thrissur URBAN PROFILE 119Town, Perakam Census Town, Iringapuram Census slowly withdrawing from the primary sector and startedTown, Thaikkad Census Town, Paluvai Census Town, depending more on the service sector. Because of thisBrahmakulam Census Town, Kolazhy Census Town, shift in the occupational structure some of the ruralPottore Census Town, Puranattukara Census Town, areas will be having more than 75% of the male work-Marathakkara Census Town, Avinissery Census Town, ers in the non-agricultural category in the near futurePalissery Census Town, Vallachira Census Town, and hence will fall in the category of census urban.Methala Census Town, Nenmenikkara Census Town, Hence there may be significant increase in the urbanKoratty Census Town, Pookode Out Growth and Eriyad population as well as in the extent of urban areas ofOut Growth show greater population growth rate. In the District in the future. In the following paragraphs,general there is a chance of in migration of people to the future urban LSGs are delineated based on thethe urban areas from the rural areas. three fold census classification as per census 2001, and the result is further iterated with the factors like im-8.5 URBAN SETTLEMENTS – FROM 1971 TO 2001 pact of proposed urban development projects, grade The number of urban settlements of the district of the LSGs and hierarchy of settlements.was increasing from 1971 to 1991 (see table 8.7). In 2001,Thrissur Municipal Corporation has been upgraded to CRITERIA-1: CENSUS URBAN AREAThrissur Municipal Corporation appending the adjoin- A study on the existing occupational structure ining the census urban settlements, thus there is decrease various settlements of the District will throw light onin the total number of urban settlements of district the future urban profile of the district. The workers ofcompared to the previous decade. But area wise there each settlement which are classified in to four fold clas- Table 8.7: Urban settlements in different period of time Census year Total number of Muncipal Muncipal Census Urban out Total urban urban centres Corporation Towns Towns Growths area (Sq. Km) 1971 9 4 4 1 83.43 1981 26 6 19 1 215.3 1991 44 6 34 4 301.2 2001 30 1 6 21 2 345.85 Source: Census 2001is an increase from 1991 to 2001 in the urban area. sification as per census 2001 are divided in to the fol- lowing nine categories based on the workers classifica-8.6 FUTURE URBANIZATION PROFILE OF THE DIS- tion in the 1991 census.TRICT 1. Main Cultivators The analysis of the occupational structure of the 2. Main Agricultural LabourersDistrict shows that the primary sector i.e., the agricul- 3. Livestock, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting, Planta-ture sector, shows declining trend in the district. The tion, Orchards, and allied activatessectors, which show growth, are industrial and the ser- 4. Mining and Quarryingvice sectors. More than 50% of the total urban popula- 5. Manufacturing, Processing, Servicing andtion depends on the service sector for their lively hood. repairs in Household industriesIt is observed that rural areas of the district are also 6. Manufacturing, Processing, servicing and Department of Town & Country Planning, Kerala
    • 120 URBAN PROFILE District Spatial Plan - Thrissur repairs in other than household industries vicing and repairs in other than house hold industries, 7. Trade and commerce trade & commerce, transport, storage & communica- 8. Transport storage and Communications tion and others are totaled to calculate the percentage of male workers in non-agricultural activities in each of 9. Others the LSGs of the District. The details are shown in The methodology adopted for the extrapolation Annexe-21. In order to avoid the possibility of errors,to get the nine fold classification of workers in 2001 i.e. exclusion of some of the actual urban area, the ex-based on the workers classification in census 1991 is trapolation of the data to get classification of workersdescribed briefly here. The only two types of workers based on 1991 census, is attempted only for the LSGsincluded in both 1991 and 2001 census are the cultiva- with non-agricultural male workers more than 90% (in-tors and agricultural laborers. The remaining two types stead of 75%) is taken for the study. Based on this, thereof workers in the 2001 census, house hold industrial are 45 LSGs identified in the District, which are satisfy-workers and other workers are totaled together and ing the three-fold census criteria to be urban in imme-this total is divided in to 7 classes of workers in the diate future. The list of which is given below and thesame proportion as these 7 classes of workers as there spatial location of these LSGs is shown in fig 8.6.in the 1991 census. Then the number of male workers 1. Thrissur Municipal Corporationin manufacturing, processing, servicing and repairs in 2. MethalaHouse hold industries, manufacturing, processing, ser- 3. Edavilangu Fig 8.6: Urban Centers based on 3 fold Census CriteriaDepartment of Town & Country Planning, Kerala
    • District Spatial Plan - Thrissur URBAN PROFILE 121 4. Eriyad 28. Pudukkad 5. Guruvayur Municipal Council 29. Thaikkad 6. Avinissery 30. Alagappanagar 7. Chavakkad Municipal Council 31. Edathiruthy 8. Irinjalakkuda Municipal Council 32. Kaiparamba 9. Kaipamangalam 33. Punnayur 10. Sreenarayanapuram 34. Kandanissery 11. Mathilakam 35. Elavally 12. Nenmanikkara 36. Vadakkekad 13. Pookode 37. Kadukkutty 14. Kodungallur Municipal Council 38. Adat 15. Perinjanam 39. Vellangallur 16. Kolazhy 40. Engandiyur 17. Chalakkudy Municipal Council 41. Mala 18. Valappad 42. Venkitangu 19. Thalikulam 43. Poyya 20. Cherpu 44. Mulamkkunnathukkavu 21. Nattika 45. Nadathara 22. Manalur The classification of an area into urban depending 23. Kadapuram 24. Vadanappilly upon 9 fold classification of workers obtained out of a 25. Pavaratty mere extrapolation of the census 2001 data based on 26. Kunnamkulam Municipal Council the previous decades data can’t be taken as very accu- 27. Orumanayur Fig 8.7: Urban Centers Based on Census Criteria & Grade of LSGs Department of Town & Country Planning, Kerala
    • 122 URBAN PROFILE District Spatial Plan - Thrissurrate. Though it gives a near accurate picture about the 19. Perinjanamtrend of urbanization, some other factors like the ex- 20. Mathilakamtent of physical and economic development, future 21. Sreenarayanapuramurban development projects and existing hierarchy of 22. Methalasettlements need to be considered. 23. NenmanikkaraCRITERIA 2: GRADE OF LSGs 24. Alagappanagar The grading of LSGs is done previously compar- 25. Vadanappillying their physical and economical development. So, inthe absence of direct data to assess the physical and 26. Pudukkadeconomic development, the grade of Grama Panchayat 27. Vellangallurcan be taken as a proxy indicator to measure the physi- 28. Malacal and economic development of the LSGs 29. Kadukkutty Out of the 45 Grama Panchayats listed based on 30. Nadatharacriteria one, 24 are Special grade Grama Panchayts and 31. Vadakkekad14 are first grade Grama Panchayats. The first gradeGrama Panchayats are excluded from the list. The re- Figure 8.7, shows the spatial location of these 31maining LSGs are: LSGs. Before finalizing the future urban LSGs of the Dis- trict, the urban development Projects of the District 1. Thrissur Municipal Corporation and their possible impacts are also to be studied. 2. Guruvayur Municipal Council 3. Chavakkad Municipal Council CRITERIA: 3: PERSPECTIVES IN URBAN DEVELOP- MENT 4. Irinjalakkuda Municipal Council The major urban development projects envis- 5. Kodungallur Municipal Council aged in the District as of now are the proposal for a 6. Chalakkudy Municipal Council Medical University in the Avanoor Grama Panchayat 7. Kunnamkulam Municipal Council where part of the existing medical college is function- 8. Valappad ing. This will obviously induce a tremendous develop- ment impulse in this area. 9. Engandiyur 10. Edavilangu It is to be noted that Avanoor Grama Panchayat is not included in the 31 LSGs listed as probable urban 11. Edathiruthy LSGs of the District. So this local body is to be consid- 12. Venkitangu ered while listing the future urban LSGs. After the in- 13. Nattika clusion of this LSGs the number of LSGs in the select list 14. Pavaratty will increase to 32 as listed below and also shown in Fig 8.8. 15. Adat 1. Thrissur Municipal Corporation 16. Manalur 2. Guruvayur Municipal Council 17. Cherpu 3. Chavakkad Municipal Council 18. Eriyad 4. Irinjalakkuda Municipal CouncilDepartment of Town & Country Planning, Kerala
    • District Spatial Plan - Thrissur URBAN PROFILE 123 5. Kodungallur Municipal Council 21. Sreenarayanapuram 6. Chalakkudy Municipal Council 22. Methala 7. Kunnamkulam Municipal Council 23. Nenmanikkara 8. Valappad 24. Alagappanagar 9. Engandiyur 25. Vadanappilly 10. Edavilangu 26. Pudukkad 11. Edathiruthy 27. Vellangallur 12. Venkitangu 28. Mala 13. Nattika 29. Kadukkutty 14. Pavaratty 30. Nadathara 15. Adat 31. Vadakkekad 16. Manalur 32. Avanoor 17. Cherpu 18. Eriyad CRITERIA: 4: HIERARCHY OF SETTLEMENT 19. Perinjanam The hierarchy of the above 32 LSGs in the overall context of the District are also to be taken in to account 20. Mathilakam before finalizing the LSGs with urban character, be- cause it is an indicator of the type and number of facili- Fig 8.8: Urban Centers Based on Census Criteria, Grade of LSGs & Perspectives in Urban Development Department of Town & Country Planning, Kerala
    • 124 URBAN PROFILE District Spatial Plan - Thrissurties in the LSGs. Annexe 10 shows the hierarchy of the lists of the probable urban LSGs are given below.settlements and according to this, out of the 32 LSGs 1. Thrissur Municipal Corporationlisted above the following are in the category of LSGshaving the lowest hierarchy. 2. Guruvayur Municipal Council 1. Engandiyur 3. Chavakkad Municipal Council 2. Edathiruthy 4. Irinjalakkuda Municipal Council 3. Venkitangu 4. Nattika 5. Kodungallur Municipal Council 5. Perinjanam 6. Chalakkudy Municipal Council 6. Mathilakam 7. Kunnamkulam Municipal Council 7. Nenmanikkara 8. Alagappanagar 8. Valappad 9. Vadanappilly 9. Edavilangu 10. Vellangallur 10. Pavaratty 11. Kadukkutty 12. Nadathara 11. Adat 13. Vadakkekad 12. Manalur 14. Avanoor 13. Cherpu These fourteen LSGs are to be excluded from the 14. Eriyadlist of the selected list of likely urban LSGs. The final Table 8.8: Future urban profile of the District Existing Urban area Future probable urban area 1. Thrissur Municipal Corporation 1. Valappad 2 Kunnamkulam Municipal Council 2. Edavilangu 3 Chalakkudy Municipal Council 3. Pavaratty 4 Irinjalakkuda Municipal Council 4 . Adat 5 Kodungallur Municipal Council 5. Manalur 6 Guruvayur Municipal Council 6. Cherpu 7 Chavakkad Municipal Council 7. Eriyad 8. Sreenarayanapuram 9. Methala 10. Pudukkad 11. MalaDepartment of Town & Country Planning, Kerala
    • District Spatial Plan - Thrissur URBAN PROFILE 125 15. Sreenarayanapuram ture. 16. Methala The pattern of growth rate of population among the LSGs of the District as per census 2001 shows that 17. Pudukkad the growth rate is the highest among those LSGs adja- 18. Mala cent to the Thrissur Municipal Corporation. And hence Clearly the above local governments define the it can be presumed that those LSGs adjacent to thefuture urban profile of the District. The likely future Thrissur Municipal Corporation and those along theurban profile of the district evolved is shown in the National high way can be assumed to attain urban sta-table 8.8 and the same is shown in fig 8.9 tus in the next 10 years and the remaining LSGs to be- come urban within the next 20 years. In the study of8.7 URBAN PROFILE the hierarchy of settlements Adat is positioned next to All the 11 LSGs listed as probable future urban Thrissur Municipal Corporation. So this LSGs can be as-LSGs can’t be expected to attain urban character in next sumed to attain urban nature in the first phase itself.decade (2011) but only some of these will attain urban That means Adat, Pavaratty, Eriyad, Mala and Methalacharacter by the next decade and the remaining will will attain the status of urban LSGs in the next 10 yearsattain urban character in the succeeding decade after where as all the other 6 LSGs will attain the urban sta-that. The growth rate of population can be taken as tus within the next 20 years.deciding criteria by how fast a LSGs attains urban na- This is shown in Table 8.9. Fig 8.9: Urban Future urbanization profile – Thrissur District Department of Town & Country Planning, Kerala
    • 126 URBAN PROFILE District Spatial Plan - ThrissurTable 8.9: Urban profile - Phasing Sl No In the next 10 years In the next 20 years 1 Adat Edavilangu 2 Pavaratty Valappad 3 Eriyad Sreenarayanapuram 4 Mala Pudukkad 5 Methala Manalur 6 CherpuTable 8.10: Facilities in general to be provided Order Name of the settlement Projected Administrative status Facilities 1 Thrissur Municipal Corporation Urban LSG Higher order urban and rural facilities 2 Irinjalakuda Municipal Council Urban LSG Higher order rural facilities and middle order urban facilities 2 Chalakkudy Municipal Council Urban LSG Higher order rural facilities and middle order urban facilities 2 Kunnamkulam Municipal Council Urban LSG Higher order rural facilities and middle order urban facilities 2 Mattathur Rural LSG Higher order rural facilities and middle order urban facilities 2 Chelakkara Rural LSG Higher order rural facilities and middle order urban facilities 3 Kodungallur Municipal Council Urban LSG Higher order rural facilities and middle order urban facilities 3 Wadakkanchery Rural LSG Middle order rural facilities and Lower order urban facilities 3 Valappad Urban LSG Middle order rural facilities and Lower order urban facilities 3 Guruvayur Municipal Council Urban LSG Higher order rural facilities and middle order urban facilitiesDepartment of Town & Country Planning, Kerala
    • District Spatial Plan - Thrissur URBAN PROFILE 127 3 Venkidangu Rural LSG Middle order rural facilities and Lower order urban facilities 3 Pananchery Rural LSG Middle order rural facilities and Lower order urban facilities 3 Alagappanagar Rural LSG Middle order rural facilities and Lower order urban facilities8.8 FUNCTIONS (PROPOSED) TO BE PER- 8.9 INFERENCEFORMED BY VARIOUS HIGHER ORDER SETTLE- Thrissur District is more urbanized when com-MENTS. pared to the State. However the level of urbanization The functions to be performed by various higher shows an inclining trend within the District. The urbanorder settlements are derived based on their order, areas of the district show higher growth rate of popula-administrative status, character of the settlements and tion whereas the rural areas surrounding the urban ar-the service area. The result is summarized in table 8.10. eas show significantly lower growth rate indicating pos- All the other LSGs will act as basic service cen- sible in migration of people to the urban areas fromters. the surrounding rural settlements. Department of Town & Country Planning, Kerala < CONTENTS > CHAPTER 9 >>