REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT ... · PDF filereport of the planning committee on the draft development plan – 2034 for greater mumbai 1 [document subtitle]

REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI

REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 1

[Document subtitle]

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI

REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE

ON THE

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034

FOR GREATER MUMBAI

Abstract

This document is a sincere effort by the members of the Planning Committee to

address the concerns of the people of Mumbai regarding

Draft Development Plan 2034

Submitted by

The Planning Committee under Section 28(3) of the M.R. &T.P. Act 1966


Preface

Public Participation in a city's Development Plan is essential for engaging

citizens in the planning and development of the city. The M.R. &T.P. Act 1966

allows people to share their perceptions and suggestions on the plan and its

contents. In addition, public participation acts as a tool for accountability and

transparency, requiring the Planning Authority i.e. The Municipal Corporation,

to seek inputs from the general public. Such public participation allows

evaluation of the plan from the citizen’s perspective.

This document is an attempt made by the Planning Committee in

allaying the general concerns of the citizens of Mumbai towards their city's

plan by actively engaging the stakeholders across the spectrum of the city’s

population. An attempt is also made to address genuine concerns of the

individuals who are affected by the plan and its processes. The Planning

Committee, while addressing these concerns, has followed uniform &

transparent policies while actively seeking people’s participation towards the

revision of the Revised Draft Development Plan 2034.

This document describes the context, methodology and policies adopted

by the Planning Committee while framing recommendations, after hearing

people’s suggestions/objections and the results achieved through this process.

The Planning Committee comprising three members appointed by the

Director of Town Planning, Pune and three members of the Standing

Committee appointed by the Planning Authority got constituted on 15th

October, 2016.

The Planning Committee was briefed about the magnitude of the task by

the MCGM Development Plan (DP) team, and then, details were worked out to

arrive at standard methodology to conduct the hearing process smoothly.

Collective decisions were taken within the Planning Committee to frame

common, uniform policies which aided transparent decision making. In this

backdrop, the Planning Committee initiated the hearing process.

Marathon sittings, to conduct the hearings, have been held over two

months. However, the process has turned out to be very effective and

satisfying, where the Planning Committee has been able to achieve outcomes

of substance. This continuous working by the Planning Committee brought


II.


Abbreviations

AH Affordable/Social Housing AR Accommodation Reservation BARC Bhabha Atomic Research Centre BPCL Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. BEST Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport BUA Built-Up Area CS Cadastral Survey CTS Cadastral Traverse Survey CST Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus CEO Chief Executive Officer CEIA Comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment CFO Chief Fire Officer CRZ Coastal Regulation Zone CZMP Coastal Zone Management Plan CC Commencement Certificate CMP Comprehensive Mobility Plan

CREDAI Confederation of Real Estate Developers' Association of India

DAM Designated Amenity Plot DCR Development Control Regulations DCPR Development Control & Promotion Regulations D. P. Development Plan EDDP Earlier Draft Development Plan EODB Ease of Doing Business ESZ Eco-Sensitive Zone EWS Economically Weaker Section ELU Existing Land Use FSI Floor Space Index GoI Government of India GoM Government of Maharashtra H. T. Line High Tension Line HTL High Tide Line HPCL Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. HDH Housing for Dis-housed IOD Intimation of Disapproval IH Inclusive Housing LIC Life Insurance Corporation of India LIG Low Income Group MCZMA Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority


MHADA Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority

MIDC Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation M. R. & T. P. Act Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 MLA Member of Legislative Assembly MP Member of Parliament MIG Middle Income Group MoEFCC Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change MHCC Mumbai Heritage Conservation Committee MMRDA Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority MMC Act Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 MbPT Mumbai Port Trust MCGM Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai NARDECO National Real Estate Development Council NA Natural Area NDZ No Development Plan NOC No Objection Certificate NGO Non-Government Organization OS Open Space OA Other Amenities PC Planning Committee POZ Port's Operational Zone PWFDZ Port's Water Front Development Zone

PEATA Practicing Engineers, Architect, and Town Planners Association

PAP Project Affected Person PLU Proposed Land Use PH Public Housing POS Public Open Space PSC Public Sanitary Convenience RCF Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. RG Recreation Ground ROS Recreational Open Space R&R Rehabilitation and Resettlement RAM Reserved Amenity Plot RDDP Revised Draft Development Plan SRDP Sanctioned Revised Development Plan SRA Slum Rehabilitation Authority SDZ Special development Zone SPA Special Planning Area


SWD Storm Water Drainage MCHI The Maharashtra Chamber of Housing Industry TDA Tourism Development Area TPO Town Planning Officer TDR UDD

Transfer of Development Right Urban Development Department

VIP Very important Person WDZ Waterfront Development Zone


Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 10

1.1. CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................... 10

1.2. PROCESS OF REVISION ............................................................................................................... 11

1.3. FORMATION OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE .......................................................................... 12

1.4. APPOINTMENT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ...................................................................... 14

2. PRE-HEARING PROCESS .................................................................................................................... 16

2.1. CATEGORISATION OF SUGGESTIONS/OBJECTIONS ................................................................... 16

2.2. ANALYSIS OF SUGGESTIONS/OBJECTIONS ................................................................................ 18

2.3. POLICY AID FOR FAIR JUDGEMENT ............................................................................................ 19

3. HEARING PROCESS ........................................................................................................................... 25

3.1. INVITATION TO HEARING .......................................................................................................... 25

3.2. HEARING SCHEDULE .................................................................................................................. 27

3.3. METHODOLOGY DURING HEARING ........................................................................................... 27

3.4. HEARING TURNOUT ................................................................................................................... 30

4. POST HEARING ................................................................................................................................. 32

4.1. PLANNING AREA ........................................................................................................................ 32

4.2. DESIGNATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 33

4.3. ROADS ........................................................................................................................................ 35

4.4. AMENITY STANDARDS ............................................................................................................... 38

4.5. PUBLIC OPEN SPACES ................................................................................................................ 38

4.6. AFFORDABLE/SOCIAL HOUSING ................................................................................................ 40

4.7. EQUITY ....................................................................................................................................... 42

4.8. GAOTHAN / KOLIWADA / ADIVASIPADA SETTLEMENTS WITHIN MUMBAI LIMIT .................... 42

4.9. RELIGIOUS STRUCTURES ............................................................................................................ 43

4.10. ZONING ................................................................................................................................... 44

4.11. LEGENDS ................................................................................................................................. 46

4.12. RESERVATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 48

4.13. MUMBAI PORT TRUST ............................................................................................................ 49

4.14. AAREY COLONY ....................................................................................................................... 51

4.15. OTHER ISSUES ......................................................................................................................... 52

4.15.1 Resettlement and Rehabilitation Reservation .............................................................. 52

4.15.2 Disaster Management Plan ........................................................................................... 53

4.15.3 M Ward ......................................................................................................................... 53


4.15.4 Cafeteria Approach to Slum Redevelopment ............................................................... 54

5. DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CONTROL & PROMOTION REGULATIONS (DCPR) ....................................... 55

5.1. DCPR AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE ................................................................................................ 55

5.2. OBJECTIVES OF DCPRS ............................................................................................................... 55

5.3. DCPR PROVISIONS ..................................................................................................................... 56

5.3.1 Part I: Administration ...................................................................................................... 56

5.3.2 Part II: Development Permission .................................................................................... 57

5.3.3 Part III: Land Uses and Manner of Development ............................................................ 58

5.3.4 Part IV: Requirement of site and layout ......................................................................... 61

5.3.5 Part V: Floor Space Index ................................................................................................ 62

5.3.6 Part VI: Additional Floor Space Index ............................................................................. 64

5.3.7 Part VII: Land use classification and uses permitted ...................................................... 66

5.3.8 Part VIII: General building requirements ........................................................................ 69

5.3.9 Part IX: Urban Safety Requirements ............................................................................... 70

5.3.10 Part X: Special Provision ................................................................................................ 70

5.3.11 Part XI: Miscellaneous provisions ................................................................................. 71

5.3.12 Part XII: Environmental sustainability ........................................................................... 71

6. OVERVIEW AND CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................... 73

6.1. MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ............................................... 73

6.1.1 Natural Area .................................................................................................................... 73

6.1.2 Special Development Zone (SDZ) – previously known as No Development Zone (NDZ) 74

6.1.3 Affordable/Social Housing (AH) ...................................................................................... 77

6.1.4 Mumbai Port Trust .......................................................................................................... 77

6.1.5 Aarey Colony ................................................................................................................... 78

6.2. AMENITIES ................................................................................................................................. 79

6.2.1 Open Spaces .................................................................................................................... 79

6.2.2 Health .............................................................................................................................. 80

6.2.3 Education ........................................................................................................................ 80

6.2.4 Social Amenities .............................................................................................................. 81

6.2.5 Affordable Housing ......................................................................................................... 81

6.3. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 81


List of Appendices

1. Appendix – I : Schedule of hearing

2. Appendix –II: An alternative approach to Slum Upgradation and

Redevelopment

List of Enclosures

1. Annexure- I : Committee’s recommendations on individual suggestions

and objections

List of Tables

Table 1: Split up of Suggestions and Objections Received ....................................................... 19

Table 2: Hearing Schedule as per Category ............................................................................. 27

Table 3: Summary of Hearing Turnout ..................................................................................... 30

Table 4: The apportionment of land excluding layout road .................................................... 65

Table 5: Revised Natural Areas ................................................................................................ 74

Table 6: Ward wise allocation of SDZ-I and SDZ-II ................................................................... 75

Table 7: Ward wise allocation of RDDP2034 NDZ Area ........................................................... 76

Table 8: New Reservations proposed in SDZ ............................................................................ 76


1. INTRODUCTION

This section describes briefly, the background of the Earlier Draft Development

Plan (EDDP), the process of revision which formed the Revised Draft

Development Plan (RDDP) and the stipulations of M.R.& T.P. Act, 1966 for the

appointment of the Planning Committee.

1.1. CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND

The preparation of a Development Plan (DP) is a Planning Authority’s statutory

obligation. The first Development Plan for Bombay was sanctioned in 1967.

The second DP of the city, known as DP 1991 was sanctioned in parts from

1991 to 1994. DP 2034 is the third Development Plan for Greater Mumbai.

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) followed the statutory

steps stipulated in the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (M.R.

&T.P.)Act 1966 in preparing the Development Plan. The Corporation by its

Resolution No. 767 dated 20.10.08 accorded sanction to declare the intention

of revision of the Development Plan by following the process as laid down

under Section 23 of the MR&TP Act. The preparation of a GIS base map of

Greater Mumbai was taken up first. This provided the foundation for the

preparation of Existing Land Use Plan (ELU) that was published on 12th of Dec

2012. Subsequent to the ELU, the Proposed Land Use Plan (PLU) was prepared

as directed under Sec 22 of the MR&TP Act. The DP was to ‘generally indicate

the manner in which the use of Development of land in the area of a Planning

Authority shall be regulated, and also indicate the manner in which the

development of land therein shall be carried out’. This was preceded by an

assessment of the existing status through the use of base map and the ELU

2012. These preparations led to the allocation of space in order to bridge the

amenity gaps of the city as far as possible.

After due process, the Earlier Draft DP 2034 was published as provided u/s

26(1) of the MR&TP Act 1966 on 25.02.2015 in the Government Gazette and in

local newspapers. Thereafter, Government of Maharashtra (GoM) appointed a

Committee under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary, GoM to submit a


report on the published Draft DP 2034. Subsequent to the submission of report

by the Committee, GoM by its order of 23 April 2015 u/s 154 of the MR&TP

ACT 1966 issued directions to the effect that the published Draft DP 2034 be

revised and republished in a period of four months. The order also stated that

the revision should undertake correction of errors as well as an examination of

planning and legal matters and consequent refurbishment that may be

necessary. This period was further extended up to 22 Feb 2016 and thereafter

up to 31 May 2016 by when it was revised and republished.

1.2. PROCESS OF REVISION

Sec 38 of Maharashtra Regional &Town Planning Act 1966 empowers the

Planning Authority, to ‘revise the Development plan, either wholly, or the parts

separately after carrying out, if necessary, fresh survey and preparing an

existing land use map of the area within its jurisdiction’. The process of DP

revision began with a series of interactions with groups of citizens and officials.

This was with a view to get a proper appreciation of the multiple perceptions

and concerns with regard to EDDP and the formulation of a strategy to address

those perceptions and concerns. The revision process adopted the

administrative ward of the city as the primary planning area.

A team of urban planners were brought in to assist the ward staff to provide

field support to city level decision makers. As a revision strategy, the SRDP

1991 was adopted as the reference point for a comparative view on several

aspects of the revision. To eliminate the errors with regard to Designations in

the EDDP, about 10,000 designations were physically verified by the Urban

Planners and Ward engineers at the ward level and the rectified list was

displayed on the web portal for further public inputs. Final decisions for

Designation corrections were based on public observation, site verification and

in-house examination. Regarding Roads and Reservations, policies were

framed which were followed for a common decision of

retaining/deletion/change. Even though the 65,000 suggestions and objections

of the EDDP were marked infructuous, once subject to fresh revision and

republication, the team took effort to go through them and to correct the

genuine mistakes. The RDDP reverted to the norms that were stipulated in

SRDP 1991 and attempt was also made to improve the benchmark, wherever


possible, even though all norms had not been achieved. In the Legends, few

were deleted to avoid confusion that crept in due to clubbing of activities

under a single legend and also few were added to protect equity provisions.

The Revised Draft Development Plan 2034, after following the orders u/s 154

of the said Act was submitted to the Corporation for its sanction for inviting

the suggestions / objections from the public. The Corporation vide its

Resolution No. 307 dated 27.05.2016 accorded sanction as required under the

provisions of Section 26(1) of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act,

1966 for inviting suggestions/objections from the general public on the

provisions of the Draft Development Plan 2034 for Greater Mumbai along with

the draft Development Control Regulations (DCR)

The Suggestions and/or objections were invited from the members of the

public in respect of the said Draft Development Plans of Greater Mumbai

(2034)& Draft Development Control Regulation (2034) as laid down under

Section 26(1) of the said Act till29.7.2016.

1.3. FORMATION OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE

The MR&TP Act stipulates the procedure to deal with the suggestions/

objections that were received during the statutory period of sixty days. It

requires the appointment of the Planning Committee consisting of three

members of the Standing Committee and the not more than four members

appointed by the State Government having special knowledge or practical

experience in the matters related to the town and country planning, for giving

hearing.

As per Section 28(3) of the MR&TP Act, 1966, the Planning Committee, shall on

receipt of objections and suggestions, make such enquiry as it may consider

necessary, and give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to any person

including representatives of Government Departments who may have filed any

objections or made any suggestions in respect of the Draft Development Plan

and after considering the same, the Planning Committee shall submit its report

to the Planning Authority not later than two months from the date of its

appointment subject to extension as provided in the Act.


The relevant provisions of the said Act are reproduced below: -

28. Objections to draft Development plan:- (1) Subject to the provisions of this

Act, if within the time allowed under sub-section (1) of section 26 any person

communicates in writing to the Planning Authority or the said Officer any

suggestions or objection relating to the draft Development plan, the Planning

Authority or the said officer may, after considering the report of the Planning

Committee under sub-section (2) and the suggestions or objections received by

it or him, modify or change the plan in such manner as it or he thinks fit.

(2) The Planning Authority or the said Officer shall forward all objections and

suggestions received by it to a Planning Committee 1[consisting of three

members of the Standing Committee of the Planning Authority and such

additional number of persons, not exceeding four, 2[appointed by the Director

of Town Planning] having special knowledge or practical experience of matters

relating to town and country planning or environment or relating to both] for

consideration and report:

Provided that, where a Planning Authority is not a local authority, the Planning

Committee shall consist of such members as the Planning Authority 3[* * *]

may determine:

4[Provided further that, where the Divisional Joint Director or Deputy Director

of the Town Planning and Valuation Department or an Officer nominated by

him under sub-section (4) of section 21, as the case may be, exercise the

powers and performs the duties of the Planning Authority, then the Planning

Committee may consist of such Divisional Joint Director or Deputy Director or,

as the case may be, of such officer.]

5[6[Provided also that], where the State Government or any person or persons

appointed under section 162, exercise the powers and perform the duties of a

Planning Authority or Development Authority, then the Planning Committee

may consist of the State Government or the person so appointed:]

1[Provided also that, the Planning Committee contemplated in the preceding

provisions shall also consist of such additional number of persons, not

exceeding four, appointed by 2[the Director of Town Planning] having special


knowledge or practical experience of matters relating to town and country

planning or environment or relating to both].

(3) The Planning Committee, 3*** shall, on receipt of objections and

suggestions, make such inquiry as it 4*** may consider necessary, and give a

reasonable opportunity of being heard to any person including representatives

of Government departments who may have filed any objections or made any

suggestions in respect of the draft Development plan, and after considering the

same, the Planning Committee shall submit its report to the Planning Authority

or as the case may be, the said Officer 5[ within a period of two months from

the date of its appointment or within such extended period as the Planning

authority may specify]6 *** .

7[(4) Not later than two months, after the receipt of the report of the Planning

Committee, the Planning Authority or the said Officer shall consider the report

including the objections and suggestions received by it or him and make a list of

such modifications or changes and carry out the same in the draft Development

plan, as it or he may consider proper. The Planning authority or the said officer

shall publish, in the Official Gazette and in not less than two local newspapers,

the list of modifications or changes made in the draft Development plan for

information of the public.]

1.4. APPOINTMENT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE

The Director Town Planning, Pune has appointed three members to be

included in the Planning Committee in exercise of the powers conferred upon

him under Section 28(2) of the MR&TP Act, 1966.

The names of the three members are

1. Shri. Gautam Chatterjee ,

IAS

Retired Additional Chief Secretary, GoM

2. Shri. Sudhir Y Ghate Retired Chief Engineer, MCGM

3. Shri. Suresh Surve Retired Dy. Director, Town Planning, GoM


The three names of the Standing Committee members to be included in the

Planning Committee were informed by the Corporation on 15.10.2016.

The names of the three Standing Committee members are

1. Shri. Yeshodhar Phanse Chairman, Standing Committee

2. Smt.Trushna Vishwasrao Leader of House and Member, Standing

Committee

3. Shri.Manoj Kotak Member, Standing Committee


2. PRE-HEARING PROCESS

This section briefly describes the groundwork done by the Planning Committee

on the suggestions and objections received, in terms of their Analysis and

Categorization and the methodology to be followed for hearing them. For a fair

judgment by the Planning Committee members during hearing, uniform Policy

aids were also framed thus creating a strong foundation on which the hearing

could be conducted in a just, fair and transparent manner.

2.1. CATEGORISATION OF SUGGESTIONS/OBJECTIONS

The objections and suggestions from the General Public, Members of

Parliament (MPs), Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs), Corporators,

Institutions, Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) etc. on the Draft

Development Plan 2034, Draft Development Control Regulations 2034 and the

Draft Development Plan Report 2034 which were received during the statutory

period were categorized during the receiving process for ease in handling

during the hearing period. They were broadly categorized as under.

1. Suggestions & Objections on Draft DCR

2. Suggestions & objections of General nature

3. Suggestions & objections on Island City PLU

4. Suggestions & objections on Western Suburbs PLU

5. Suggestions & objections on Eastern Suburbs PLU

These were later stored date wise for easy retrieval and review during the

hearing process.

MCGM, as part of its technological initiative and digital inclusiveness, initiated

an online system for filing suggestions /objections on the Draft Development

Plan and the Draft Development Control Regulations. The link to file the

suggestions/objections, through the online system was put up on the MCGM

web portal during the statutory period. The suggestions and objections were

filed online via that link with a registration process linked to a social network

login or via a new registration. The suggestions and objections thus filed were

retrieved and categorized ward wise along with the attachments. The online

application had a built-in map viewer which enabled one to view the


development plan provisions for the SRDP1991 and RDDP2034 as well. The

user could zoom in to plot level or at an area level. The layers of the maps then

could be put on or off. This enabled the user to be at the comfort of their

homes or offices to log in and submit their say without having to visit the

MCGM offices. The MCGM received 3300 suggestions and objections via this

online route. Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport (BEST) was one of

the major institutions that used this technology in their on-line submission.

The suggestions and objections received were mostly from individuals and

were on specific plots of which many were repetitions and relating to the same

plot. This repetition through both offline and online portals along with multiple

offline papers put on same plot, revealed a lot of duplication too.

After taking review of this offline and online process it was decided to

segregate the suggestions and objections on PLU of Draft DP ward wise. The

DCR and General issues were then separated from the ward. After going

through all the submissions that were received, through offline and online

channels and within the stipulated time i.e. on or before 29th July 2016 as

prescribed in the Gazette Notification dated 27.05.2016, the same were

categorized.

It was, thereafter, decided by the Planning Committee that the submissions

would require further categorization based on the nature of the applicant, for

ease of conducting hearings. Hence, the applications were further categorized

as follows: -

1. Suggestions & objections Received from MCGM/MCGM Department on

D.P. Plan & DCR were categorized as “MCGM”

2. Suggestions & objections received from Govt./Semi Govt. Department

Organizations, Public Sector undertaking and public service provider on

D.P. Plan and DCR were categorised as “Institutions”

3. Suggestions & objections received on specific issues directly from

MPs/MLAs/Councillors/Ex. M.P.s/Ex. MLAs/Ex. Councillors for D.P., DCR

and other VIPs were categorised as “Very Important Persons”(VIPs)

It was decided that the letters by MPs/MLAs/Councillors/Ex. M.P.s/Ex.

MLAs/Ex. Councillors forwarding suggestions/objections of

individuals/groups/societies on Draft D.P., Draft DCR will be included in

the individual hearings.


4. Suggestions & objections Received from NGO and Civil Society Groups

on DP/DCR were categorised as “NGOs”

5. Suggestions & objections Received from various Institutions/professional

bodies such as MCHI/NARDECO/PEATA/Cinema owner’s

association/property owner & Developers Associates etc. categorised as

“Institutions”

6. Suggestions & objections Received from individuals/co.op.

societies/singly or in bulk on D.P. are categorised as “Individuals”

7. Suggestions and objections received on DCR other than Sr.No.1 to 5

above are categorised as ‘DCR’

8. Suggestions & objections Received from individuals/co.op. societies on

general nature of Draft DP 2034 were categorised as ‘General’

This categorization not only helped in extending systematic invitation to the

various groups of people such as Government bodies, Institutions, VIPs, NGOs,

it also enabled properly organized scheduling of the hearing and avoiding

duplication of cases. Multiple cases were brought together and called for

hearing in groups because the groundwork process of this categorization was

in place.

2.2. ANALYSIS OF SUGGESTIONS/OBJECTIONS

The analysis of the suggestions and objections revealed that around 72482

individuals/organizations/institutions have submitted their say during the

statutory period. These included multiple suggestions and objections on the

same issue where large groups of individuals/organizations/institutions have

given their say. Thus, these kinds of suggestions and objections, around

59,849, which were from groups of people on the same subject, were

considered as one single case for ease of hearing. After this categorization, it

was found that around 13000 issues regarding PLU, General issues and DCR

have been raised. The maximum amount of bulk cases came from the Western

Suburbs, namely 36, 688 out of the total 59,849bulk cases. There was a case

where on a particular Cadastral Transverse Survey (CTS) number, 3000

suggestions and objections were raised. There were around 1000 suggestions

and objections on the Proposed Coastal Road, around 400 from the Koli

Community, more than 13,000 from Church groups and bulks of 2000 from


Slum pockets in ‘S’ ward. These bulk cases, mostly represented by

NGOs/Institutions were heard along with the NGO/Institution hearing schedule

wherein the concerned NGOs/Institutions were requested that preferably 5

representatives may appear for the hearing before the Planning Committee,

for ease of communication and understanding of the case. In some cases much

more than 5 representatives attended the hearing, but the Planning

Committee did attend to all of them.

Table 1: Split up of Suggestions and Objections Received

City 1613

Western Suburbs 4612

Eastern Suburbs 2316 General 194

DCR 881 Total Offline 9616

Online 3300 TOTAL Offline + Online 12916

Bulk Cases 283

Total Bulk 59849 GRAND TOTAL 72482 ( 59849-283+12916)

2.3. POLICY AID FOR FAIR JUDGEMENT

The initial categorization of the suggestions and objections, before beginning

the process of hearing, helped the Planning Committee in proceeding with the

hearing process effectively. The interaction that happened with the people

during the process of hearing brought out new dimensions to the nature of

suggestions and objections raised by the people. The issues raised were

concerning reservations, designations, roads, zones, DCR modifications, slum

rehabilitation etc. The pre-hearing aid, firmed up after thorough study of the

suggestions and objections, enabled the Planning Committee to formulate

standard and uniform policies to deal with the issues raised by the people.

Since each submission was unique as it affected the individual/ organization

differently, it was a major challenge for the Planning Committee to determine

uniform policies to tackle the issues raised, with the help of a standard set of

rules.


Some of the issues, raised during the process of hearing, which were not

strictly falling in the above standard categorization, were deliberated later in

the day, after the hearing got over, and a consensus was arrived at keeping in

view equity and also the City’s development requirement over the next 20

years. In very few cases, where a partial deletion or change of reservation was

agreed to, it was only when more than 70%, sometimes the entire land,

belonging to the applicant/institution had been reserved or in some cases the

proposed user was not compatible to the existing use of lands. Like, in some

cases, land for Homeless Shelter was proposed within an Educational Complex,

prompting the Planning Committee to change the user of the land, compatible

to the surrounding use.

The analysis of the suggestions and objections revealed that they could be put

in the following broad categories: -

1. Deletion of the reservation

2. Change in the category of the reservation

3. Shifting the reservation

4. Change in the user of the designation

5. Deletion of the designation, as it is no longer in use

6. Change in the alignment of the DP road/ existing road / layout road

7. Deletion of or proposed widening of a road

8. Granting access to a landlocked property

9. Change in the zone

10. Change in Cadastral Survey (CS) /CTS number / CS /CTS boundary, H.T.

Lines etc.

11. City level issues viz. designating Aarey as Green Zone, Affordable

Housing, Coastal Road, Religious places, Marking boundaries of

Gaothan/Koliwada

12. Marking/Indicating the names of religious structures, on DP sheet.

Thus, standard policies were framed to address the suggestions and

objections, which are spelt out, category-wise, in the following sections.

2.3.1 Reservation

A maximum number of suggestions and objections were received relating to

imposing reservation/s on the plots. A maximum number of individuals who


filed the say were concerned about the reservation on their lands. Even the

Collector of both City and Suburbs raised concerns on reserving their lands.

This thought was echoed by several Govt. organizations too viz. Hindustan

Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited

(BPCL), Railways, Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) & BEST etc.

The reservation on one’s land is a matter of concern to an individual and even

to an institution. So much is the negativity towards the reservations, that it

was a major contributor in the bulk of suggestions and objections. The majority

of the suggestions and objections on the reservations were for deletion even

though the DCR gives more FSI for the lands which are reserved than the lands

which are not reserved for any purpose. In order to have a uniform basis for

decision making and recommendation, the following policy was formulated.

a. A reservation which was in Sanctioned Revised Development Plan (SRDP)

1991 can be relocated/changed/deleted from the Revised Draft

Development Plan (RDDP) 2034 only if,

1. There is an order of Government of Maharashtra for

deletion/lapsing/change of the said reservation.

2. There is a court order for deletion/change on the said reservation

3. If an approval for relocation of reservation in SRDP 1991 is granted by

competent authority

b. A reservation which was in Sanctioned Revised Development Plan (SRDP)

1991 cannot be deleted from the Revised Draft Development Plan

(RDDP) 2034 if,

1. There is an acquisition by the Competent Authority

Otherwise, any reservation which is not part of SRDP 1991 can be deleted only

if there is a valid IOD/CC on the said plot. If there is an approved relocation of

the reservation, then the reservation proposed in RDDP can be relocated as

per the approval of the competent authority. It was also decided that in

majority of the cases SRDP 1991 reservations are not to be changed from their

original reservation type. Also, if a purchase notice is served and the

reservation stands lapsed, no new reservation should be added on that plot. In

general, if any new reservations were proposed on vacant lands they would be

as per requirement at the ward level.


2.3.2 Designation

As per the DCR the designations are defined as “Designation” means a public

amenity provided or aided by an Appropriate Authority on a parcel of land. The

analysis of the submissions revealed that the suggestions and objections on

the matter of designations were based on the conflict of the site uses and the

PLU use, request for not showing their amenities as designations or for

deletion of the designation. Hence, in order to have a common basis for

decision making and recommendation, the following policy was formulated.

A designation which was included in SRDP 1991 can be relocated/deleted in

RDDP 2034 only if,

1. There is a GoM order for deletion/change on the said designation

2. If there is an existing use on site other than what is shown in RDDP

3. If there is change in location of designation, within plot.

2.3.3 DP Roads / Existing Roads / Layout Roads

The objections that were received on the proposals of the Draft DP 2034 were

mainly in the following categories.

1. Not to show / change the alignment of the DP road

2. Show layout road /delete layout road

3. Provide access to landlocked properties.

4. Propose widening for the existing roads in the RDDP2034 as the width is

not adequate considering future traffic demand / delete widening to the

existing roads.

5. Provide new D.P. roads.

The following course of action was finalized, to deal with objections and

suggestions relating to roads.

1. A DP road which was there in SRDP 1991 can be deleted/realigned only

if, there is a Government of Maharashtra Order for deletion/realignment

on the said DP Road or it is realigned/deleted considering the feasibility

and its implementation.


2. The layout roads will not be reflected in the DP and if any layout roads

shown as existing roads on D.P. sheets, these roads are not subjected to

mechanical acquisition as status remains same.

3. To provide new access to landlocked property in RDDP 2034, a provision

is made in DCR which will cater to the requirement of the access to the

landlocked property.

4. Existing roads on site cannot be removed especially if it is not a layout

road or a road which was shown in SRDP 1991. New roads can be

proposed as per connectivity requirement.

5. The demand to show widening to the existing roads/ propose new DP

road, were accepted in few cases considering the need of the

neighbourhood and the fact that the plan is catering to the requirement

of next twenty years.

2.3.4 Zones

The suggestions and objections for the zones were mainly in the following

categories.

1. Change the zone from Residential/Commercial/Industrial (R/C/I) as per

their demand.

2. Change the No Development Zone (NDZ) to R/C

3. Change the Natural area to R/C or the land is not qualified as Natural

Area.

It was decided that the Zone shall be changed only if Industrial to Residential /

Commercial has been issued but not shown on DP sheet / if the DAM

(Designated Amenity Plot) or RAM (Reserved Amenity Plot) is shown on the

RDDP construing that the change of user is permitted earlier.

2.3.5 Other Categories

The analysis of the submissions also revealed wrongly shown CTS boundary/

Number, incorrect CS/CTS boundaries, correction in alignment of High Tide

Line (HTL), High Tension Line, Buffer to the nalla/river, buffer to Railway, Buffer

to Highway etc.


The RDDP 2034 had decided to display property numbers as per revenue

record, on the PLU map, in order to help citizens to locate the revenue record

of their property with ease. However, over the period of time many of the

properties were amalgamated/ subdivided. The amalgamation / subdivision of

the property is carried out by the Revenue authorities and the changed status

of records, with regard to the boundaries or numbers are not readily available,

in their updated form, with the MCGM. Hence, the Planning Committee

decided to change the CTS boundary/ Number, CS/CTS boundaries as per the

revenue records, which were made available at the time of hearing.

The High Tide line depicted in RDP2034 is as per the Coastal Zone Management

Plan (CZMP) approved by Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate

Change (MoEFCC) in the year 2000. Subsequent to the MoEFCC notification

issued in the year 2011 it was explained to the people that the correction in

High Tide line will be carried out after its approval by MoEFCC.

Similarly, suggestions and objections were made regarding wrong depiction of

the Railway buffer, Highway buffer. It was decided that Highway Buffer will be

marked on the DP sheet and the NOC (No Objection Certificate) /Remarks for

the plot falling within the highway buffer will be insisted considering the future

development and growth of the highway. The decision was taken to correct

the buffer for the Railways and it was decided that the modified railway buffer

of 30m will be shown from the railway track boundary on all the Draft DP

sheets.

As regards nalla, a decision was taken that final remarks from Storm Water

Drainage (SWD) department will prevail and a nalla and its buffer alignment

will stand modified accordingly. As regards High Tension Power lines, a

decision was taken that the remarks of respective power company will prevail.


3. HEARING PROCESS

This section describes briefly about the methodology that was adopted by the

Planning Committee to carry out the Hearing process, right from sending

invitation, to conducting hearing smoothly. This section also lists out the

turnout which the Planning Committee received for hearing.

3.1. INVITATION TO HEARING

The MR&TP Act 1966 provides that the Planning Committee on receipt of

suggestions and objections, make such inquiry as it may consider necessary,

and give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to any person including

representatives of Government departments who may have filed any

objections or made any suggestions in respect of the draft Development plan,

and after considering the same, the Planning Committee shall submit its report

to the Planning Authority

Considering the aforesaid provision, a methodology for granting the hearing

and its mode of communication was adopted. It was decided that for MCGM,

Government, Semi Government Departments/Organizations/Public Sector

undertakings and public service providers, M.P, MLA, Corporators, Ex.M.P., Ex.

Corporators, Ex. Civil Servant and renowned persons in the field of their

excellence, Institutions and NGOs will be informed in writing via

emails/courier/telephone.

It was decided that, the individuals/societies/group of persons representing

their issues (suggestions/objections) and who wish to be heard in person, may

present themselves before the Planning Committee on the scheduled dates of

respective ward hearings. After these decisions of hearing format and schedule

were finalized, the format for the letters to be issued to various organizations,

NGOs, VIPs and the notice to be issued in News Papers and on MCGM web

portal for hearing to be issued to the general Public was structured and

thereafter the letters and notices were issued under the signature of the Town

Planning Officer.

The schedule for hearing and time allocated for each hearing was finalized by

considering the number of issues raised by the


organizations/institutions/VIPs/NGOs etc. The time slot was accordingly

allocated for each organizations/institutions/VIPs/NGOs etc.

The MCGM, Government, Semi-Government

Departments/Organizations/Public Sector undertakings and public service

providers, VIPs, who had already attended the special hearing scheduled for

them, were requested not to attend the hearing again on the dates allotted for

individual hearing for the respective wards, which were fixed on subsequent

days. For the Institutions and NGOs who were also called for separate hearing,

it was requested to nominate their representatives not exceeding 5 in numbers

to represent their case before the Planning Committee.

For individual hearing, the dates for hearing on suggestions/objections in

person (for D.P./DCR/General as categorized) was published twice in around 30

local English, Marathi, Gujarati, Hindi Newspapers and the schedule was

uploaded on the website of MCGM. The notice for individual hearing, printed

on the flex banner, was displayed at prominent places in MCGM head office

entrances and in all 24 Ward offices so as to give wide publicity.

In cases where the bulk suggestions were received on a single issue as

discussed in Section 2.2, it was requested to nominate their representatives

not exceeding 5 in numbers to represent their case before the Planning

Committee. The suggestions/objections from general public on DCR, on

general issues, on Island city, Western Suburbs, Eastern Suburbs were heard

separately. The issues raised by the general public which were not

related/relevant to DP/DCR and not within the ambit of the Planning

Committee were forwarded to respective Departments of MCGM. The

persons/groups, intending to attend the hearing, were asked to bring along

with them, at the time of hearing, copy of suggestions/objections submitted by

them, duly acknowledged by MCGM or the receipt generated on online

submission.


3.2. HEARING SCHEDULE

Table 2: Hearing Schedule as per Category

Sr.No. Description Period

1 Government From 17.10.2016to 21.10.2016

2 VIPS 25.10.2016, 26.10.2016 & 05.11.2016

3 Institutions 03.11.2016 and 04.11.2016

4 NGOs From 07.11.2016 to 10.11.2016

5 Individual (inclusive of General and DCR)

From 11.11.2016 to 15.12.2016

The detailed schedule is as per Annexure -II

3.3. METHODOLOGY DURING HEARING

3.3.1 Logistics

The suggestions and objections received during the stipulated time period as

prescribed in the M.R. &T.P. Act 1966 were heard as per the categorization

explained in the preceding section of the report. It was decided that the place

for the hearing must be convenient to the general public and should be easily

accessible by multiple modes of transport. Moreover, it was felt that enormous

administrative support mechanism from the MCGM departments would be

necessary. The members of the Standing Committee felt that they would also

be available for discharging their duties towards the Standing Committee. After

prolonged deliberations, it was decided to opt for the Municipal Head Office as

a convenient choice for giving hearing to the general public and other

stakeholders as the place is known to the general public and convenient to

everyone. The Old Building of the Head Office has undergone considerable

change; it has been restored to its past glory by the Heritage Conservation

Department of MCGM. The ground floor of the building was selected for the

hearing considering its accessibility and the suitability for the elderly as well as

differently-abled people.


The place for hearing at the ground floor consisted of three small halls and two

sufficiently large halls which could occupy around 200 persons. The three small

rooms were selected for support staff. All the places were air conditioned with

adequate lighting arrangements. Sufficient seating arrangements were also

made available for people who had to wait before attending the hearing. The

arrangement for individual hearing was separate and very elaborate. Since the

public had to travel up to Chhatrapathi Shivaji Maharaj Terminus (CST) from

various locations in City and Suburbs a large hall was kept reserved for the

public to sit comfortably with arrangements for drinking water and public

conveniences. Suitable directional boards were displayed, which served as a

convenient guide to the visitors.

3.3.2 Procedure

The procedure followed for the Departments/Institution/VIP/NGO hearing was

different from the procedure adopted for individual hearing. In case of the

Departments/Institution/VIP/NGO, a time slot was allotted for each

Departments/Institution/VIP/NGO depending upon the number of suggestions

and objections filed. The hearing for the VIPs viz. MPs, MLAs, Corporators was

scheduled with prior intimation to them. Some of the VIPs requested the

Planning Committee for allotting different time and slot as they had prior

engagements on the scheduled dates. As per the request of these VIPs, a

separate time slot, mutually convenient, was allotted.

Similar issues raised by different institutions were grouped together e.g. the

suggestions and objections on the Draft Development Control Regulations

2034 raised by institutions viz. Practicing Engineers, Architects and Town

Planners Association (PEATA), The Maharashtra Chamber of Housing Industry –

Confederation of Real Estate Developers’ Association of India (MCHI – CREDAI),

National Real Estate Development (NARDECO) Property Redeveloper’s

Association etc. were grouped together and the hearing was slated for one

whole day from 10.30 am onwards. This hearing went on up to 8.30 pm, as

many common issues were deliberated at length. Similarly, issues raised by the

Power Utilities companies were heard at a joint hearing. The issues related to

the marking of religious places for the Christian community was discussed with

the representative of Archbishop of Bombay along with the several


representatives of the various churches across Mumbai. The same principle

was adopted while dealing with issues related to gender or issues specific to

M/East ward, which were heard together with several representatives of the

NGOs working for these causes.

The process for the Individual hearing was planned out in detail where the

public, after reaching, had to go first to a registration desk and show the

acknowledgement copy or the online acknowledgement for easy retrieval of

their application submitted. They were allotted a token number on a first come

first served basis. After registration, they proceeded towards a waiting hall

where the serial number of the gist, which was prepared for the use of the

members of the Planning Committee, was written down on their token for

ease of identification of their suggestion and objection. As per their token

number, the people moved towards the hearing hall where the members of

the Planning Committee heard them in person.

The hearing was conducted in a very open and transparent manner. The

hearing was conducted with the applicants sitting in front of the Planning

Committee members and at the same time those who were waiting for their

next slot, were seated in the same room waiting for their turn. Generally, most

of the recommendations of the Planning Committee be it acceptance or

rejections were conveyed by the Planning Committee to the public at the time

of hearing and in front of the people waiting for their turn, if the subject

matter fell in the broad category of policy already decided by the Planning

Committee. Sometimes, where issues did not clearly fall under a specific

category, concerns raised were noted and decisions were taken later after

deliberation by the Planning Committee members, after hearing was over. The

Planning Committee at various instances asked the Planners to verify the site

conditions and site situation along with the applicant. These site visits were

then conducted by the Planners of Ward along with the representative of the

applicants, as far as possible on the following day, and the report of the site

visit was conveyed to the Planning Committee. The Planning Committee

thereafter finalized their recommendations. In some cases, recommendation

that were conveyed during the hearing required to be revisited by the

members, along with fresh facts and documents and after reviewing the cases

the recommendations were then firmed up. The hearing was scheduled up to


5.30 pm with the registration time up to 3.30 pm, however the individuals who

came and registered after 3.30pm were also not denied hearing. The

individuals who could not attend the ward wise hearing on the scheduled

dates, attended hearing on the last date i.e. on 15.12.2016 which was a day

when all the general matters raised at city level were heard. Submissions, for

which the concerned applicants did not attend hearing on the scheduled dates,

were decided on the merits of the cases.

3.4. HEARING TURNOUT

The hearing on the suggestions and objections was conducted in a transparent

manner as described in the preceding sections. The public response to the

hearing was good and it was seen that the people, sometimes, arrived for

registration early in the morning. The systems that were put in place ensured

that people didn’t have to wait long for their turn. The hearing was attended in

most of the cases by the primary applicant or otherwise by the applicant

accompanied by his/her Architect. In some cases, large groups of people

attended the hearing on common issues viz. reservation on slums, reservation

on cessed building, conversion of NDZ to R/C zone, non-marking of Religious

places in PLU.

Table 3: Summary of Hearing Turnout

Category/ Ward Total no. of Cases

No. of Cases Appeared for

Hearing

% of Cases Appeared

for Hearing

No. of People Appeared for

Hearing

MCGM 26 25 96.15 38 Government 194 184 94.85 169

VIP 373 286 76.68 196 Institution 182 181 99.45 150

NGO 67 65 97.01 166

DCR 1392 110 7.90 109 A ward 84 25 29.76 50

B ward 26 3 11.54 5 C ward 103 32 31.07 89

D ward 269 84 31.23 169

E ward 258 97 37.60 184 F/N ward 263 77 29.28 206


Category/ Ward Total no. of Cases

No. of Cases Appeared for

Hearing

% of Cases Appeared

for Hearing

No. of People Appeared for

Hearing

F/S ward 221 67 30.32 134

G/N ward 186 73 39.25 144 G/S ward 316 119 37.66 301

H/E ward 547 95 17.37 180 H/W ward 432 171 39.58 330

K/E ward 691 238 34.44 545 K/W ward 1021 261 25.56 599

P/N ward 848 286 33.73 576

P/S ward 499 154 30.86 317 R/N ward 497 192 38.63 320

R/C ward 512 158 30.86 331 R/S ward 416 166 39.90 333

L ward 587 175 29.81 377

M/E ward 297 108 36.36 329 M/W ward 491 119 24.24 288

N ward 319 119 37.30 191 S ward 1148 239 20.82 488

T ward 348 135 38.79 284 General Cases 302 140 46.36 289

TOTAL 12915 4184 32.40 7887

Note: - In column ‘cases appeared for’ the individual case/subject were

counted, though some cases reflect more than one objection from different

persons, these cases were treated as different case. However bulk cases were

considered as one objection only.


4. POST HEARING

Post hearing, the Planning Committee took out time to analyze the suggestions

and objections that were heard during the hearing and major issues that arose

from that analysis has been brought out in this section including the decisions

that were taken by the Planning Committee.

4.1. PLANNING AREA

The total land of Greater Mumbai identified in Earlier Draft Development Plan

2034 (EDDP) was 458.28 sq km. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

(MCGM), however, was the Planning Authority of a much lesser area since

about 9.43% of the cited area fell under the jurisdiction of Special Planning

Authorities (SPA). Three such SPAs exist in Greater Mumbai – MMRDA

(Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority), SRA (Slum

Rehabilitation Authority) and MIDC (Maharashtra Industrial Development

Corporation). The EDDP therefore, prepared a Development Plan for 415.05 sq.

km.

Meanwhile, ELU 2012 located the emergence of an additional area of 14.96 sq.

km, full of mangroves, in Thane creek, probably due to siltation. This area is

outside the current MCGM limits. It is proposed, however, In the Revised Draft

Development Plan 2034 (RDDP) to merge the said area in the MCGM limit and

shown as Natural Area (NA)

The Coastal Road approved by GoM proposed to add a further area of 1.80 sq.

km through reclamation of the sea. The alignment of this Road is being marked

on the PLU (Proposed Land Use). It is also proposed that any changes in the

alignment of Coastal Road that would get necessitated during implementation

would automatically become part of the DP 2034.

Suggestions and objections were received in respect of the area of Mumbai,

disputing the area which is mentioned in the Report on the Draft Development

plan 2014-2034. The main argument was about the increase in the area to 474

sq.km. After discussion, it was noticed that the area arrived for MCGM by

RDDP2034 is correct and therefore, the Planning Committee decided that

there was no need to recalculate or re-determine the area of Mumbai.


The other major suggestions and objections were of non-inclusion of areas

under other SPAs into MCGM fold. It is felt that in a Mega City like Mumbai,

the Planning and provision of infrastructure should be handled by one single

agency like MCGM which will help in having cohesive planning and its proper

implementation. But this being out of the purview of the Planning Committee,

no recommendation is being made in this regard.

4.2. DESIGNATIONS

The Report on the Draft Development Plan 2034 mentions that, Designations

were reservations in the earlier DPs and have since fructified in terms of the

provision of specified public amenities. Hence, all reservations of the earlier

DPs that already stand developed would continue to be termed as designations

in the subsequent DPs. Such designations will continue till such time that they

exist, unless altered or rescinded by an order of the Competent Authority.

Reservations of the past DPs that have not been developed would continue to

be termed as reservations in the subsequent DPs for those specific public

amenities, unless altered or rescinded by the Competent Authority. A public

amenity privately provided is a designation if it involves specific

concession/concessions granted by a public authority, such as land, or

monetary grant, or additional Floor Space Index (FSI) for the provision of a

distinct public amenity. Public amenities privately provided, of free volition,

without DP stipulation and without any concession granted by a public

authority for the provision of such public amenities are not designations and

will not be marked on PLU as designations. However, since the private party

has provided them for public use, they would be taken into consideration in

the computation of overall public amenities in the city.

The notion about Designations carried in people’s mind was that once their

lands were designated for a particular amenity, they felt that this would be a

burden and even if there is no demand for such facility they would have to

continue that facility forever. The Planning Committee helped in taking out this

fear from the people by adding new clause in DCR which allows for

redevelopment of the designated lands and also authorizes Municipal

Commissioner to correct the land use of the designated land or change the

designation considering the deficiency in the ward.


The MPs, MLAs and Corporators were demanding to depict all existing Schools

as designations in the Draft DP 2034. The suggestions and objections received

from the general public also requested inclusion of their educational premises

in the Draft DP. Their contention was that these schools though constructed

contrary to the provisions of SRDP1991 are imparting educations to students

and moreover many of these schools are constructed on private unreserved

lands after obtaining approval of the Corporation or concerned Competent

Authority. Some of these schools were shown in ELU 2012 and in the Earlier

Draft DP 2034 published in the year 2015. Some of these schools were

excluded from the RDDP2034 as they were not developed on lands which were

reserved or designated in SRDP1991. Since these schools were recognized by

SSC/CBSE/ICSE boards, the Planning Committee decided to accept the demand

and decided to show the existing schools which were part of the Earlier Draft

Development Plan 2034. A specific clause in DCPR is included for the

verification of authenticity of the structure to determine their status.

The submissions made by the Oil companies towards the PLU were for either

inclusion of Fuel Stations which were not part of SRDP1991 and for deletion of

Fuel Stations which were not being used for the filling of fuel. Thus, the

decision to include or exclude these Fuel Stations was based on GoM order

which states that the Fuel stations existing on site after 2008 cannot be

deleted from DP or its use cannot be changed. Similarly, the Electric Utility

Companies were demanding to show their existing amenities in DP so that they

would find permanent place in the DP. It was contended that the electric

companies can purchase the lands for setting up their utilities from the open

market.

The Cinema Owners Association pleaded that in the era of multiplexes, single

screen cinema had lost the charm and fallen out of favour of the cine goers.

They further contended that since their use is marked as Cinema designation in

the PLU, they cannot exploit the market value of their lands. This matter was

deliberated in detail in the Planning Committee and it was decided that the

City should not lose the entertainment opportunity but in order to give a level

playing field to the Cinema Owners, a method based on DCR would be


formulated. Thus, the Planning Committee has recommended suitable

modifications in the relevant clauses of DCR.

A problem that continued to cause public concern, in spite of clearly stating

the same in the report on RDDP 2034, was in regard to plots where part of the

use was private and part public where, say a private residential complex on a

plot also had a public parking facility. These were marked with the letters ‘pt’

denoting ‘part’. This was meant to clarify that there was something else on the

plot that the whole plot was not designated. This matter was further explained

and clarified in the course of hearings.

The Planning Committee adopted the following principles with regard to

Designation:

Fuel station designation/cinema theatre designation to be shown except

where court order is issued to the contrary

Designating all Schools which have been shown in EDDP, and also

designate the cemeteries which are in records of Executive Health

Officer.

Power given to Commissioner to suitably modify land use of

designations which are not required.

Layout RG/Private Gardens have been shown in DP sheet in text only.

They do not qualify as designation as they are for exclusive use of

residents of layout. Similarly, designated garden under ownership of

Educations Institutions/Trust/Museum and in the exclusive possession

have been qualified in DCR accordingly. Annexure has captured all

existing layout RG/Private Garden so that they are available in the public

domain, to obviate any misuse of the same.

4.3. ROADS

The RDDP 2034 report clears the stand taken while depicting the proposed

roads and existing roads in the RDDP2034. It states that the EDDP 2034 had

shown the following categories of roads on DP sheets:

a. Newly proposed DP roads not in existence earlier

b. 1991 DP roads not developed till date and hence shown as proposed DP

roads


c. Widening of existing developed roads

d. New Public Streets created u/s 291 of the Mumbai Municipal

Corporation (MMC) Act 1888

e. Sanctioned Regular Line of Existing Streets u/s 297 (1) of the MMC Act

1888

Of the above, (a), (b) and (c) are proposals under the M.R. &T.P. Act 1966 while

(d) and (e) are streets done under MMC Act 1888 after following due process

under that Act. The RDDP, after a detailed road review has proposed that the

roads mentioned at d & e above that were initiated under the MMC Act 1888

and had already reached statutory finality under that Act did not require to be

subjected to another round of suggestions and objections and a reopening of

their scrutiny under the MR&TP Act 1966. It was therefore, proposed that

these roads need not be shown on the DP sheets but a list of such roads be

appended to the DP (Appendix 1, RDDP Appendices) on MCGM Web Portal for

information and with the clear observation that they are not subject to

suggestions and objections since due process of law has been completed under

the MMC Act 1888.

The widening of existing roads, the third category of roads, had been entirely

abandoned in RDDP 2034, except those shown in SRDP 1991. They did not

seem to be backed by any scientific study. Moreover, it was felt that

widespread hardships would be caused to occupants of existing structures that

would have to be pulled down.

Hence, after consideration, the following roads have been shown on the

revised Draft DP sheets:

i. Newly proposed DP roads not in existence earlier,

ii. SRDP1991 DP roads not developed till date and hence shown as

proposed DP roads

iii. SRDP1991 DP roads partly developed and hence shown as existing roads

with widening as per SRDP1991 road width, and

iv. Road widening to certain roads is proposed which are very important

from connectivity point of view.

v. New DP roads proposed in NDZ and salt pan lands for better connectivity

and integrated development.


The submissions regarding DP roads / Layout roads / Road widening were dealt

with accordingly. The MCGM has recently completed Comprehensive Mobility

Plan for Greater Mumbai. This plan has recommended inclusion of new roads

for better connectivity, widening of the roads for better traffic management

and proposals of new bridges/underpass etc. The RDDP2034 had deleted some

of the DP roads of EDDP based on their non-feasibility and the site survey. The

list of the deleted roads was published on MCGM web portal after receiving

comments from the public. It was therefore felt that the proposals of the

Comprehensive Mobility Plan (CMP) for the inclusion of new roads in the Draft

DP would not be appropriate at this stage as the DP road had gone through

previous rounds of scrutiny. Hence, the CMP proposal of inclusion of the new

roads was not considered. It was felt that Mumbai city requires widened roads

for better movement of traffic and effective utilization of the carriageway.

The need for the widening of the roads was felt and hence it was decided that

not all but few road widening on important linkages would be shown on PLU

and after hearing the public, some new DP roads were proposed as per the

EDDP alignment.

Coastal Road

Some NGOs, Residents Associations and Fishermen Communities had come

forward with their objections to the construction of the Coastal Road. Among

the many arguments that were raised, the core issue was that the Proposed

Coastal Road would destroy the community spaces used by the fishermen

community along the coast and the city’s aim to promote tourism, leisure and

entertainment would displace the original inhabitants of the city. Another

argument was that it would affect the fragile ecological setting of the city by

disturbing the coastline features which includes beaches, estuaries, mudflats,

mangroves. Objections also arose on not bringing in any toll on the road and

creating a taxation free road space on public money for selected few who own

cars to use. They were questioning as to why private transport is not made

costly by introducing pricing and diverting those revenues towards improving

and augmenting public transport. Mumbai’s eagerness to build infrastructure

that encourages private transport was discouraged by many applicants in a city

where 78% of non-walking trips rely on public transport systems. After patient


hearing to these objections, the Planning Committee decided to retain the

alignment of Coastal Road as it would be an important augmentation in the

transport infrastructure of the city. However, out of two proposed alignments

proposed in the RDDP, only one alignment which has now been finalized by

MCGM is retained and the other alignment is deleted.

4.4. AMENITY STANDARDS

The MR&TP Act, 1966 lists a large number of amenities that could be provided

in the DP. They include those for education, health, social welfare, markets,

culture, open spaces, sports, nature, transport, communication and public

buildings. DP 1991 had adopted differential planning standards for the Island

City and the Suburbs, prescribing a specific area or number for a specified

population.

The amenities considered by RDDP for provision and the legends and standards

adopted for them were not changed. The land demand for amenities has been

calculated on the basis of per capita benchmarks and the population projected

by draft RP, which is 12.79million.

Due care has been taken for not lowering the amenity standards while

considering the recommendations by the Committee. The effect of the

recommendations on the area of the amenities has been broadly calculated

and separately mentioned in Section 6.2

4.5. PUBLIC OPEN SPACES

The RDDP 2034 had proposed to describe Public Open Spaces (POS) as those

open spaces (OS) where there is right to access and any restrictions imposed

are universally applicable. Open spaces that are available to all members of a

local community, such as residents of a housing society, are local community

spaces. So are clubs, gymkhanas and swimming pools that are available on

membership or fee basis. However, since a sizeable number of citizens enjoy

such spaces, the RDDP has treated them as Public Open Spaces.

The above means that all lands zoned as Natural Areas fall into the realm of

Open Spaces. However, if they are not accessible to a sizeable number of

people, they are not POS. Additionally, such open spaces that are exclusive to a


family, as in a private bungalow are private open spaces, and not POS. The

RDDP had proposed over a period of time to attempt the meaningful

conversion of certain OS into POS so that the citizens of the City have larger

accessible areas for enjoyment.

The RDDP 2034 had attempted to list all types of OS and POS. This is with a

view to afford a comprehensive idea of the magnitude of open space the City

possesses. It also allows a better watch on open spaces and a realistic

benchmark for future comparisons. POS play a critical role in a city. They serve

the purpose of lungs for the city and impose a much-needed balance between

the built and the open environment. They allow a decent quality of life for

citizens who could spend time away from home, either for exercise or for

recreation, or for interacting with nature. Playgrounds are equally vital,

especially for children, for both physical and mental growth or for youthful

energy to be channeled in the rightful direction. POS also promotes the growth

of human qualities such as friendship, sharing of joy, knowledge, sorrow,

because they allow space and opportunities for interaction. They are a great

asset for public health as they allow for safe walking by the elderly, safe play by

children. They also permit public activities, such as debates, discourses and

awareness campaigns.

The analysis of the suggestions and objections revealed that maximum number

of suggestions and objections were for deletion or change in the category of

the reservation of Open Spaces. The Open Space reservation falling on slum

also attracted major share of suggestions and objections from the slum

dwellers. The same was the case for the Open Space reservation on the cessed

category building of the slum.

The deliberation for finalizing the recommendations on the above category

took considerable time and after detailed discussion it was decided to opt the

route of accommodation reservation under development control mechanism

to garner reserved open spaces. The accommodation reservation mechanism

for Open Spaces reservation on slum settlements, thus crystallized, would

ensure that the City will benefit with desirable open spaces and the slum

dwellers will also benefit with in-situ rehabilitation. The regulation thus

formulated will garner 33% land for Open Spaces and 67% land will be made


available for in-situ Slum Rehabilitation. Thus, the calculation of the total land

that will be available as Open Spaces has been worked out by accounting for

such deductions upfront by accounting for 33% only.

The DCR for the cessed building provides for dilution of the reservation based

on the GoM order which states that the lands under the cessed buildings shall

not be subject to any reservations. The DCR provides specific clause for dilution

of the reservation if the lands fall under cessed category. This clause was

included by considering that it was not possible for Planning Committee to

examine each suggestion and objection of cessed building and delete the

reservation.

The DCR for allowing development of plot reserved for open spaces/ play

grounds etc. also provides the owner to develop 30% land by surrendering

about 70% land for development of O.S./ PGs of total OS available.

4.6. AFFORDABLE/SOCIAL HOUSING

The RDDP had proposed the concept of Affordable Housing (AH) to

complement the efforts of Government of India (GoI) and GoM in the area of

Housing for All. The RDDP’s AH scheme proposed to take the cost of land out

of the Affordable Housing equation through the deployment of land

instruments. The RDDP recognized current available options and other

formulations that are possible for affordable housing. The affordable housing

issue has taken such gigantic proportions in Greater Mumbai that every

possible scheme and method available for achieving it must be attempted.

The RDDP assumed affordable housing requirement at 1 million tenements

when the actual requirement is 6,50,000 tenements for the 1.2 million

population. The RDDP assumed that the NDZ lands, MbPT lands and Salt Pan

lands would make sizeable contribution to the provision of Affordable Housing.

60 ha out of 721.24 ha of Mumbai Port Zone (MbPT) Lands were been marked

for AH. MbPT’s contribution to amenities had been separately marked. Given

the significance of AH in the context of the City and the primacy of GoI and

GoM attached to AH, it was expected that both private and public agencies

would lend unqualified support to the proposal.


The Affordable Housing mechanism, which the RDDP had envisaged received

many suggestions and objections from different sections. The major

contention was garnering the 4 Ha land for the AH scheme. People requested

for much lesser land parcel for the AH scheme. The suggestions and objections

also pointed out that the AH must be utilized for different modes of housing

viz. Rental Housing, Rehabilitation & Resettlement, Affordable Housing, Low

Income Group (LIG)/ Economically Weaker Section (EWS).

After discussion, it was decided that Affordable Housing will include all the

forms of social housing viz. Rental Housing and Housing for MIG/LIG/EWS. The

detailed provision for Affordable Housing is mentioned in DCPR.

Affordable Housing is now an all-inclusive term which includes social housing in

the nature of housing meant for Economically Weaker Section, Lower Income

Group, Middle Income Group and rental housing. A megapolis which is having

majority of its population staying in slums and also a large no. of people who

needs to be rehabilitated because their present habitat is needed for a public

project or is in a ecologically sensitive location, such affordable housing is

actually needed. Mumbai is constantly getting skilled work force from different

parts of India and the World, who are employed in various professions and

trades. These people require homes for their period of occupation which may

be from one year to five years, thus Rental Housing is also required to cater to

the migrant work force. Planning Committee has done a detailed planning

exercise and created avenues for creating a sizeable stock of affordable

housing for the city’s requirement and keeping with the principle adopted by

RDDP 2034, the land cost has been taken out of affordable housing equation

through deployment of land instruments. Additional reservation on land for

affordable Housing will yield 328.76 ha more area. Yielding to a large number

of request during hearing, Erstwhile NDZ lands, those which do not fall in NA,

with unauthorized protected occupants have been termed as Special

Development Zone I (SDZ I) land where amended provision of 33(10) has been

made applicable.

Other NDZ lands, which are vacant and not falling in NA have been termed as

SDZ II and a new provision of DCR 33(8) is being made applicable to such lands

essentially for creating large stock of Affordable Housing. The amended

scheme has taken into account the concerns raised by the various


stakeholders. It is expected that MCGM will formulate a transparent

mechanism to ensure that the Affordable Housing stock reaches the target

group. The successful online lottery system of disposal of Maharashtra Housing

& Area Development Authority (MHADA) tenements could become the basis

for MCGM to formulate its scheme of tenement disposal.

4.7. EQUITY

A city must provide adequately for the needs of special groups in its search for

social equity. These comprise women, the informal sector, the differently-

abled, the aged, children and those without shelter and their specific needs.

The RDDP has travelled quite some distance to recognize these groups as

contributors to the city and provide for them in various ways. These include

multi-purpose housing for working women, care centers, aadhar Kendra with

skill development centre, old age homes, homeless shelters and public

conveniences.

The Planning Committee while continuing the stand taken by the RDDP felt the

need to increase aspects of social equity. Some of the suggestions from NGOs

working on sanitation issue were about the provision of Public Sanitary

Convenience (PSC) blocks especially for women, handicapped person and

children. This suggestion was accepted and suitable provision has been made

in the DCR.

4.8. GAOTHAN / KOLIWADA / ADIVASIPADA SETTLEMENTS WITHIN MUMBAI

LIMIT

The local/native inhabitants of Mumbai are traditionally located in the areas

commonly recognized as Gaothans/Koliwadas. There are 88 Gaothans/

Koliwadas as certified in one of the Committee reports submitted to GoM and

these are marked in the RDDP 2034.The Koliwadas are commonly identified as

a densely-populated habitat of the fishermen community residing along the

coastal areas. There is no available land record regarding Koliwadas to identify

the exact area and extent of Koliwadas. The demarcation of Koliwada area in

revenue records is underway.

The Govt. of Maharashtra in Revenue department has constituted a

Committee to delineate the Koliwadas boundaries and their extent. On


finalization of the same, these would be superimposed on the RDDP. The

development of Gaothans/ Koliwadas shall be as per the relevant provisions of

DCR.

In addition to Gaothans/Koliwadas, there are a number of Adivasi padas/

hamlets within the geographical limit of MCGM. The list of Adivasi padas as

received by the Tribal Development Department, Govt. of Maharashtra is

appended as Annexure to the report.

The suggestions and objections regarding Gaothans / Koliwadas / Adivasi padas

were received from a number of people and NGOs working in this sector. The

stand taken in the RDDP was accepted by the Planning Committee and

explained accordingly at the time of hearing.

4.9. RELIGIOUS STRUCTURES

In the RDDP 2034 designations are shown in various colours with hatched lines.

However, in keeping with the accepted definition of designation, no such

markings appear with regard to all religious structures. Only some of the

prominent religious structures have been marked on DP sheets by their

popular names which are only indicative. Additionally, religious structures

marked in SRDP 1991, have been continued in RDDP barring corrections

required.

Many objections arose from Christian groups, Hindu Trusts and Muslim

Communities for not showing their religious structures. Representatives of

various religious groups who appeared for hearing before the Planning

Committee were explained in detail the rationale followed in the RDDP 2034

and the need to continue with the same rationale. After long discussion, it was

agreed that religious structures shown in SRDP 1991 shall be continued to be

shown in the DP sheets. Additionally, religious structures which are part of the

heritage list will also be shown in text in the DP sheets.

Objections were raised by the Bombay Catholic Sabha stating that school

designations were shown on Religious structure plots and cemeteries. They

requested for their clear demarcation. Site visits were carried out and

wherever school designation was wrongly shown on a church or a cemetery,

necessary correction has been done. Cemeteries within the premises of church


or school, if certified by Executive Health Officer as an authorized one, have

been shown as designated cemetery in the DP Sheets.

4.10. ZONING

The five zones in the RDDP 2034 are Residential Zone (R), Commercial Zone (C),

Industrial Zone (I), No Development Zone (NDZ) and Natural Area (NA). The

provisions of RDDP recognize the mixed-use nature of Greater Mumbai’s land

use. The Report on the Draft Development Plan 2034 mentions that Greater

Mumbai area is home to ecologically sensitive areas like mangroves, coastal

wetlands, forests, parts of salt pan lands in CRZ I and natural water courses

such as lakes, rivers, nallas, streams, ponds, etc. These nurture the city’s

ecology and biodiversity. The Sanjay Gandhi National Park and estuarine

mangrove patches are standout features of Mumbai’s natural biodiversity.

These areas need to be unremittingly protected from the march of the built

environment in the long-term interest of the city. The RDDP, therefore, has

retained the EDDP categorization of such lands in the Natural Areas. No

buildable development on these lands would be permissible, except for

essential utilities. The ELU discovery of newly emerged mangroves in Thane

Creek spread over 14.96 sq km are included in this Zone.

The maximum number of objections and suggestions were relating to changing

the zones from I to R/C or vice versa. These issues were tackled as per the

policy aid developed during the pre-hearing process. The demand to change

the NDZ to R/C zone was dealt with separately by bringing the concept of

Special Development Zone – I and Special Development Zone – II, by making

suitable provisions in DCR.

Some of the issues raised by the public related to contesting the demarcation

of Natural Area on their lands. The Planning Committee decided to demarcate

the areas between High Tide Line and Low Tide Line as Natural Areas barring

beaches which will fall in the same zone as the adjoining zone as they are

accessible public open spaces.

As per the Report of RDDP 2034, the 1991 plan had demarcated

environmentally sensitive lands such as marshy lands along the creek, hilly

areas, agricultural lands, high tide areas and barren lands and some lands


under primary activity as No Development Zone (NDZ). NDZ also included

potentially developable lands kept in abeyance for future development.

The RDDP 2034 showed that out of the total area of Mumbai, forests, water

bodies, areas under SPAs, unclassified area and area under CRZ I covered

majority of the land use totaling 75.52%. Of the balance land, 17.4 % were

under Gaothans, Slums and Industries. 12.49%of NDZ lands had been included

as designation and reservation of land for public purpose. All lands that are

eco-sensitive were shown in Natural Areas. RDDP looked at the balance NDZ

lands, comprising 3,734 ha, as a means of assisting the City to bridge its major

deficits of affordable Housing, Public Open Spaces and social and institutional

Amenities. Planning Committee has termed the developable NDZ land as

Special Development Zone (SDZ).

MCGM’s proposal to open up NDZ lands for Affordable Housing was objected

to by activists who feared that NDZ lands which largely include ecologically

sensitive areas and environment buffers like mangroves, salt pans, inter tidal

areas would be opened up and they feared it would affect the city’s

ecosystem, would be of no benefit for the urban poor but instead only benefit

developers.

Planning Committee tried to ensure that no mangroves, salt pans, Inter tidal

areas and such ecologically sensitive areas get included in the developable SDZ

zone but instead such lands have been clearly shown in NA zone. Only the

balance erstwhile NDZ lands will be opened up for development with

encumbered and unencumbered lands being treated differently as SDZ I

(Special Development Zone) and SDZ II respectively under newly framed DCR

provisions with focus on Public Open Spaces, Social Amenities road

infrastructure and Affordable Housing.

The Mumbai port Trust in their suggestions and objections objected to the

reservations specifically earmarked on the DP Sheets on the lands owned by

MbPT. MbPT stated that a major exercise to re-plan the MbPT area is

underway and it will take some time for them to finalize their proposal. They

stated that they are working on a proposal to add more waterfront areas to


the city which will substantially increase open spaces in the city. They asked for

creation of two zones of the total lands under their ownership viz. Water front

Development Zone and Port Operation Zone. They further requested that

instead of specifically marking the proposed amenities on the DP Sheet, the

total areas for each of the social amenities to be provided in the Waterfront

Development Zone may be indicated and the detailed plan and

implementation of those amenities, including Affordable Housing, be left to

them. The Planning Committee partly agreed to the request of MbPT. It has

been decided to opt for the development control mechanism for allowing

development of the MbPT lands as per their future plans. This mechanism is

discussed in detail in under relevant section of DCR.

Suggestions were received from NGOs and members of the public for changing

the zone of Aarey, by reasoning that Aarey serves as lungs for the city and it

also serves as buffer zone for the Sanjay Gandhi National Park and therefore

must be kept free from any human intervention. In that perspective, a new

Zone has been introduced by the Planning Committee, termed as Green Zone

(GZ) which will encompass Aarey Colony. Green Zone would be a large area

predominantly with green cover where only a few facilities will be permissible.

Those few facilities are a zoo, Rehabilitation of the tribals displaced from

Sanjay Gandhi National Park and such other uses which are approved by the

Government of Maharashtra with the permission of MoEFCC.

4.11. LEGENDS

Legends are abbreviations depicting designations and reservations on the

Proposed Land Use (PLU). Designations are public amenities already

developed. Reservations are parcels of land mandated for specific public

amenities and yet to be developed. Designations are depicted by a colour with

black/hatched lines whereas only colour and no hatched lines depict

reservations.

The SRDP 1991 depicted designations/reservations by the use of the name of

the public amenity, e.g. Burial Ground, Swimming Pool. Sometimes an

individual facility was named in detail, e.g. Tata Institute of Social Sciences

(TISS). This led to a large number of designations, approximately 380.


The EDDP 2034 systematized legend depiction by crafting categories,

intermediate categories and detailed categories. These were assigned Codes

and Sub-Codes. For instance, Education is a category, School is an intermediate

category and Municipal School is a detailed category.

To explain through an example, in the legend DE1.1, D stands for ‘Designation’,

E for the Category ‘Education’, 1 for Intermediate Category ‘Municipal’ and .1

for Sub-Category ‘School’. All Educational Designations would have DE as

common. This exercise led to a sizable reduction in the number of Designation

legends. A similar method was used for Reservations. For instance, in the

legend RE1.1, R stands for Reservation, E for Education, 1 for Municipal and .1

for School. The RDDP 2034 has accepted the principles adopted by EDDP 2034

as well as the curtailment of the number of legends with a few modifications.

The addition of legends for designations is primarily for greater clarity. They

are designed to disallow future difficulties in redevelopment or blurring of

separate kinds of uses on the same plot. The word ‘part’ has been used where

a plot combines a designation with a non-designated facility. For instance, let

us assume that a public parking lot also has a residential building on the same

plot. This would be designated as PPL (Pt), indicating that something else exists

on the plot other than a public parking lot which is not designated. Similarly,

where accommodation reservation (AR) as per SRDP 1991 has been developed

on part land, this would be indicated as (Pt) preceding the respective legend

code.

The additions in the sector of reservations are in institutions, gender, social

equity and urban livelihoods. The additions in institutions are with a view to

strengthen the institutional profile of the city both from the economic angle

and the social angle. It was additionally felt that some of the social equity areas

were significantly in deficit. Their provisioning, therefore, required that they

were not merged in a ‘hold all’ legend and got overlooked in comparison with

the other amenities. It was, therefore, necessary to take them out of the

general social basket. Similarly, in the legends for open spaces, playgrounds

have been separated from gardens and parks.

The Planning Committee, post hearing decided to modify/delete some of the

legends since they were either not utilized or they required some change.


1. The reservation RP3.1 (Cattle Pound) did not have any land use assigned

in the PLU, hence this code is deleted.

2. The designation code of DPU6.1 (Service Industrial Estate) stand deleted

since the reservation has been implemented, the land has been already

utilized with certain percentage of service industry galas handed over to

the MCGM and the same land could be further utilized for the same

purpose or any other purpose.

3. Similarly, the code DPU5.1 (Electric Power Plant) is no more required,

hence it is deleted.

4. The code DT4.3 (Railway Tracks/Yards) is changed to Railway Facility

including Tracks.

5. During the hearing process it was suggested that the existing VJB udyan

be shown as a Botanical garden considering the rich variety of trees and

biodiversity it contains and considering the request, a legend for

Botanical Garden in Designation Category was introduced as DOS 2.8

which was added to the already designated Garden/Park and Zoo. Also

an additional code for Botanical Garden in the reservation category was

included as ROS 2.8

6. An additional code for depicting the reservations of Post & Telegraph

necessitated due to retaining the reservation of SRDP1991 for that

purpose hence a legend for Post & Telegraph RPU4.1 is included.

7. The new symbol for Traffic Island (TI) is added to the list for depicting

the land use of Traffic Island.

4.12. RESERVATIONS

The RDDP, while reserving lands, has shown a clear propensity to work

towards addressing the deficits of open spaces, affordable housing and social

equity issues, as far as possible. This was certainly very challenging, given the

limited un-built space available and that these areas had demonstrably gone

into deficit in Greater Mumbai. In this endeavour, it has re-instated many of

the SRDP 1991 reservations which were deleted in the EDDP 2034.

Development Plans of the past were found wanting in putting up an effective

implementation mechanism that could convert reservations into public

amenities on ground. This was primarily on account of lack of resources as well

as the inability to provide a robust tool that would adequately motivate and


incentivize the land owner whose land had been reserved, to come forward

and implement the reservation. The standout feature in this regard is the

highly attractive accommodation reservation policy that the RDDP 2034 has

proposed.

As mentioned in the preceding part of this section the reservation on one’s

land is a matter of concern to an individual and even to an institution. So much

was the negativity towards imposition of reservations on one’s land, that it was

a common refrain in a large number of suggestions and objections.

During the hearing process, some of the applicants pleaded that substantial

part of their land was earlier reserved in SRDP1991, due to which the balance

vacant part could not be developed till now and therefore, first EDDP and

thereafter RDDP, finding the land vacant have put the whole land under

reservation. Thus, entire lands in one's ownership stand reserved for public

purposes. The Planning Committee, in such cases, has either recommended

partial deletion of the new reservations imposed by EDDP/RDDP or change of

SRDP 1991 reservations to compatible users. The Planning Committee has in

many cases recommended reserving lands for Affordable Housing, keeping in

view the crying need of the City.

There were a large number of demands, mainly from elected representatives

and from residents of slums and occupiers of cessed buildings for deletion of

open space reservations on old slum settlements and on cessed buildings. The

Planning Committee, taking serious note of these demands, decided to tackle

the problem via the Development Control Regulatory mechanism. The DCR has

thus been suitably modified to address this long standing demand, at the same

time not totally giving up the much-needed public amenity reservation for the

City. The Planning Committee feels that this solution will translate into in-situ

rehabilitation for people residing in slums and in cessed buildings and also will

provide social amenities for the City.

4.13. MUMBAI PORT TRUST

Mumbai owes its existence as a global metropolis to its strategic location in a

region that included some of the most important colonial sea trade routes on

the western cost of India. The presence of an excellent natural harbor along


the Eastern Waterfront of Mumbai led to massive land reclamation for the

Development of port and for port related activities during last three centuries.

But during the last two Decades due to a number of interrelated reasons, like

the high cost of real estate, the high taxation structure and above all the lack

of investments towards modernization of industry, made it difficult for

industrial manufacturing to be a sustainable activity within the city of Mumbai.

As a result, industrial manufacturing relocated to the fringes of the city. This

shift from the secondary sector to the tertiary sector has reflected in the

general decline of the various Ports Activities in Mumbai Port.

The RDDP proposals had tried to harness the large tracts of lands under MbPT

ownership and suggested many amenity reservations as well as lands

earmarked for affordable housing. 60 Ha out of 721.24 ha of MbPT lands had

been earmarked for affordable housing.

The Chairman of MbPT personally appeared for the hearing before the

Planning Committee. He suggested the following:

Earmark the entire area of the Port as "Port Land Use" comprising two

new sub-categories of Land Use zones viz. Port Operation mixed use &

Port land mixed use.

Port land area to be categorized as Port land mixed use and designation

of DT4.3 to be removed.

Designation of water transport terminal and jetty DT2.1, DT2.2 to be

categorized as "Port operations Mixed Use".

MbPT colony which was inadvertently shown as Municipal Quarter to be

designated as MbPT colony.

Change of zone of port land from NA to Industrial land use as per 1991

to be done.

After duly considering the suggestions made by MbPT, the following has been

recommended by the Planning Committee,

Two new zones ‘Port Operational Zone’ and ‘Waterfront Development

Zone’ are proposed as per the zonal demarcation plan submitted by

MbPT.

Ballard Estate portion which falls in Heritage precinct is excluded from

the development.


These two new zones are incorporated in DCR.

The Area of Mazagaon Dock is shown as ‘Port Operational Zone’ and

being a sensitive area, the reservations which were proposed in RDDP

2034 are deleted

The RDDP2034 showed number of reservations / designations in the MbPT

areas. These amenities were proposed considering the planning requirements

and the future population in the area. The MbPT had suggested that these

amenities may not be specifically shown in DP Sheets, in order to have

flexibility of development of MbPT in future. The Planning Committee after

due deliberations decided that these amenities will not be shown on the PLU

maps, but will be indicated in the DCR, so that it shall be obligatory on MbPT to

make available these amenities while proposing the development of MbPT

areas. Accordingly, the amenities are enlisted in the DCRs. The amenities are as

follows:

1. Open Spaces

2. Education related

3. Health related

4. Affordable Housing

5. Others

The various reservations, as mentioned above, in Port Operational Zone & in

Ports Water Front Development Zone will have to be developed in accordance

with the provisions of DCR.

4.14. AAREY COLONY

Aarey Colony which is home to a rich biodiversity, has been proposed to also

accommodate a Metro Car Shed, Theme Park, Zoo and R&R of displaced

adivasis of Sanjay Gandhi National Park. Environmentalists, Resident

Associations and many others have voiced their serious objections to the

proposal to allow the above developments in Aarey.

The RDDP had dropped the opening up of Aarey land for institutional use and

other developmental uses that were recommended by EDDP in search of new

growth centers. The Metro Car shed proposed within Aarey (34.41 Ha) was

retained with an alternate site at Royal Palms (89.32 Ha), kept reserved for


Metro Car Shed. The Resettlement & Rehabilitation (R&R) reservation was

meant to rehabilitate the Adivasipadas from Sanjay Gandhi National Park.

Specific suggestions were received from NGOs and members of the public for

changing the zone of Aarey from NDZ to NA, by reasoning that Aarey serves as

lungs for the city and it also serves as buffer zone for the Sanjay Gandhi

National Park and therefore must be kept free from any human intervention.

The recent notification from Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate

Change (MoEFCC), u/no. S.O. 3645(E) dated 5th December 2016 has notified

an area to an extent of 100 meters to four kilometers from the boundary of

Sanjay Gandhi National Park as the Sanjay Gandhi National Park Eco-Sensitive

Zone.

The Planning Committee gave patient hearing to all the concerned citizens and

deliberated in detail about the proposed earmarking of land in Aarey. During

the course of deliberation, Govt. notification/MoEFCC got issued earmarking

lands in Aarey for R&R and metro car shed. The Planning Committee, after due

deliberations and after considering the notification from Government of India,

decided to change the zone of Aarey from NDZ to Green Zone where further

uses, in addition to the proposed reservations, shall be permitted only after

approval from the State Government with concurrence from MoEFCC

However, it decided to retain the users of Metro Car Shed, Zoo, existing built-

up areas within the Aarey and R&R of Adivasis displaced from Sanjay Gandhi

National Park. The Metro Car shed was retained considering that the approval

for the location is already granted by the State Government. Alternate site is

deleted and is included in Green Zone. However, citing eco-sensitivity of

Mumbai, public outcry and High Court orders, Shri Yeshodhar Phanse and Smt.

Trushna Vishwasrao, expressed their reservation regarding providing land in

Aarey colony for “Metro Car Shed”, while approving the other proposed uses

4.15. OTHER ISSUES

4.15.1 Resettlement and Rehabilitation Reservation

The Public Housing (PH)/ Housing for Dis-housed (HDH) reservations of the

SRDP 1991 which were located on lands encumbered with slums were

continued in RDDP as reservation for Rehabilitation & Resettlement


considering that these slums would be taken up for redevelopment under SRA

and in such a case the reservation will automatically stand deleted in

accordance with the relevant provision of DCR 33(10). Such reservations where

predominantly observed in the M (East) ward. Major objections were raised

by residents of slum settlements regarding reservation of RR 2.1 on their plots

where dense but protected slum tenements exist. Their fear was that such a

reservation on their plots would mean further densification of their

settlements by bringing outsiders, for resettlement on their plot. The Planning

Committee members did explain to the people who attended hearing, that the

RR 2.1 reservation will not have any adverse impact on any in-situ slum

rehabilitation scheme under SRA. However, at the persistent request of the

slum dwellers, it was agreed to carry out detailed planning of these areas and

delete few of the RR2.1 reservation from the slum settlements of M (East)

ward.

4.15.2 Disaster Management Plan

Objections were raised by environmentalists and concerned citizens regarding

non-compliance with the recommendations of the Fact Finding Committee

2006 on the Mumbai Floods. They said that the Flood prone areas and detailed

contour plans for Mumbai have not been marked in the DP. Moreover, they

said, there is no restriction on densities and Carrying Capacity/Infrastructure

which have not been indexed while proposing development with high FSI. The

Planning Committee is of the opinion that M.C.G.M. should prepare a

“Comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment for Greater Mumbai”

(CEIA), by appointing consultants working in this field and having adequate

experience of preparing “CEIA” of large cities having population more than 30-

35 lakhs considering the overall development in next 20 to 25 years and

thereafter see how the Disaster Management Plan, duly updated on the basis

of the CEIA, can be dovetailed into the Development Plan.

4.15.3 M Ward

There were quite a few general objections on M/E Ward. M/E Ward has the

Atomic Energy Research Centre, HPCL, BPCL, Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers

Ltd (RCF) refineries, Mumbai’s largest dumping ground and also most of the

slum relocation schemes have been implemented in this ward. The strategic


location of the above mentioned industries makes the ward prone to natural

disasters. Also with a large rehabilitated population and very large slum

population and inadequate social amenities, the quality of life needs

substantial upliftment. Suggestions were made to conduct a risk and pollution

study for the ward and also to provide more social amenity and open space

reservations for the slum settlements. The Planning Committee has taken help

of the MCGM Planners to do a re-planning of M/E Ward with more inclusion of

open space and amenity reservations and also recommended for a risk and

pollution analysis for the ward to the Municipal Commissioner.

4.15.4 Cafeteria Approach to Slum Redevelopment

During the hearing process, some NGO groups pointed out that though the

RDDP report did suggest a need of a 'cafeteria' approach where a banquet of

options are available for slum up-gradation and redevelopment, DCR 33(10) is

the only option available. The current model is a feasible option only for the

private developer involved in the slum redevelopment process and until the

developer finds the land value of the slum viable, the slum redevelopment

does not take place. The redevelopment of the slum happens only if the

property rates are high and there is profit for the developer. As a result, even

after more than two decades of SRA scheme implementation, still large

number of slums have remained unattended and undeveloped.

Taking into view this ground reality, Planning Committee finds it imperative to

look at alternative options for slum redevelopment, one that involves the

community and is not totally dependent on the private developer. Urban

Design Research Institute (UDRI)’s formulation of an alternative approach for

slum up-gradation seems to be a workable alternative provided the slum

community agrees to this option. This approach will seek to provide trunk

infrastructure and amenities to slum communities and allow for incremental

slum up-gradation by the slum dwellers individually or by virtue of plot

amalgamation. The detailed Institutional framework and corresponding

Regulatory modifications for the same as proposed by UDRI is attached as

annexure to this report. If this approach is accepted, a separate set of

Development Control and Promotion Regulations for enabling Slum Up-

gradation, could then be formulated for implementation by the SRA Special

Planning Authority.


5. DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CONTROL & PROMOTION REGULATIONS (DCPR)

This section details the various modifications that were brought about in the

Development Control Regulations, post hearing, based on the various

Suggestions and Objections that were heard and a brief description of why

those changes were brought about.

5.1. DCPR AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE

Development Control Regulations are an integral part of the Development Plan

(DP) and also an important tool for the effective implementation of the DP. For

a city like Mumbai, whose future lies mostly in brown field development, the

regulations need to not only regulate but also promote development, thereby

creating the required social infrastructure at par with amenities provided in

any other developed city of the world. Moreover, for an effective

implementation of the DP, citizen’s participation is most essential. This can be

achieved by framing Regulations which are user friendly, simple to understand

and does not leave any scope for varied interpretation.

Therefore, the Planning Committee has attempted suitable modifications in

the regulations with additions/deletions in the already published Draft DCR

2034, with a view to not only to control but also promote development. Thus,

the regulations have been re-titled ‘Development Control & Promotion

Regulations-2034 (DCPR-2034)’.

5.2. OBJECTIVES OF DCPRS

Keeping in view the objectives of RDDP-2034, it was felt necessary to modify

some of the provisions of the Regulations. The following broad criterions form

the basis of the said modifications, keeping in mind the city’s aspirations,

ground realities & nature of growth.

Clarity and Transparency

Ease of Doing Business(EODB)

Sustainability of Environment

Employment Growth

New Zoning,


Accommodation Reservation

Responsiveness to need of society

AffordableHousing (AH)

Additional necessary controls required to be imposed

Rationalization

5.3. DCPR PROVISIONS

Development control& Promotion Regulations are subdivided into twelve part

i.e. Part-I to Part-XII. The part wise details of the proposed modifications are

described briefly as below:

5.3.1 Part I: Administration

In order to have clarity and transparency in the implementation of the DP,

especially during the transitional period, a clause stating that, if the plot is

reserved for different public purposes in SRDP 1991 &RDDP 2034, then the

reservation as per SRDP 1991 shall prevail till the sanction of RDDP 2034.

To obviate any scope for varied interpretation, certain terms, which were not

defined in the Regulations but are often used in practice, have been

introduced in the definitions e.g. Atrium, Information technology,

Commissioner, Eating House, Energy Efficient Building, Fungible Compensatory

Area, Irrevocable consent, Ledge or Tand, Noise Barrier, Solar Energy System,

Substation, Tenement etc. Some definitions like Accommodation Reservation

which is the most important tool for DP implementation, are suitably modified.

“Affordable Housing” is now an all inclusive term which means social housing

in the nature of housing meant for economically weaker section, lower income

group, middle income group and which also includes rental housing.

During the course of hearing, it was observed that some of the relocation

proposals approved by the Competent Authority have not been incorporated

correctly in DP sheets and buildings have come up in original location of

reservation. This was creating confusion in the general public. Hence, a clause

has been added, stating that “Any discrepancy/error in regard to location/size

/use of designations and any relocation of reservation approved by the

competent authority along with its development at its relocated position if not


reflected in this Development Plan and that are brought to the notice of the

Development Department of MCGM may, after due enquiry, be corrected with

the approval of the special permission of the Municipal Commissioner”.

5.3.2 Part II: Development Permission

As this part deals with development permissions, Ease of Doing Business

(EODB) & simplification of procedures has been given utmost importance.

EODB will help in avoiding delays, thereby reducing transaction costs. Some of

the features are as detailed below:

Ownership- Title Clearance Certificate from Advocate having minimum 10

years of experience is to be submitted, instead of submission of ownership

document. Additionally, an Indemnity bond from the owner, indemnifying

MCGM from any dispute arising out of ownership in future, will have to be

submitted.

Self-certification by owner & professionals etc. is introduced.

The works which are of routine nature are taken out from the ambit of

requirements of permissions. E.g. providing fencing, construction of compound

wall along CTS/CS boundaries of land under single ownership, installation of

Solar Panels by ensuring structural stability.

The policies which are in force and policies which may be formulated in future

for bringing in Ease of Doing business &for simplifying procedures, have been

made part of the Regulations. On-line approval procedure is made part of the

DCPR provisions.

In order to control illegal mining, a provision has been made to submit

declaration cum affidavit from the owner/developer/applicant stating that the

building material on site for construction shall be obtained from authorized

quarry.

In the clause relating to of Deviation during Construction, the term ‘Substantial

nature of deviation during construction’ is clearly defined in order to bring

clarity in interpretation while dealing with such proposals. Moreover, due to

deficiency in workmanship if there is any deviation in outer dimension to the

extent of 25 mm, the same shall be tolerated subject to condition that carpet


area shall remain unchanged. A clause to that extent has been added to specify

the allowances during inspection

5.3.3 Part III: Land Uses and Manner of Development

This part of regulation is of significant importance as it deals with development

of designation/reservation, requirement of amenities in respect of plot with

area more than 4000 sq. m, permission for conversion of Zone from I to R/C

Zone and Inclusive Housing. Responsiveness to the need of the society &

rationalization of requirement of amenities has been mainly considered while

modifying some of the provisions in this part. Developments of buildable &

non-buildable reservations, on lands encumbered with slums or cessed

structures have been brought under the ambit of Accommodation Reservation.

The brief details of the changes/modification/addition/deletion in this part are

as follows:

If, designated amenity is no longer required, then the same can be

developed for other public purposes considering the deficiency in the

administrative ward, so that such lands can be put to effective use as per

requirement & need of society.

All existing schools as reflected in ELU have been shown on DP with

provision of clause in DCPR stating that “if schools which have been

developed on unreserved plots and are now designated in RDDP 2034

considering their land use, desire to redevelop in future with the additional

benefits of FSI available in DCPR, they shall comply with all other

regulations of DCPR/terms and conditions/policy of Govt. regarding

schools issued from time to time. By virtue of showing the existing land use

as designation in respect of any school, it will not automatically give the

status of authorisation unless it is constructed authorisedly as per the then

prevailing DCPR/terms & conditions/policy of Govt. “.

Traffic island which constitutes part of road, for improvement of traffic can

be merged with carriageway.

Some of the reservation for public purposes which are of prime importance

are shown with (+) sign in DP and a clause has been introduced in DCPR for

development of such plot majorly for the intended purpose.


Provision has been made for safeguarding the interest of public body,

while shifting or interchanging designation/reservation within single

holding.

Mumbai has dearth of space for social activity and leisure. In view of the

Government policy to allow farmers to sell their agro products directly,

provision for Temporary Vending Zone/Bajar-hat/Athawadi Bazaron

weekend/holidays etc. is made. The popular concept of “Equal Streets” is

now a DCPR provision.

A provision for identifying places including roads for ‘Night Bazar’ has been

made.

As a process of rationalization, a provision has been made which requires

handing over amenity on the basis of size of plot & conversion of I zone to

R/C Zone in a telescopic manner, like the Income tax slab.

There was a demand from a large section of housing societies, to give

respite in Regulation of Inclusive Housing (IH), for Co-operative Housing

Society/federation of societies/association/condominium/apartment

owners association having single/some existing flats of size with carpet

area 80 sq. m. or more. Where existing carpet area of some tenement/s

is/are more than 80 sq. m, Built up area (BUA) of IH tenement

proportionate to BUA of tenements having carpet area more than 80 sq. m

with existing BUA, will only be insisted. A clause to that effect has been

added.

Provision of noise barrier along bridges has been made

Accommodation Reservation (AR) is an effective tool for implementation of

DP without cost to the public exchequer. The land cost has been taken out

of reservation/Affordable Housing equation by deployment of land

Instrument. Even in cases where private lands are reserved for public

purposes and which are under the purview of Government/Appropriate

Authority, the same are also brought under the ambit of AR, with uses

permissible in that Zone on remainder plot by which owners so that they

are not adversely affected for an in-situ development.

In case of development under AR, FSI on gross plot area including the plot

to be handed over along with cost of construction of amenity in the form

of BUA is made permissible on the remainder plot. Considering the

difficulty in consumption of FSI on remainder plot, Regulation has now


been modified. Now, the built-up amenity along with plot is required to be

handed over only if, reserved area is more than 2000 sq. m as against 1000

sq. m. proposed in RDDP 2034 DCR. The cap of 40% on the cost of

construction in the BUA, in lieu of cost of construction of built up amenity

has been removed.

In view of various representations from the Cinema Owners Associations,

the development of existing cinema theatre has been brought at par with

AR. Multiple Screen theatres/multiplex is allowed with AR, since single

screens have become obsolete. A provision has been made in Draft DCR

stating that the Owner/Developer may develop the entire designated/

allocated plot for the purpose of entertainment of general public such as

Drama Theater/Opera theater/Mini-theater/Multiplex or for Production

facilities/studio/s for cinema/ Tele-serial /Dubbing & Recording

studio/Preview Theater etc.

The reservations such as cemetery, Koli Housing, Police/Govt. Quarters,

Police/Govt. Housing, Police Station, Police Chowky, Courts, Govt. Office,

Sports Complex with stadium (with minimum area of 50000 sq. m), Fish &

Net Drying yards etc. have been brought under ambit of AR. New

Reservation of Botanical Garden has been introduced, which can be

developed entirely for the intended purpose only by MCGM/Appropriate

Authority.

In case of development of reservation under AR or otherwise, the owner

should clearly know the concerned Appropriate Authority to be

approached in the matter. Therefore, the list of Appropriate Authority for

each reservation has been prepared and enclosed in Annexure 24.

Development of Reservation/DP road in Special Development Zone II will

now be treated at par with Residential and Commercial Zone, to avoid

disparity.

Layout RG has been shown in text on DP. The list of layout/private RGs will

now form a part of the annexure and therefore shall be available in public

domain. Existing Play Grounds attached to Educational and Medical

Institutions/ Museum/Trust and under same ownership, shown as

designation in DP, shall not be subjected to acquisition.

New Regulation No 17(3) had been introduced which deals with

development of plots under Regulation No 33(5), 33(7), 33(9) and 33(10)


which are affected by reservations. Some of the provisions are as detailed

below:

o In view of the policy of the Govt., a provision has been made stating

that in case of redevelopment of plot/(s) having cessed structure/s and

having reservation in the DP, the land component of the said cessed

structure as per Zonal (basic) FSI shall be deemed to have no

reservation but area beyond the land component of cessed structure/s

shall have to be developed entirely for the intended purpose.

o In respect of slum redevelopment under Regulation No 33(10) in

Industrial Zone (I Zone) and Special Development Zone-I (SDZ I),

handing over of built up amenity/plot/POS is being insisted in order to

provide amenities to occupiers of developed plot & public at large, as

DP does not usually make provisions for amenities/reservations for

public purposes in I Zone and SDZ I.

5.3.4 Part IV: Requirement of site and layout

This part deals with the requirement of site, roads, layout roads, recreational

open spaces in layout and requirements of Layout etc. The brief details of

modification proposed are as follow:

Provision as per the recent Govt. notification directing MCGM, that all the

roads below 9 m to be widened to 9 m, has been considered and an

enabling provision to widen the road of width less than 9 m to 9 m as per

MR &TP Act or MMC Act, for improvement of traffic, has been made in the

Regulations.

In order to bring more clarity in regulation while DP road/RL is proposed in

the approved layout a clause stating that “If DP Road/RL is prescribed in

already approved layout, then imbalance of FSI in subdivided plots because

of new DP Road/RL shall be allowed. However, if layout is amended

subsequently, then the benefit of imbalance of FSI will not be allowed

prospectively.”.

For clarity regarding public road/municipal road/layout road as most of

these roads have been shown in DP, it has been clarified that roads

excluding existing public road/Municipal road, reflected in DP shall not be

treated as public Road, unless and until declared under appropriate section


of MMC Act & shall not be subjected to mechanical acquisition. In order to

motivate owner/s to give access to land locked plot, FSI benefit for

providing access to land locked plots is proposed to be granted, subject to

handing over the said access to MCGM.

Provision is made clarifying ‘Layout Recreational Open Space (LOS)’ in a

private layout shall be for the exclusive use of the residents of such private

layout only, and shall not be subjected to acquisition. Similarly, if LOS in

private layouts reflected in DP as reservation or designation, the same shall

not be subjected to acquisition, but shall have to be maintained by the

owner/Co Op Hsg. So/Federation etc. as the case may be. It is specifically

shown as layout RG/Private Garden on DP Sheets as far as possible.

Provision for planting indigenous trees and preferably native species,

having capacity to attract bird for nesting, planting of shrubs with grass in

between the indigenous trees, has been made to improve environmental

sustainability. Perforated paving has been insisted in area other than LOS

for easy percolation of rainwater for ground water recharge.

Responding to the need of the public, an enabling provision is made to modify

the list of additional facilities in the Development in Large Holding/layout with

the special permission of commissioner, vide Regulation No 29

5.3.5 Part V: Floor Space Index

This part of regulation deals with Floor Space Indices (FSI), computation of FSI/

BUA and Transfer of Development Rights (TDR). The changes made in this part

are briefly described in this section.

Floor Space Index

As per prevailing land use & development, areas in N ward, where, FSI was

restricted to 0.75 has been brought at par with the Zonal (basic)FSI 1 as of

adjoining Zone, since most of the surrounding areas being developed under

Slum Redevelopment Scheme are having higher FSI up to 3.0. However, the

restriction on development in area near Bhabha Atomic Research Centre

(BARC) with FSI 0.75 is maintained considering the sensitivity & security of the

area.


Cities are engines of economic growth. Industrial & commercial development is

of utmost importance for a vibrant & progressing city. Due to Industrial

location policy, large no of Industries has been closed/shifted during last 20- 25

years. Conversion from Industrial to Commercial/ Residential Zone has created

luxury housing without creation of employment. To unlock potential of

remaining industrial zoned lands, ‘Additional FSI on payment of premium or

TDR has been made applicable in Industrial Zones too (except for use of

hazardous Industries). This will be creating large opportunities for skilled based

employment for youth and Mumbai will maintain its status of being a

commercial hub of the Country.

In order to bring parity &to remove the discrimination in benefits in lieu of the

amenities to be handed over under Regulation No 14 & 15, FSI benefit to these

amenities have been brought at par with plots reserved for the public purpose.

The redundant clause related to Minimum tenement density has been deleted

while maintaining the clause of maximum tenement density. Also from Ease of

Doing business point of view, transfer of ownership of amenity/plot in the

name of MCGM/Appropriate Authority has been rationalized.

Some features are allowed to be exempted from FSI, such as more parking

area, which may help in reducing on street parking etc.

The Fungible Floor Space Index (Fungible FSI) is renamed as Fungible

Compensatory Area to distinguish from Regular FSI. In order to promote

Commercial and Industrial Development and provide an impetus to

employment generation, fungible compensatory area for commercial &

Industrial buildings has been brought at par with residential. Fungible

compensatory area, in case of redevelopment under Regulation No 33(5),

33(7)(B), 33(9)(B) and redevelopment with TDR/Additional FSI on payment of

premium has been considered at par with redevelopment schemes under

33(7),33(9),33(10) and fungible compensatory area for rehab component

allowed without charging premium.

Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)

Incentive is proposed for handing over reserved land at the earliest as per

Govt. Notification to encourage speedy & effective implementation of DP.


TDR benefit for the DP road/reserved land in SDZ II has been considered at par

with other Zones.

5.3.6 Part VI: Additional Floor Space Index

This part deals with the additional FSI for the schemes of

redevelopment/development of Institutional/Educational buildings etc.

Additional FSI as per Regulation ’33’ is now linked partially with area of plots.

This will help to avoid unnecessary congestion & consumption of FSI with

sustainable environment& proper open spaces.

The views of MHADA, SRA and other organizations along with individuals which

need consideration have been accepted. One of the suggestion to allow

development of MHADA land partially occupied by the protected slums, under

Regulation 33(5) with benefit for slum dwellers as per Slum Rehabilitation (SR)

scheme has been accepted. This will help in integrated development of

MHADA land, with proper planning.

Urban Development Department (UDD) of GOM has issues notification

proposing changes to the existing Regulations No 33(5) of DCR 1991 for

accelerating development of MHADA lands. Regulations have been accordingly

modified in accordance with the notification issued.

UDD of GOM has issued notification inviting Suggestions/Objections for

reconstruction or redevelopment of dilapidated/unsafe existing authorized

tenant occupied building in Suburbs and extended Suburbs and existing

authorized non-cessed tenant occupied buildings in Mumbai city. Due

cognizance of said notification has been taken and made part of DCPR as

33(7)(A)

Regulation No. 33(22) of Draft DCR RDDP 2034 was for redevelopment of

existing residential housing societies, residential tenanted buildings excluding

cessed buildings. In view of the new Regulation no. 33(7)(A) as stated above,

the Regulation no. 33(22) has now been made applicable more specifically for

co-op hsg societies and renamed as Regulation no. 33(7)(B).

The existing provision 33(8) of development of land for Rehabilitation and

Resettlement is deleted & merged with Regulation 33(20) meant for Affordable


Housing. New provision of development of land falling under Special

Development Zone- II is introduced as 33(8). Land of SDZ II is proposed to be

developed for the cause of Affordable Housing along with amenities.

Affordable Housing includes all forms of Social Housing viz. EWS/LIG/ Middle

Income Group (MIG)/Rental housing tenements. The highlight of SDZ provision

is as follows,

Scheme is permissible if area of land is more than 1.0 ha.

The apportionment of land excluding layout road shall be as mentioned in

the table below.

Table 4: The apportionment of land excluding layout road

Plot Area

Afforda

ble

Housin

g (AH)

Public Open

Spaces (POS)

Other

Amenities

(OA)

Area for

Owners

Developme

nt

More than1 ha

& up to 2 ha

30% 15 % 16% 39%

More than 2 ha

& up to 4 ha

30% 15 % 14% 41%

More than 4 ha 30% 15 % 12% 43%

Permissible FSI 1.0 of the gross plot area, on the Owner’s share of land.

Development of AH shall be with FSI 2.5& OA shall be with FSI 2 on

respective plot, cost of construction in the form of built up area will be

given without any cap on it.

15% of admissible FSI on AH plot, exclusively for convenient shops for use

of residential occupants.

If the plot is affected by the reservation, development of reservation

allowed as per AR and FSI to be utilized on remainder of the plot.

UDD of GoM has issued notification under section 37(1AA) (c) for

Reconstruction or Redevelopment of Cluster(s) of BDD chawls at Naigaon,

Worli, N.M.Joshi Marg and Shivdi by implementing Urban Renewal


Scheme(s) in order to speed up development of BDD chawls. Due

cognizance of said notification has been taken by incorporating the same in

DCPR as Regulation No. 33(9)(B).

The provisions of Regulation No 33(10) are rationalized to avoid additional

congestion with objective to improve the living standard in redevelopment

scheme. The tenement density of 500 per Net Hectare keeping with FSI 3.0

or rehabilitation area and incentive FSI thereon whichever is more, made

permissible in-situ. In case of plots having Tenement Density more than

650, FSI of 4.0 or rehabilitation and incentive FSI thereon whichever is more

made permissible in-situ by CEO (SRA). The unconsumed built up area can

be made available in the form of TDR.

In Regulation No 33(10) (A) which deals with redevelopment of slum areas

within Dharavi Notified Area (DNA), Planning Sector has already been

defined. Considering the vast area, sectorial development is not getting

proper response from the project proponent. Hence from implementation

point of view, Implementing Sector has been defined with minimum area

not less than 4000 sq. m under development at par with development

allowed in SDZ-I for slum, so as to achieve well planned and controlled

development within Planning Sector of DRP along with various amenities

and facilities to be provided for people at large within the boundaries of

such plots/areas.

5.3.7 Part VII: Land use classification and uses permitted

This part of regulation deals with land use zones and uses permitted in various

zones & conditions thereof. Three new Zones viz. two zones for the

development of port land & Green Zone are introduced and No Development

Zone (NDZ) is now termed as Special Development Zone (SDZ). Thus, now eight

zones have been created instead of five in RDDP viz.

1. Residential Zone (R)

2. Commercial Zone (C)

3. Industrial Zone (I)

4. Special Development Zone(SDZ)

5. Natural Area (NA)

6. Port’s Operational Zone(POZ)


7. Port’s Water Front Development Zone(PWFDZ)

8. Green Zone (GZ)

Special Development Zone (SDZ)

In SRDP 1991, large chunk of land, was earmarked as “No Development Zone”,

mainly to take care of future development (i. e. in subsequent DP). Only

restricted uses were admissible on such NDZ lands with restricted FSI

maximum up to 0.20, thereby resulting in certain portion of said lands

belonging to Govt., as well as to private owners have been encroached upon

by hutments during course of time. The land excluding ecologically sensitive

land, which has development potential, was again termed as No Development

Zone (NDZ) in RDDP 2034 which has now been termed as Special Development

Zone (SDZ).

In order to bring this land under development considering population growth

and requirement of city for AffordableHousing, the said Special Development

Zone (SDZ) land is further subdivided into two parts

1. Special Development Zone-I (SDZ-I)

2. Special Development Zone-II (SDZ-II)

SDZI I -Zone occupied by protected occupants as defined under Slums Act,

1971. Development of SDZ-I will be governed by the Regulation No 33(10) and

17(3) (C) (c).

SDZ II – Zone which is mostly vacant land, development is proposed

predominantly for AffordableHousing (EWS/LIG/MIG/ /Rental housing), POS

and Other Amenities. MCGM will formulate a transparent mechanism to

ensure that AH stock reaches the target group. Development in SDZ-II for the

Affordable Housing shall be governed by Regulation No 33(8) and development

other than that for AffordableHousing will be continued as per provisions of

RDDP DCR.

Mumbai Port Trust Land (MbPT)

In view of the discussions with MbPT officials from time to time, the MbPT land

has been further sub divided into two Zones namely Port’s Operational Zone

(POZ) and Port’s Water Front Development Zone (PWFDZ).


POZ- Zone for development of Port and Port related activities

PWFDZ- Zone with a focus on water front development with mixed land use for

certain port related activities, to promote Tourism, Marine tourism,

Entertainment, water transport and Affordable Housing. MbPT will be asked to

maintain the designations and to provide required amenities as shown in DP.

In order to ensure that existing Designations/proposed reservations get

developed in these Zones, it has been clearly stated that “Approval to any

development/redevelopment in this Zone shall be granted only after Master

Layout Plan incorporating all reservations/designations listed in note below is

approved from MCGM”

Green Zone (GZ)

Green Zone is a large area predominantly with green cover where following

facilities may be permissible,

Construction of Zoo with FSI of 0.025

Use approved by GoM with permission from the Ministry of Environment

and Forest

Rehabilitation and Resettlement of the original inhabitants of the forest

(adivasis, tribals of Sanjay Gandhi National Park) as per the provisions of

Regulation no. 30 with Zonal (basic) FSI

Changes in provisions of other zones

Natural Area (NA) is now redefined as an environmentally sensitive area

amenable to buildable development with the approval of the Competent

Authority. In NA certain facilities and uses as allowed by MOEFCC will be

permissible. Due care has been taken to maintain the eco sensitivity of the

area.

Since there is a need to protect the existing authorized structures in Natural

Areas and Green Zone, it has been clarified that “Structures constructed in

NA/GZ, with due sanction of Competent Authority, before coming into force of

these regulations stand protected” Considering the current trend of mixed use,

horizon period of 20 years, and on hearing representations from various

groups and stake holders, modifications permitting various land-uses and


occupancies have been done, in order to promote mix uses and the

commercial growth of city.

It is to be mentioned here that most of the private mill lands have already

been developed as per Regulation no. 58 of DCR of 1991. Only some of the

mills of National Textile Corporation (NTC), a Govt of India Undertaking, are yet

to be developed. Hence, in order to bring parity for the development of mills of

NTC with other private mill lands mostly developed in the past as per the then

Regulation no. 58 of DCR 1991, the provisions for development of mill land of

Draft DCR of RDDP 2034 have been modified as per Regulation No. 58 of DCR

1991, with some minor changes.

5.3.8 Part VIII: General building requirements

This part deals with general building requirements and changes proposed are

detailed in brief below.

The sizes of the rooms (Minimum area) have been made flexible

considering responsiveness to the society’s need, by maintaining minimum

width of the room.

Maximum height of room in tenement has been increased from 3.9 to 4.2

m.

Minimum width of stairway in a building having height up to 70 m, has been

increased from 1.2 m to 1.50 m and in respect of building having height

more than 70 m, has been increased from 1.5 m to 2.0 m considering the

situation of emergency including fire etc. For industrial building, staircase

width of 2 m for building up to height of 70 m is proposed

Rationalized open spaces can be allowed by the commissioner than the

normal required, on payment of premium from Ease of Doing Business

point of view. Premium so collected shall be used for development of

infrastructure in such a way that it will mitigate the strain on infrastructure

caused due to such relaxation.

In order to enhance the aesthetical features of Public building it has been

stated that at least 1% of the cost of construction of the building, shall be

utilized for enhancing the aesthetical look and aesthetical features of Public

buildings.


During hearing, it was represented that provision of additional parking, in

case of development proposal of Heritage Listed building, is not possible. A

clause has been introduced stating that in case of

addition/alteration/reconstruction/redevelopment of Heritage Grade I & II

structures where plinth/façade of building is required to be retained,

requirement of additional parking as per this Regulation over and above the

existing parking shall not be insisted.

NOC from railway authority will be insisted if the plot is situated within 30

m from railway track boundary instead of railway land boundary as railway

land boundary may include their office buildings, quarters etc.

In order to give relief to residents, especially located in the vicinity of

airport, railway track and where it is not possible to consume even the

Zonal (basic) FSI or Protected BUA due to restriction, provision for granting

TDR for unconsumed built up area (BUA) as per Zonal (basic) FSI or

protected BUA, in restricted height zones areas, as per Regulation 45(B),

(B), (C) has been made.

As per Draft DCR, in the redevelopment sites of existing filling and service

station of Petrol, Diesel, Compressed Natural Gas or any other Motor

Vehicle Fuel, change of use was not permissible. Since, some of the existing

petrol pumps are touching the residential buildings, it has now been

proposed to allow redevelopment of sites by retaining existing filling and

service station of Petrol, Diesel, Compressed Natural Gas or any other

Motor Vehicle Fuel, for the uses as permissible under these Regulations

subject to No Objection Certificate (NOC) from Controller of Explosive and

Chief Fire Officer (CFO).

5.3.9 Part IX: Urban Safety Requirements

No Major Changes have been changed

5.3.10 Part X: Special Provision

Formulations of Constitution of Parking Authority along with its General

functions which will act as guiding principle have been introduced. Hence, on

receipt of sanction to this DCPR 2034 from GoM, Parking Authority can start

functioning including granting permission of Public Parking Lot.


On hearing suggestions/objections from Conservation Architects, NGO, Ex-

Chairman of MHCC, and with a view to preserve heritage, particularly Grade I

& Grade II, the Regulations related to Heritage has been suitably modified.

Multiple locations are reserved for Metro Car Shed in DP, as per the

requirement of MMRDA. Once the location for Metro Car Shed is finally

decided, then the reservation at other location shall be automatically de-

reserved in order not to cause inconvenience to owner of plot and to do away

with the further procedure for deletion of reservation following the relevant

section of MR&TP Act. Hence, clause stating that the portion of land

reserved/earmarked for the Metro Car Shed in DP, if not required by the

Competent Authority subsequently, will fall automatically in the Zone

prevailing on land adjoining to land under reservation of Metro Car Shed.

Other Forest Land has been distinguished from land allotted to forest

department and clause has been included stating that Development in the

forest land which has been designated as Natural Area in DP will be governed

by the notifications issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest and

Climate Change as amended from time to time.

5.3.11 Part XI: Miscellaneous provisions

On hearing representation from various groups and to avoid inconvenience to

the concerned people while seeking permission from MCGM, cultural activities

like circus, jatra, etc. has now been included in temporary construction.

Structures on construction site like laborer hutments with crèche, sales

office/sample or show flat, have been added to the list of Temporary

construction.

5.3.12 Part XII: Environmental sustainability

In order to avoid open defecation/urination and as suggested by various

NGO’s, in addition to existing provision of RDDP-2034 DCR, a clause stating

that, effort shall be made for provision for PSC blocks along highway/major

roads at a distance of every 3 km preferably near the bus stop and in public

open spaces has been added. Provision for toilet/urinal blocks for differently

able persons of both genders will now be insisted.


NA has been marked on DP considering the high tide line as per existing

Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) maps. Areas

situated on seaward side of the high tide line are marked as NA, independent

of ground condition. If the alignment of HTL is modified in future, then the area

now shown as NA needs to be modified as per ground reality. Taking this into

consideration, a clause has been incorporated, stating that, land shown as

Natural Area in DP and situated on the seaward side of High Tide Line, if after

modification to High Tide Line falls on the landward side of modified High Tide

Line, then in such case, the said land will be deemed to have been situated in

the zone of adjoining land unless, said land is forest/salt pan land/occupied by

mangroves/mud flats.

Planting of indigenous trees and preferably native species having capacity to

attract bird for nesting, planting of shrubs with grass in between the

indigenous trees has been made to improve environmental sustainability.

As an incentive for constructing & making Energy Efficient Building additional

fungible compensatory area to the extent of 5% over and above than that

permissible as per regulation 31(3) has been allowed.

It was felt that keeping in view the existence of a large number of oil, fertilizer

and other sensitive industries in the M Ward, it is absolutely necessary that

MCGM should carry out detailed risk analysis of the area in a time bound

manner. Accordingly, a clause has been added in this Regulation.


6. OVERVIEW AND CONCLUSION

This section covers the major recommendations by the Planning Committee Viz.

Waterfront Zone in MbPT, an all inclusive concept of Affordable Housing,

addition of a Green Zone for Aarey Colony. The section concludes with the list

of deliverables by the Planning Committee.

6.1. MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE

The Planning Committee as a part of the hearing process also dwelled upon

various City level issues which were raised by the Public Representatives,

Institutions, NGOs and Individuals during the process of hearing viz. Aarey

Colony, No Development Zone, Natural Area, AffordableHousing, MbPT,

Coastal Road, depiction of Religious structures. The number of suggestions and

objections on these issues were quite substantial. These issues were

deliberated at length by the Planning committee and the recommendations

that were finalized are discussed in this section.

6.1.1 Natural Area

The DP has strived for Greater Mumbai to conserve its Natural Areas, augment

green cover in the City, preserve its water bodies and take preventive

measures to mitigate natural adversities such as floods. An area of 14.96 sq km

full of mangroves was found emerged additionally in Thane creek due to

siltation outside the municipal limits which was decided to be added to the

City’s Natural Area. To conserve all ecologically sensitive areas which include

forests, mangroves, water bodies and all areas under CRZ-I, the plan has

demarcated these as Natural Areas. No buildable development is permitted in

these Natural Areas. The Natural areas as shown in the RDDP forms 12,859 ha

which accounts to 29.59% of the planning area.

In addition to the areas already demarcated by RDDP as NA, the Planning

Committee has recommended inclusion of all the areas on seaward side of HTL

as NA being CRZ -I as per MoEFCC notification except the beaches which will

fall in the zone as that of the adjoining zone. This has led to increase in the

quantum of Natural Areas. It has also included some wrongly shown NDZ areas

as NA. Some of the roads proposed in NA were also deleted as an alternate


access was available. The deletion of these roads also helped in preserving the

NA areas.

However, some of the proposed SDZ areas were found lacking proper access.

Hence, to make them accessible some proposed roads have been shown over

NA. This, of course, would be subject to NOC from competent authorities.

The Natural Areas are computed in the following table.

Table 5: Revised Natural Areas

As per Planning Committee decision

Sr. No

Zones Area in Ha

1 Natural Area (NA) 1574.24 2 Special Development Zone (I,

II)

2,021.54

6.1.2 Special Development Zone (SDZ) – previously known as No

Development Zone (NDZ)

SRDP 1991 had included such lands in the No Development Zone (NDZ) which

were reserve areas meant for the growth of population in the future, to be

serviced with adequate infrastructure. NDZ lands also included eco sensitive

lands viz. Salt Pan Lands, mangroves, water bodies etc. During the preparation

of draft DP for the year 2034, it was felt that eco-sensitive lands are required

to be protected, in order to preserve the ecology. Thus, a separate category of

such lands was decided and designated under Natural Area (NA). Broadly,

lands on the seaward side of High Tide Line along with the hill slopes, water

bodies, salt-pans and other such eco-sensitive lands were included in NA.

As a part of the revision process of recasting the Draft DP, a decision had been

taken to continue with the designation of N.A. land in RDDP. The balance NDZ

land, after deducting NA, was to be opened up for development under a

special scheme creation of affordable housing.


After considering various policy initiatives at Central and State level, RDDP had

brought in the concept of Affordable Housing, without dwelling into the

definition or the qualification criteria of Affordable Housing. The concept of

AH revolved around an assumption that landowners in the NDZ areas would

amalgamate their lands cohesively into units of 4 ha and would participate in

the concept of the AH willingly. The clause for the special development, of the

NDZ lands, for Affordable Housing, allowed development in minimum land

parcels of 4 ha.

The threshold limit of 4 Ha was objected to in the suggestions and objections

that were received. People suggested that the threshold limit be brought down

to a unit of 1Ha for affordable housing.

The Planning Committee, after detailed deliberations, has now decided to

allocate different zoning for the NDZ lands based on the present site situation.

The eco-sensitive lands will continue to be shown as NA. The lands with

encumbrances of protected slums have been categorized as Special

Development Zone -I and the balance NDZ lands categorized as Special

Development Zone -II. The existing road pattern present in these areas along

with the proposed DP roads of RDDP has been continued and based on the

principle of proper connectivity and circulation, new road network has also

been proposed. The development of lands under SDZ-I and SDZ-II would be in

accordance with the new provisions of DCPR.

Table 6: Ward wise allocation of SDZ-I and SDZ-II

Sr.No. Ward Area under SDZ-I ( in Ha )

Area under SDZ-II ( in Ha )

1 H/W 3.30 1.03

2 K/E - - 3 K/W - 106.00

4 M/E 34.71 56.38

5 M/W - 102.22 6 N 29.25 0.00

7 P/N 102.50 905.89 8 P/S - 0.59

9 R/C 0.16 83.96 10 R/N 14.98 38.66


11 R/S 8.73 50.55

12 S 49.78 144.30 13 T 4.66 283.88

14 MCGM 248.07 1,773.46

Table 7: Ward wise allocation of RDDP2034 NDZ Area

WARD RDDP NDZ AREA

Modified NDZ

Balance NDZ

New NDZ to NA

SDZ I SDZ II

H/W 11.25 - 11.25 6.92 3.30 1.03

K/E 141.08 2.59 138.49 138.49 - -

K/W 124.73 0.03 124.71 18.70 - 106.00

M/E 187.30 0.01 187.29 96.19 34.71 56.38

M/W 105.09 - 105.09 2.87 - 102.22

N 30.36 - 30.36 1.11 29.25 0.00

P/N 1,105.99 0.24 1,105.75

97.37 102.50

905.89

P/S 962.12 0.01 962.10 961.52 - 0.59

R/C 128.47 0.79 127.68 43.57 0.16 83.96

R/N 124.00 0.01 124.00 70.36 14.98 38.66

R/S 72.84 0.01 72.84 13.55 8.73 50.55

S 256.92 0.05 256.87 62.79 49.78 144.30

T 438.35 0.01 438.34 149.81 4.66 283.88

MCGM 3,688.52 3.74 3,684.77

1,663.24

248.07 1,773.46

Note: All figures are in Hectars.

Table 8: New Reservations proposed in SDZ

Ward Open space

Education

Health

Social Amenity

Affordable Housing

Transport

H/W - - - - 0.04 - K/E - - - - - -

K/W - - - - - -

M/E 2.26 - - - 1.73 0.48 M/W 2.33 - - 1.17 1.86 -

N - - - - - - P/N 2.93 1.65 4.15 2.10 11.80 -

P/S - - - - - -


R/C 2.06 2.09 - 1.89 3.35 -

R/N - - 2.14 - 2.83 - R/S - - - - 0.84 -

S 3.63 - - - 2.49 - T 25.80 - - - - -

MCGM

39.01 3.74 6.30 5.16 24.93 0.48

Note: All figures are in Hectors.

6.1.3 Affordable/Social Housing (AH)

Planning Committee felt that the nomenclature Affordable Housing as a term

and in practice should be more inclusive. Affordable Housing (AH) has

therefore been defined to mean low cost, social housing which is meant for

economically weaker section, lower income group and middle income group

and which also includes rental housing.

To give adequate emphasis to AH, in many cases where reservations were

required to be changed for a variety of reasons as explained in the preceding

sections, AH reservation has been newly added. Moreover, some of the SDZ

areas, where development that has already taken place in the neighborhood,

have also been reserved for AH considering the sizes of the said plots.

6.1.4 Mumbai Port Trust

In RDDP, MbPT lands had been proposed for various categories of amenities

viz. social, municipal, housing, open spaces etc. These were proposed at

various locations including some of the operational areas of the MbPT. MbPT

contested the proposed locations of the reservations claiming that these

reservations will hamper their future planning. They contended that MbPT

authorities are in the process of finalizing the appointment of consultants for

preparing a holistic plan of their areas which will include civic amenities,

development of waterfront areas, proposals for operational areas and for

housing, including slum rehabilitation. Hence, they suggested deleting the

reservations as proposed in RDDP and allowing them to locationally plan the

amenity areas.


A holistic view of the proposals of MbPT was considered and after detailed

discussions with the MbPT authorities, a decision was taken to accept the

suggestions of the MbPT as follows:

1. To change the zoning of the MbPT areas into two separate zones viz.

Port Operation Zone (POZ) and Waterfront Development Zone (WDZ)

2. Not to show reservations of RDDP in the DP Sheets but mention the

proposals of RDDP along with their areas and categories in the separate

provisions to be included in the DCPR.. However, to insist upon providing

various reservations within their development which should be

adequate, as per the planning standards, for the people residing on

MbPT owned lands.

These provisions will ensure flexibility of providing civic amenities as per the

proposed plan of MbPT, which is under preparation and will also allow the

development of MbPT as per the planning proposals under their consideration

6.1.5 Aarey Colony

Discussion on Aarey colony has already featured in the preceding chapter.

However, keeping in view the importance of Aarey and that Aarey colony along

with Sanjay Gandhi Natural Park has been classified as Eco-sensitive zone in

the recent notification issued by GoI, the Planning Committee felt that Aarey

Colony be referred in this section too. The essence of the suggestions and

objections on the Aarey was to preserve its natural form, continue it as one of

the key natural heritage and not to open it up for further development. The

Planning Committee gave patient hearing to all the suggestions and took note

of the sincere concerns of the people for preserving Aarey.

The challenge to maintaining a delicate balance between desirable

developments and preserving the form of Aarey and to protect the flora and

fauna within the boundary of Aarey, was a very difficult task for the

Committee. The recent notification by the Government of India declaring

Aarey as an ESZ helped in determining the cause for Aarey. The RDDP proposal

to set aside certain land for the Car shed, Rehabilitation & Resettlement and

the inclusion of area for Zoo was also contested by many people. The major

task was to retain the land use of Metro Car Shed within Aarey as it was


finalized by the GoM, for a key infrastructure project. Planning Committee

members, Shri. Yeshodhar Phanse and Smt. Trushna Vishwasrao expressed

their reservation against the Metro Car Shed proposal within Aarey. Their

opinion was to find an alternate land for the Metro Car Shed. However, in view

of GoM notification and the suitability of the plot, the Metro Car Shed is

continued to be shown as a part of Aarey.

The RDDP had included Aarey in NDZ and part of the areas of Aarey was

included in Accessible Open Spaces. People stated that as DCR for NDZ allows

certain construction in the lands falling in NDZ, Aarey land may get utilized for

construction as a permissible activity. This will spoil the basic characteristics of

Aarey. Therefore, Planning Committee has recommended inclusion of Aarey

land in the newly created Green zone wherein any use will be permitted only

after approval of the State Government in concurrence with the MoEFCC. This,

the Planning Committee feels, is a major step towards protecting Sanjay

Gandhi National Park(SGNP) which shares its boundary with Aarey and acts as

a buffer to SGNP.

6.2. AMENITIES

The Draft DP 2034 provided for basic amenities required by the citizens based

on the Planning standards, keeping in view the space constraints faced by

Mumbai. The amenities were of two kinds viz. Non-buildable which are land

intensive and Buildable which are BUA intensive. Non-buildable amenities

require precious land which is hard to find. On the other hand, the

requirement of buildable amenities can be met through FSI instruments. The

status of the different types of amenities is discussed in the following sections.

6.2.1 Open Spaces

The most important of the amenities and the most land intensive amenity is

Open Space. This is also crucial for the well-being for the people. Mumbai, due

to its restriction on physical size, is not amply served by Public Open Spaces. A

very large number of people requested for deletion or for change of Open

Spaces reservations including for deletion of open space reservations from

existing slum settlements. The Planning Committee explained to the people

who attended hearings that draft DCR has provided for development of the

Open Spaces by using the principles of Accommodation Reservation.


RDDP 2034 had provided for 4489 Ha of land in the form of designations and

reservations for accessible Open Spaces which translates to 3.51 sq.mt pp.

Pursuant to decisions taken on the suggestions and objections, the area under

the accessible Open Spaces will now work out to 3400.80 Ha of land in the

form of designations and reservations. Layout RGs, which are not part of the

category of reservations/designations, approximately work out to 979.51 Ha.

The Planning Committee has decided to show all layout RGs in text form in the

DP Sheets and recommended to put out the details of Layout RG as part of

Annexure in public domain in due course , so that the complete information on

Layout RG is available to the public. Moreover, development of SDZ -II would

yield 39.01 Ha of Open Spaces by way of reservations. Further, Open Spaces

from SDZ- II through DCR route would provide 281.09 Ha of land out of which

164.38 Ha is for POS and 116.71 Ha is for Layout RG. The SDZ-I would

additionally yield 31.41 Ha of Open Spaces through the DCR route. Therefore,

total area of Open Spaces on the basis of Planning Committee

recommendations will be 4731.82 Ha which will translate into 3.70 sq.mt pp.

6.2.2 Health

The next important social amenity is Health infrastructure. RDDP 2034

provided for 397.77 Ha of land for setting up health infrastructure in the form

of reservations and designations. The recommendations on suggestions and

objections yielded 393.33 Ha of land in the form Health amenities. Moreover,

the development of SDZ would yield 6.30 Ha of Health amenities by way of

reservation. Therefore, total area of Health Infrastructure after these

recommendations will be 399.63 Ha. Thus, some additional land for Health

infrastructure is being provided, translating into 0.31 sq.mt pp.

6.2.3 Education

Another important social amenity is Education infrastructure. RDDP 2034

provided for 1164.95 Ha of land for setting up educational infrastructure in the

form of reservations and designations. The recommendation on the

suggestions and objections yielded 1183.04 Ha of land in the form of

educational infrastructure. Moreover, development of SDZ would yield 3.74 Ha

of educational infrastructure by way of reservation. Therefore, total area of

Education infrastructure after these recommendations will be 1186.78 Ha.


Thus, the some additional land for Education infrastructure is being provided,

translating into 0.93 sq.mt. pp.

6.2.4 Social Amenities

The next hierarchy constitutes other Social Amenities. RDDP 2034 provided for

1036.20 Ha of land for setting up social amenities in the form of reservations

and designations. The recommendation on suggestions and objections yielded

1050.90 Ha of land in the form other social amenities. Moreover, development

of SDZ would yield 5.16 Ha of social amenities by way of reservation. The other

availability of social amenities from the SDZ, through the DCR route, would be

for 153.42 Ha of land. Therefore, total area of Social Amenities after these

recommendations is 1209.48 Ha which translate into additional land for Social

Amenities accounting for 0.95 sq.mt pp.

6.2.5 Affordable/Social Housing

Affordable Housing is the cornerstone of this DP. RDDP 2034 provided for

707.13 Ha of land for affordable housing in the form of reservations and

designations. The recommendation on suggestions and objections yielded

762.35 Ha of land for this purpose. Moreover, development of SDZ would yield

24.93* Ha of affordable housing by way of reservations. Therefore, total area

of Affordable Housing will become 787.28 Ha.

6.3. CONCLUSION

In accordance with the general overall observations and recommendations

with regard to the several suggestions and objections on the Proposed Land

Use plan and the Draft DCR, the Planning Committee recommends to the

Planning Authority that necessary modifications to the Draft Development Plan

2034 and the Draft DCR be carried out and the same be submitted to the

Government for its approval under the provisions of MR&TP Act 1966.


APPENDIX - I

Hearing Schedule for Government Suggestions/Objections: 17th to 24th

October 2016

Day 1: 17.10.2016 Monday

Sr. No Government Organization Time

1 AAI 10:30

2 CPWD 11:30

3 PWD 12:00

4 Railway Police Commissioner 12:30

5 HPCL 14:00

6 MbPT 15:00

Day 2: 18.10.2016 Tuesday


7 RCF 11:00

8 Nehru Police Station 11:20

9 BPCL 11:40

10 Mazgaon Dock Shipbuilders Ltd 12:00

11 Maharashtra State Police Housing and Welfare Co-op Ltd

12:20

12 Vikram Sarabhai Atomic Energy 12:45

13 Indian Audit and Accountant Dept 13:00

14 MMB 14:00

15 DRP 14:30

16 SRA 15:00

Day 3: 19.10.2016 Wednesday


17 ITI, Lower Parel 11:00

18 Principal Commissioner of Customs 11:20

19 RBI 11:40

20 Ministry of Health and Family Welfare 12:00

21 Salt Commissioner 12:20

22 Wadala Police Station 12:40

23 Town Planning 13:00


24 Western Railway 14:00

25 LIC 14:30

26 MMRDA 15:15

Day 4: 20.10.2016 Thursday


27 Collector & District Magistrate 10:45

28 IOCL 11:00

29 ASI 11:15

30 Mahanand Dairy 11:30

31 Mahanagar Gas 11:45

32 Maharashtra Employees State Insurance 12:00

33 Maharashtra Film Stage & Cultural Development Co-op Ltd

12:15

34 National Textile Co-op Ltd 12:30

35 MHADA 14:00

Day 5: 21.10.2016 Friday


36 Collector MSD 10:40

37 MTNL 11:00

38 IOB 11:20

39 ICAR - Fisheries Institute 11:30

40 SBI 11:45

41 MSRDC 12:00

42 MSEDCL 12:15

43 Transport Commissioner, RTO 12:30

44 Forest 14:00

45 MIDC 14:30

46 Commissioner of Police, Police (Estate) 15:00

47 BEST 15:15

Hearing Schedule for VIP Suggestions/Objections: 25th to 26th October 2016


Sr. No VIPs Time

1 MPs 10:45


2 MLA/ Ex- MLA 14:00


Sr. No VIPs Time

3 Councillors –City Wards 10:45

4 Councillors – Suburb Wards 14:00

Day 3: 5.11.2016 Saturday

Sr. No VIPs Time

1 Councillor 10:30-11:00

2 Hussain Dalwai MP, Chandrakant Handore

MLA MLA

11:00-12:00

3 Manisha Chaudhary MP Atul Bhatkhalkar

MLA, Yogesh Sagar MLA 12:00-13:00

4 Councillor - Zone III (H/E, H/W, K/E) 14:00-15:00

5 Councillor - Zone IV (K/W, P/S, P/N) 15:00-16:00

6 Councillor - Zone VII (R/N,R/C,R/S) 16:00-17:00

Hearing Schedule for Institution Suggestions/Objections: 2nd to 4th November

2016


Sr. No Institution Time

1 PEATA

11 am – 5 pm

2 MCHI-CREDAI

3 National Real Estate Development Council

4 Property Redevelopers Association

5 Builder's Association of India

6 Property Owners' Association

7 Central Mumbai Developers Welfare

Association

8 Affordable Housing Welfare Organisation

of India

9 Indian Society of Structural Engineers

10 Indian Institute of Architects




11 Maharashtra Rajya Raajatrit Adhikari Maha

Sangh 11:00

12 Mumbai Circus & Exhibition Organiser's

Association + Golden Group of Circus 11:20

13 Maharashtra Jatra Artist and Merchant

Welfare Association 11:40

14 Cinema Owners & Exhibitors Association of

India 12:00

15 Hotel and Restaurant Association 12:20

16 Mill Owners's Association 12:40

17 Tata Memorial Centre 14:00

18 Nehru Centre, TISS 14:30

19 Shri. Sharad Kale 15:00

Day 3: 4.11.2016 Friday


20 Tata Power

10:45 21 Reliance Infrastructure Ltd

22 Power Supply Utilities/ BEST/ MSEDL

23 Ready Mixed Concrete Manufacturer's

Association 12:30

24 Mumbai Cricket Association 13:00

25 Somaiya Trust 14:00

26 Arch Bishop + Churches 14:30

Hearing Schedule for NGO Suggestions/Objections: 7th to 10th November

2016

Day 1: 7.11.2016 Monday

Sr. No NGO Time

1 United People's Front 10:30

2 Vyati Vikas Kendra 11:00

3 Citizens Rights Protection 11:30

4 Shramik Mukti Sangh 12:00

5 Save Versova 12:30

6 Debi Geonka 14:00


7 Nivara Hakk + Apna Mumbai Abhiyaan 14:30


Sr. No NGO Time

8 Mobai Gaothan Panchayat 10:30

9 Bandra Bandstand Residents Trust 11:00

10 Sumaira Abdulali 11:30

11 Watch Dog Foundation + Nicholas Almeida,

Godfrey W Pimeta + Bombay Catholic Sabha

12:00

12 HSMA+ Shweta Wagh+Nandita Shah 14:00

13 Tasneem Mehta 15:00

14 Bombay Environmental Action Group 16:00


Sr. No NGO Time

15 Bombay East Indian Association 11:00

16 Child Friendly Mumbai Khorat 11:30

17 Lenster Rodrigues 12:00

18 Nagar Advocacy 12:30

19 UDRI+ Shirin Bharucha, Cyrus Guzder,

Gerson Da Cunha 14:00


Sr. No NGO Time

20 IUDI 11:00

21 MESN 11:30

22 Rajeshwari Chandrasekhar 12:00

23 Right to Pee - Supriya Sonar 12:30

24 Machimmar Kruti Samiti 15:00

25 WRI India /M/S.Godrej 16:00

26 Afzalpurkar 17:00


Hearing Schedule for Individual Suggestions/Objections: 11th November to

15th December 2016

Sr. No INDIVIDUAL – WARD WISE Date

1 DCR 11.11.2016

2 A, B, C, D 15.11.2016

3 E 16.11.2016

4 F/N, F/S 17.11.2016

5 G/N, G/S 18.11.2016

6 H/E 21.11.2016

7 H/W 22.11.2016

8 K/W 23.11.2016

9 K/E 24.11.2016

10 P/N 28.11.2016

11 P/S 29.11.2016

12 R/S 30.11.2016

13 R/C 01.12.2016

14 R/N 02.12.2016

15 L 05.12.2016

16 M/E 07.12.2016

17 M/W 08.12.2016

18 N 09.12.2016

19 S 13.12.2016

20 T 14.12.2016

21 General 15.12.2016


APPENDIX - II

An Alternative Approach to Slum Upgradation and Redevelopment

Background

Mumbai, although considered as the economic capital of India, has one of the largest populations of

slum/ informal settlements in the country, covering an area of 3,422 ha. The slum population or

approximately 5.5 million (2011 census), comprises more than 42% of the population residing on 8%

of the land area. The fact that Mumbai is surrounded by water, fuels the perception that there is a

lack of space for rehabilitation of existing slum areas.

Housing is considered as a right to ‘decent life’ under our Constitution, hence, it is the responsibility

of every local/ state authority to have a range of mechanisms to allow equitable development. The

Government has made several attempts since 1970’s for Redevelopment and Rehabilitation which in

its current form is the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) and MHADA. However over 26 years, the

SRA has been able to build approximately 160,000 homes as against a need for over 1.5 million

homes. At this rate, more than 250 years will be required to provide appropriate housing to all the

slum dwellers.

The Revised Draft Development Plan 2034 (RDDP 2034) suggests that there is an imminent need for

alternatives to the current model for slum rehabilitation, DCR 33(10), which is not working, as it is

solely dependent on the private housing market for funds. However, the RDDP 2034 does not

actually provide alternative approaches for the redevelopment of slums and instead only mentions

the possibility of a ‘cafeteria approach’ to planning, where a banquet of optional methods could be

made available for slum rehabilitation. This current note provides an alternative approach to DCR

33(10) and slum upgradation* (*Slum upgradation shall mean conversion of slum pockets from informal

settlement to formal housing (pakka houses) through incremental interventions or reconstruction or complete

redevelopment, either by slum dwellers/ group of slum dwellers / society/ mandals or with the involvement of

a developer.)

Need for an alternative to DCR 33(10)

1. The current SRA model and DCR 33(10) make it mandatory for a private developer to be involved

in the slum redevelopment process. Hence, the slum dwellers have to wait until such time that a

developer will take up the redevelopment of their area / nagar / wadi;

2. The slum dwellers are not asked for their input on how their particular slum pocket should be

redeveloped, and instead are subject to the dense living conditions thrust upon them by the

developer.

3. Often, these redevelopment projects have led to displacing the slum dwellers from a central

location in the city to the suburbs or further afield in the Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR

4. The sale component, which subsidizes housing for in situ rehabilitation under the DCR 33(10),

substantially increases the existing densities in slum neighbourhoods, thereby putting

tremendous pressure on the services as well as reducing the rehabilitation footprint to less than

40% of the gross plot area. This results in some cases, with the existing density already high the

rehabilitation density sneaks to more than 1800 units/ ha (net) or almost 1 million people per sq

km. This extreme marginalization of urban poor is totally unsustainable and unfair.


5. Typically, SRA schemes in areas with high land values have been implemented whereas these

have not even commenced in areas with low land value, emphasizing the market-led nature of

this existing model. Certain slum pockets in the city might never have the optimum land value to

make them viable for redevelopment through the DCR 33(10) option.

6. Slum Rehabilitation Authority through development charges and fee levies for 33 (10) projects

has proceeds which needs to be deployed for the core purpose of improving quality of life in

slums areas.

Therefore, this note attempts to propose an alternative model in which a government agency can

facilitate slum upgradation, offering a choice to the slum dwellers to self-upgrade their houses,

instead of waiting for housing to be provided by market.

Objectives

The overall objectives for the proposed alternative model for slum upgradation are: a) To make it imperative to provide trunk infrastructure and amenities to slum

communities through existing delivery mechanisms and local authority responsibilities such as: Proper means of access/ streets/ footpaths

Adequate water supply

Proper sanitation

Adequate electricity and cooking gas

Waste collection services

Healthcare

Education

b) To imminently allow slum upgradation to take place incrementally by slum dwellers,

either individually or through an amalgamation of plots;

c) To ensure that if at all densities need to increase they are only marginal increase;

d) To provide an alternative to private market insecurity for slum rehabilitation

process;

e) To allow for a cohesive, appropriate, affordable and sustainable slum upgradation by

enabling slum dwellers to participate in the planning process at ward level;

f) To facilitate justly mass slum upgradation in a relatively short implementation time.

Proposed alternative model

The framework for the proposed alternative model entails:

a) that SRA will rightly take on the role as the planning authority for slums areas, and alongwith

facilitating SRA schemes will also take on slum upgradation through the preparation of slum

upgradation layout plans, special DCRs and execute the same through a two-tiered planned

approach.

b) facilitate through existing services/utility delivery agencies, state and local authority

provision of trunk infrastructure for every slum area;

c) that the slum dwellers will be entailed to carry out upgradation of their tenements, as per

slum upgradation layout plan approved by SRA, within 3-5 years of preparation of the plan.

d) that SRA will be responsible for facilitating tenure of land


Role of Central, State and Local Government

In the proposed alternative model Central, State and Local Governments play important role in

providing:

Tenure of land

Based on the location, ownership and habitable conditions of the land, the Government (Local

Authority, State and Centre) will grant the following tenures to the slum dwellers:

a) Long-term lease of 30 years for tenable slums;

b) For untenable slums, there shall be no eviction until the Government frames a policy for

their rehabilitation;

c) Transfer tenure to a Co-operative Society for a Community Land Reserve (CLR)*.

*Under the CLR scheme, ownership of the land would be transferred to a ‘Society’ formed as a nonprofit

company (Section 8) by selected members of the area.

Trunk infrastructure

a) On initiating slum upgradation layout plan by SRA, existing utility and services agencies

and mechanisms to be activated for providing the basic essential infrastructure and

amenities (as described under objectives) for slum pockets conforming to the broader

provisions of the plan.

b) For untenable land, provision of basic infrastructure for utilities such as water supply and

sanitation, electricity will be done until such time that a provision is made for their

rehabilitation.

Financial assistance

The Central and State Government will facilitate the funds for the slum dwellers through

PMAY subsidy / funds, microfinance options, financial institutions and public sector finance

options. With grant of fixed tenure of land, these institutions would be more willing to provide

a loan to the slum dwellers, as land tenure can act as collateral for loan.

DP Reservation through Accommodation Reservation

In case of slums with DP 2034 Reservations other than residential, proposed accommodation

reservation policy in DP 2034 will assist in developing DP reservations along with the

upgradation of slums. SRA will play an important role as planning authority to accommodate

these DP reservations in the slum upgradation layout plans for slums areas.

The Role of SRA

SRA was formulated in the year 1995 and is the sole ‘Planning authority’ for the redevelopment/upgradation of slums in Mumbai [MR&TP Act 1966 Chapter 1, Definitions, (19) b]. SRA in real sense act as Planning Authority for slums and will need to setup capacity as well as professional teams to conduct surveys, prepare upgradation layout plans, form legal entities of slum dwellers, facilitate land tenure and give approvals for the slum upgradation process.

SRA till now through development charges and fee levies for 33 (10) projects has proceeds which needs to be deployed for the core purpose of improving quality of life in slums areas. Therefore


preparation of the Slum Upgradation Layout plans and furthering the objects of the plan shall be supported by SRA.

In this regard, there will be a three-tier planning process undertaken by the SRA:

Tier 1 – Formulation of General Slum Upgradation DCR for Mumbai

Tier 2 - Ward-level Slum Upgradation Committee

Tier 3 – Nagar / Wadi / Mandal / Area level Slum Upgradation Layout plan preparation through services of empaneled Architect Urban Planner.

Tier 1 Formulation of General Slum Upgradation DCR for Mumbai

SRA will formulate General Slum Upgradation DCR for Mumbai which will be different from the DCR of Greater Mumbai 2034 within a time frame of Six Months.

This Slum Upgradation DCR will form basis of all Special Slum Upgradation DCR prepared for specific wadis / nagars / mandals/ society based on their unique characteristic prepared and approved by Ward Level Slum Upgradation Committee.

Tier-2 SRA - Ward-level Slum Upgradation Committee

Role of SRA will be extended to each ward level unit which shall be entrusted with the

planning and implementation of the Slum Upgradation Layout in individual Nagar / Wadi /

Mandal / Area in that administrative ward of Mumbai. The Ward-level Slum Upgradation

Committee in SRA shall have the below mentioned members and in the spirit of the 74th

Amendment to the Constitution of India, local corporators shall be a part of this committee.

The Ward-level Slum Upgradation Committee structure

No Member Designation

1 Ward Committee Chairperson Chairperson

2 Executive Engineer /AE SRA Member

3 Two City NGO/Institutions of repute with min 10 years’

experience in Urban Planning / Urban Design / Slum

Rehabilitation / Social Sciences / Environment Sciences

Nominated by SRA

Member

4 Representatives of Concerned Departments of MCGM Special Invitee Members

5 SRA appointed ward level Architect & Urban Planner

with relevant experience

Convenor

This Ward-level Slum Upgradation Committee in SRA can co-opt members and shall be funded

as well as administratively assisted by SRA with provision of office and qualified staff as well as

providing for capital as well as revenue expenditure.

TOR of Ward-level Slum Upgradation Committee

The Ward-level Slum Upgradation Committee in SRA will be responsible for:

a) Delineation of slums into planning units.


Delineating every slum pocket in their ward area and prepare a detailed total station

survey enabled base map for the same. The slum buildings will need to be marked as

individual planning units.

b) Site survey and analysis

Authorize and appoint empaneled consultants and fund consultancy services for survey of

the existing pockets as follows:

i. Existing building and land use survey;

ii. Existing population and demographics of the slum area.

iii. Existing and proposed access and road infrastructure plan;

iv. Survey of existing and proposed utilities and services;

v. Survey of existing and proposed community facilities like schools, hospitals, parks,

places of worship etc.;

vi. Any other social, anthropological, health, education survey as required.

c) Special Slum Upgradation DCRs based on General Slum Upgradation DCR

Approve and Appoint empaneled consultants, finance consultancy services for

preparation of area level Special Slum Upgradation DCR which will include:

i. Area specific urban coding / design guidelines for land use, building use, road widths,

building heights, building projections, material palette, FSI etc. conforming to

upgradation policy guideline.

ii. Standards and facilitate provision of amenities such as open spaces, balwadis,

healthcare and other such facilities.

iii. DCRs based on Special Slum Upgradation DCR guidelines recommended to facilitate

the incremental upgradation of the slum tenements, encouraging the construction of

structurally safe and environmentally sustainable pakka (permanent) houses with the

adoption of basic standards to improve the living conditions in the slums.

iv. The fixed tenements sizes of 25 Sq.M under 33(10) do not provide flexibility in

planning for slum dwellers’ small scale business operations and hence it will

plan/design Special DCRs catering to specific activities and limitations of space in the

specific slum areas.

v. Laying of trunk infrastructure may lead to displacement of up to 15%-20% of the

entire slum pocket. The Special Slum Upgradation DCRs will make provision to ensure

that the displaced properties are housed in proximity of the slum area or are

appropriately compensated through TDR or by allowing a marginal increase in the

net densities of the area, without an increase in number of tenements.

vi. General Slum Upgradation DCRs with relaxation of setbacks and provision of

appropriate additional free FSI for toilets, balconies and verandahs will encourage

the users to upgrade their housing. These will not only allow and facilitate their

current floor area sizes but also the current uses.

d) Approve and Notify layout planning control, building permissions and provide technical

assistance.

i Approve and notify through SRA, Nagar / Wadi / Mandal level Slum Upgradation

Layout plan prepared through collaborative planning with slum dwellers and services

of empaneled Architect Urban Planner.

ii Issuing individual / amalgamated building permissions based on the approved Nagar

/ Wadi / Mandal level Slum Upgradation Layout plan prepared through services of

empaneled Architect Urban Planner.


Ii Make available technical assistance to slum dweller by providing services of

empaneled architect urban planner, civil engineer, structural consultants, services

consultant and chartered accountant for upgradation / reconstruction of individual /

amalgamated buildings.

Tier 3: Empanelment of Architect Urban Planners for preparation of Nagar / Wadi /

Mandal / Area level Slum Upgradation Layout plan

Team of Architect Urban Planners, Urban Designers, Civil engineers, Structural Consultants,

Services Consultants will be empaneled by the SRA which can be appointed by Ward-level

Slum Upgradation Committee in SRA on recommendation of people of the planning unit /

nagar / wadi/ mandal / slum area. The final decision for selection of Local Area Architect Urban

Planner will rest with the people of the planning unit / nagar / wadi / mandal / slum area.

The Architect Urban Planner should have a thorough sociological understanding of the area

and constitute a team of architects, planners, engineers and urban designers to prepare a

successful Slum Area Upgradation Layout Plan in accordance with the needs of the residents.

These empaneled Architect urban planner can also be later assigned to provide technical

assistance to slum dwellers for upgrading / reconstruction of their building units.

Criteria for Local Area Architect/Planner empanelment

The Architect/ Urban Planner for the local area selected for empanelment will have a team or consortium consisting of:

1. Registered Architect Urban Planner with accreditation of Council of Architecture with minimum 15 years’ experience.

2. Qualified Planners with minimum 10 years’ experience

3. Registered Structural Engineer with minimum 10 years’ experience

4. Qualified Services Consultants with minimum 10 years’ experience 5. Qualified Social Scientist with minimum 10 years’ experience 6. Adequate technical staff to facilitate public consultation, survey, planning and layout

preparation

TOR of local area Architect Urban Planner

Upon analyzing all background information, existing surveys and Special DCR guidelines, the

Architect Urban Planner should undertake:

Site Analysis

1. Existing and Proposed road alignments/road widening

2. Existing and Proposed Utilities, Amenities and Services Surveys

3. Existing and Proposed facilities like Schools, Hospitals, Health post, Parks and Playgrounds, etc.

4. Existing and proposed Density: Population density, unit (dwelling) density, street density and FSI

5. Gap analysis for existing SRA survey based on URDPFI/NBC standards or applicability of other standards


6. Sample household survey for collecting essential data on housing, transport services and state of amenities

7. Implication of Proposed Land Use in Development Plan for the area

Plan Slum Up-gradation Layout

Prepare Plan in order to provide essential trunk infrastructure (services and utilities), access roads and recreational open spaces. Based on the site survey and analysis, a Layout Plan will include:

1. Detailed road network plan – showing means of access and hierarchy of streets. The Authority will ensure that the major roads into these slums will be at least accessible by a two-wheeler. (1.5 M wide Clear)

2. Predominant land use and building use pattern for each slum on basis of the surveyed activities in the area.

3. Detailed listing of incompatible/locally unwanted land / building uses.

4. Comments on continuation/discontinuation of Industrial / incompatible land / building uses.

5. Land rationalisation strategy to provide optimum street widths for major access roads, open spaces and community facilities;

6. Proposals for the upgradation of slums which are prepared in collaboration with slum dwellers.

7. Publication of the upgradation layout plan for suggestions/ objections for a period of one month in English and local languages with every effort to make it participatory and inclusive.

8. Report on consideration of suggestion / objections and making accepted changes in the Slum Upgradation Layout Plan. This plan shall be approved by SRA and notified for implementation.

Role of Slum Dwellers/Residents

Construction and upgradation

Once Slum Upgradation Layout Plan has been notified every building in a slum shall have to

conform to the provisions of this plan. Residents will be encouraged to amalgamate plots to

bring about rationalisation of land and improve the urban form. Minimum size of plots shall be

defined in DCR to apply for building permission. Building permissions approval shall be given in

predefined time and slum dwellers/ residents /group of residents on amalgamated plot will be

responsible for carrying out the upgradation of their respective homes. Residents will be

encouraged to amalgamate plots to bring about rationalisation of land and improve the urban

form. Non residential plot users will have to contribute proportionate to their land holding.

Residents will be encouraged to take up upgradation within a period of 3 years through a

system of incentives and SRA / Government facilitation. For example, if a slum dweller or a

group of slum dwellers upgrade/ reconstruct their homes within a period of 3 years, they

would benefit from an additional free FSI (without an increase in density) as well as receive

monetary assistance facilitated by SRA / Government. Between period of 3 to 5 years, the

slum dwellers would still benefit from the in incentive FSI but may not be able to receive any

monetary assistance facilitated by SRA / Government. Beyond a period of 5 years, the SRA /


Government would take up the upgradation project, and the slum dwellers will not benefit

from any additional FSI. The Government will draw out the terms and conditions so that it can

recover the cost of construction.

It will be required of slum dwellers/users to give up land for services and infrastructure

upgradation. Loss of such land FSI can be consumed on the balance plot / amalgamated plot.

In cases where the land requirement for trunk infrastructure is high granting TDR can be

considered. In such cases the SRA on recommendation of Ward-level Slum Upgradation

Committee will grant TDR.

Implementation phases

Successful upgradation shall be expedited subject to time bound implementation for

a) Delineation of Slums areas as suggested in ELU of Development Plan for Mumbai. These slum boundaries can be subjected to alterations and change by SRA on detailed survey.

b) Carrying out surveys of land use, demographic, social and household samples;

c) Architect Urban Planners with relevant track record to be empaneled by the SRA;

d) Slum dwellers, mandal / society /wadi / nagar to appoint their Architect Urban

Planner;

e) Appointed Architect Urban Planner to draw up a Slum Upgradation Layout Plan in

collaboration with the slum dwellers within a year, to incorporate their needs while

conforming to the Special DCR guidelines;

f) Laying of Trunk infrastructure through existing utilities and services agencies, local

authority and facilitated by government

g) Taking up upgradation by Slum Dweller immediately upon receiving approval from

the Slum Upgradation Ward-level Committee;

h) SRA / Government to step in and carry our upgradation if the slum dweller fails to

do so within a stipulated time period of five years with a cost recovery mechanism.

Recommended timeframes

6

3

3

10

6

2

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Formation of Ward Level Slum

Upgradation Committee

Empanelment of Architect Urban

Planner

Appointment of Architect Urban Planner

for preparation of plans

Preparation of Upgradation Layout plan

for nagar/wadi/mandal

Publication of Plan and

suggestion/objection. Notification of

Plan

Building permission

Number of months

Timeline for Implementation of Plan


Transitional Arrangement

SRA Projects, which have taken Letter of Intent (LOI) in the three preceding years (before

adoption of proposed model) and have not proceeded with Commencement Certificate for

the whole project SRA shall proceed to cancel such LOI and people will have the choice to

proceed with their slum upgradation projects.


Annexure – II

Revised Draft Development Plan 2034 Team

1 Shri. More V.R. ….. Dy. Chief Engineer (D.P.) I

2 Shri. Daftardar H.C. ….. Town Planning Officer

D.C.R. Team

1 Shri. Kandalkar C.H. ….. Executive Engineer (D.P.) D.C.R.

2 Shri. Bhat S.V. ….. Executive Engineer (D.P.) D.C.R.

3 Shri. Arvikar S.V. ….. Asstt. Engineer (D.P.) D.C.R.

4 Shri. Shah L.K. ….. Asstt. Engineer (D.P.) D.C.R.

Planning Team

1 Shri. Daftardar H.C. ….. Dy. Ch. Planner (A.P.) i/c (Team Leader)

2 Smt. Bhatte A.S. ….. Dy. M.A.

3 Shri. Gandhi V.B. ….. Urban Planner

4 Shri. Khsirsagar A.D. ….. Urban Planner -

5 Smt. Sahare V.S. ….. Urban Planner -

Co-ordinators

1 Shri. Kubal M.S. ….. Executive Engineer (D.P.) Rev.

2 Shri. Sachdeo H.B. ….. Asstt. Engineer (D.P.) Rev.

Development Plan Department

1 Shri. Mulay M.G. ….. Executive Engineer (D.P.) W.S. (P&R)

2 Shri. Patil V.E. ….. Executive Engineer (D.P.) E.S.

3 Shri. Patgaonkar R.G. ….. Executive Engineer (D.P.) City

4 Shri Dalvi Y.S. ….. Executive Engineer (D.P.) City

5 Shri Shendge A.N. ….. Executive Engineer (D.P.) W.S. (H&K)

6 Shri. Narkhede ….. Asstt. Eng. (D.P.) A, B, C, D, E

7 Shri. Bhoir N.N. ….. Asstt. Eng. (D.P.) E, G/S, G/N, F/S, F/N

8 Shri. Mahajan R.V. ….. Asstt. Eng. (D.P.) L & N

9 Shri. Jadhav R. A. ….. Asstt. Eng. (D.P.) M/E & M/W

10 Shri. Satav A.M. ….. Asstt. Eng. (D.P.) S & T

11 Shri. Nemane S.V. ….. Asstt. Eng. (D.P.) H/E, H/W & K/W


12 Shri. Sachdeo H.B. ….. Asstt. Eng. (D.P.) K/E

13 Shri. Chimane A.K. ….. Asstt. Eng. (D.P.) P/N & P/S

Shri. Khare ….. Asstt. Eng. (D.P.) R/S

14 Shri. Nirmal S.R. ….. Asstt. Eng. (D.P.) R/N & G.I.S.

15 Shri. Shidunkar M.H. ….. Sr. Architect (DP)

16 Smt. Narvekar S.V. ….. Sub Engineer (D.P.) F/N, G/S

17 Shri. Bari K.D. ….. Sub Engineer (D.P.) F/N

18 Smt. Suryavanshi S.U. ….. Sub Engineer (D.P.) A, B & C

19 Shri. Sonavane V.R. ….. Sub Engineer (D.P.) E

20 Shri. Dhadke U.B. ….. Sub Engineer (D.P.) F/South

21 Shri. Jagtap P.H ….. Sub Engineer (D.P.) L

22 Shri. Sawalkar P.A. ….. Sub Engineer (D.P.) M/W

23 Shri. Pol S.J. ….. Sub Engineer (D.P.) M/W & T

24 Shri. Nandekar M.R. ….. Sub Engineer (D.P.) M/E

25 Shri. Jadhav V.P. ….. Sub Engineer (D.P.) N

26 Shri. Godbole C.B. ….. Sub Engineer (D.P.) N

27 Shri. Bapat G.V. ….. Sub Engineer (D.P.) K/E

28 Smt. Bharate S.M. ….. Sub Engineer (D.P.) K/E

29 Shri. Kaware P.H. ….. Sub Engineer (D.P.) K/W

30 Shri. Wadalkar S.U. ….. Sub Engineer (D.P.) K/W

31 Shri. Dudhbhate S.S. ….. Sub Engineer (D.P.) H/E

32 Shri. Kamble Danial B. ….. Sub Engineer (D.P.) H/W

33 Shri. Parab ….. Sub Engineer (D.P.) P/N

34 Shri. Zantye J.R. ….. Sub Engineer (D.P.) P/N

35 Shri. Deshmane A.B. ….. Sub Engineer (D.P.) P/S

36 Shri. Kabare S.S. ….. Sub Engineer (D.P.) R/C

37 Shri. Nagare S.D. ….. Sub Engineer (D.P.) R/S

38 Shri. Salvi P.V. ….. Sub Engineer (D.P.) R/N

39 Smt .Kolvankar P.P. ….. Sub Engineer (D.P.) R/N

Town Planning Section

1 Shri. Patgaonkar R.G. ….. Executive Engineer (T.P.)

2 Shri. Jadhav R.A. ….. Asstt. Eng. (T.P.)

3 Shri.Godse P.S. ….. Sub Engineer (T.P.)


Sub Engineers / Architects deputed as Urban Planners for Ground Survey

1 Smt. Merchant Prachi ….. Sr. Urban Planner & Team Leader

2 Smt. Arsiwala Munira ….. A Ward Planner

3 Smt. Rachha Darshana ….. B & C Ward Planner

4 Smt. Bapaye Priti ….. D Ward Planner

5 Shri. Sayan Acharjee ….. E Ward Planner

6 Shri. Keni Niraj ….. D Ward Planner

7 Shri. Badgujar Kiran ….. F/N Ward Planner

8 Shri. Mendhe Sachin ….. G/S Ward Planner

9 Shri. Khaire Hemant ….. G/N Ward Planner

10 Smt. Sarode Deepali ….. H/E Ward Planner

11 Smt. Kaul Himani ….. H/W Ward Planner

12 Smt. Irani Farha ….. K/E Ward Planner

13 Smt. Bodke Anamika ….. K/W Ward Planner

14 Shri. Hardik Sankhe ….. P/S Ward Planner

15 Shri. Doctor Pratik ….. P/N Ward Planner

16 Shri. Vedpathak Mayur ….. R/S Ward Planner

17 Shri. Patil Santosh ….. R/C Ward Planner

18 Shri. Shet Ganesh ….. R/N Ward Planner

19 Shri. Lakras Vishal ….. L Ward Planner

20 Smt. Rohan Salunke ….. M/E Ward Planner

21 Shri. Gawande Dinesh ….. M/W Ward Planner

22 Smt. Valecha Sonal ….. N Ward Planner

23 Shri. Jeurkar Manoj ….. S Ward Planner

24 Smt. Kulkarni Neha ….. T Ward Planner

25 Smt. Ansu Alexander ….. Co-ordinator

G.I.S. Team

1 Dr. Khandke Abhijit ….. All India Institute of Local Self Government

2 Smt. Pragati Singh ….. All India Institute of Local Self Government

3 Shri. Nangare Santosh ….. All India Institute of Local Self Government

4 Shri. Harsule Yogendra ….. All India Institute of Local Self Government

Documents

REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT ... · PDF filereport of the planning committee on the draft development plan – 2034 for greater mumbai 1 [document subtitle]