report of the planning committee on the draft development ... · pdf filereport of the...
TRANSCRIPT
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 2
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 3
II.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 4
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 5
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 6
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 7
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 8
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 9
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 10
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 OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 11
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 12
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.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 13
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 14
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 15
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 16
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 17
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.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 18
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 19
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.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 20
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 21
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.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 22
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.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 23
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.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 24
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.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 25
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 26
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.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 27
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.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 28
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 29
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 30
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 31
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.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 32
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.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 33
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.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 34
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 35
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 36
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.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 37
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 38
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 39
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 40
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.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 41
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 42
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 43
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 44
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 45
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 46
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.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 47
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.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 48
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 49
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 50
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.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 51
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 52
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 53
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 54
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.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 55
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,
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 56
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 57
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 58
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.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 59
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 60
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)
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 61
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 62
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.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 63
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.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 64
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 65
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 66
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)
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 67
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).
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 68
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 69
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.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 70
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.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 71
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.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 72
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.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 73
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 74
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.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 75
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 76
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 - - - - - -
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 77
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.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 78
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 79
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.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 80
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.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 81
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.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 82
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
Sr. No Government Organization Time
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
Sr. No Government Organization Time
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 83
24 Western Railway 14:00
25 LIC 14:30
26 MMRDA 15:15
Day 4: 20.10.2016 Thursday
Sr. No Government Organization Time
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
Sr. No Government Organization Time
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
Day 1: 25.10.2016 Tuesday
Sr. No VIPs Time
1 MPs 10:45
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 84
2 MLA/ Ex- MLA 14:00
Day 2: 26.10.2016 Wednesday
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
Day 1: 2.11.2016 Wednesday
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 85
Day 2: 3.11.2016 Thursday
Sr. No Institution Time
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
Sr. No Institution Time
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 86
7 Nivara Hakk + Apna Mumbai Abhiyaan 14:30
Day 2: 8.11.2016 Tuesday
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
Day 3: 9.11.2016 Wednesday
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
Day 4: 10.11.2016 Thursday
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 87
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 88
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.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 89
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 90
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 91
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.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 92
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.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 93
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 94
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 /
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 95
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 96
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.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 97
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
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 98
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.)
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN – 2034 FOR GREATER MUMBAI 99
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