Latest news with #DevelopmentControlandPromotionRegulation
Indian Express
10 hours ago
- Business
- Indian Express
BMC to introduce new policy for development of ‘iconic buildings' in city
Eyeing to promote world-class architecture in the city, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) has charted plans to introduce a new policy which will pave the way for the development of 'iconic buildings' in Mumbai. On Tuesday, the civic body invited suggestions and objections from citizens to its proposal to modify the prevailing Development Control and Promotion Regulation (DCPR) 2034 to introduce a new regulation – 33(27). While the public can send in their suggestions and objections over a period of one month, the proposal has drawn flak from a section of activists. Earlier in March, Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde had announced plans for iconic buildings in Mumbai, following which the urban development department had proposed a new chapter in the DCPR in 2034. In a bid to make the provision, the BMC on Tuesday floated the proposal to introduce a new regulation — 33 (27) — which pertains to the development of 'iconic buildings'. According to the proposal, a building or a premises will be eligible to be deemed 'iconic' if they have 'unique and distinctive characteristics' owing to their shape, size, aesthetics, look, concept, theme, architectural or structural design among others. As per the clauses, no residential building will be eligible for the category with at least 40 per cent of the building remaining open to the public through some fee-based system. The proposals for a building's iconic status will be approved by a six-member scrutiny committee, which will be lead by the civic municipal commissioner, and comprise famed members from the global architectural field, visual art, a leading personality from the business industry as well as the director of the Town Planning in Maharashtra and the Chief Engineer of the Development Plan BMC's development plan department. Once enforced, the scrutiny committee will inspect the proposal and then submit the proposal to the government body for principal approval. According to officials, the project proponent of a private property who submits their bid for the iconic status will be mandated to have a minimum of 1 million sqm of BUA completed or have a minimum turnover of Rs 5,000 crore per year in the last three financial years. Speaking to The Indian Express, senior officials said that the objective of the proposal is to elevate Mumbai's existing skyline by creating new points of attraction. 'The proposal has been initiated by the government of Maharashtra while the BMC issued the notification for modification. Across the globe, we see many iconic buildings with towers that have viewing points and public spaces like malls,' said a BMC official. However, activists including Godfrey Pimenta have alleged that the definition of 'iconic buildings' remains very vague. Writing to the chief engineer of the Development Plan department in BMC, Pimenta wrote, 'The state government has retained power to grant additional FSI on payment of premium at a rate of 50% of land rate. Mischievously there is no cap as to how much FSI can be granted by state government. We have strong reasons to believe that the new Regulation is tailor-made to suit the requirements of few pre-determined developers.'
Time of India
a day ago
- Business
- Time of India
BMC invites suggestions on new policy for ‘iconic bldgs'
Mumbai: The BMC on Tuesday invited objections and suggestions from the public regarding a proposed modification in the Development Control and Promotion Regulation (DCPR) 2034. This modification aims to introduce a new policy—Regulation 33(27) — for the development of "Iconic Buildings" in the city. The proposed policy defines "Iconic Buildings or Spaces" as structures that possess unique or distinctive characteristics such as size, shape, aesthetics, look, concept, theme, urban design, architectural design, or structural elements. In cases where FSI is granted on special features for iconic buildings, up to 50% of the land rate as per the Annual Statement of Rates (ASR) will be charged, to be shared between the BMC and state govt in a 2:3 and 1:3 ratio, respectively. A special scrutiny committee will be constituted to review and approve such proposals. It will be chaired by the Municipal Commissioner and include the Chief Engineer (DP), a renowned global architect, a visual arts personality, a member from Indian Business History, the Director of Town Planning (Govt of Maharashtra), and the BMC Municipal Secretary. Additionally, two experts from the fields of architecture or urban planning—one academic and one practitioner—may be appointed. You Can Also Check: Mumbai AQI | Weather in Mumbai | Bank Holidays in Mumbai | Public Holidays in Mumbai Harshad Bhatia, an urban designer, said, "Every design that the selection committee decides to award FSI for 'Iconic' status must be open to public scrutiny." tnn
Hindustan Times
3 days ago
- General
- Hindustan Times
Colaba residents challenge legality of heritage clearance for jetty plan near Gateway
MUMBAI: The Citizens for Heritage Conservation and Residents' Association (CHCRA) has challenged the heritage clearance granted by the Mumbai Heritage Conservation Committee (MHCC) and the BMC to the proposed construction of a large passenger jetty and terminal along the seafront between Radio Club and the Gateway of India. Residents of Colaba held a silent protest march on May 3 against the proposed jetty between Radio Club and Gateway Of India, at Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Statue, Churchgate in Mumbai, India, on Saturday, May 3, 2025. (Photo by Anshuman Poyrekar/ Hindustan Times) (Hindustan Times) In an affidavit-in-rejoinder filed on June 20, CHRCA president Subhash Motwani alleged that the heritage NOC issued by the deputy municipal architect on February 7, 2025, was illegal and ex facie ultra vires. He argued that under the Development Control and Promotion Regulation (DCPR) 2034, specifically Regulation 52(9), the authority to grant such permission rests solely with the municipal commissioner, and only after due consultation with the MHCC. The project in question proposes a terminal facility measuring approximately 84,000 square feet with a frontage of 250 feet and a height of 15 feet above road level. It includes a massive passenger jetty, extending 650 metres into the sea, with a width of 203 meters and a height of five feet above the road level. The jetty will envelop a sea area of approximately 4,85,000 square feet or 20 times the area occupied by the Gateway of India. The petitioners argue that allowing such an enormous structure in close proximity to iconic Grade I heritage monuments like the Gateway of India and the old wing of the Taj Mahal Hotel is entirely incompatible with their historic and architectural character and will overwhelm the visual prominence of these heritage sites, obstruct important views, and permanently alter the cultural landscape of the Apollo Bunder waterfront. The affidavit points out that MHCC has ignored regulations which mandate that new development in heritage precincts must not mar the grandeur, scale, or setting of Grade I structures. It also highlights that the jetty design lacks functional justification, pointing out that the outer rim will host the boarding platforms, but the entire 12-acre sea area enclosed by the structure will have no practical use, effectively wasting public maritime space and contravening principles of sustainable development. Traffic congestion along P J Ramchandani Marg is another major concern raised in the rejoinder. The road, already under constant strain from regular traffic, has little to no scope for expansion due to its location between the sea and residential buildings. Contrary to MHCC's claim that congestion has been addressed through the provision of an additional lay-by or drop-off lane, the petitioners argue that no viable road widening is possible, and the additional traffic from a terminal of this size would only worsen an already precarious situation. CHCRA submitted that the BMC's heritage clearance was bad in law, illegal and required to be quashed and set aside.
Hindustan Times
11-06-2025
- Business
- Hindustan Times
No slum dwellers' consent needed for 64 redevelopment projects on our land: BMC
MUMBAI: Following the Dharavi model, the BMC has announced that the consent of slum dwellers will not be needed for the redevelopment of 64 slum plots on BMC land. Effectively, this smoothens the road for developers interested in redeveloping the slum pockets after the Maharashtra government in March handed over the responsibility of their development to the civic body. The projects will unfold as per the usual model established by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA), under the provisions of 33(10) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulation (DCPR), 2034, except with the BMC as the implementing authority, said an official from the BMC's estate department. The cut-off date for eligibility and home sizes offered to eligible dwellers will also be as per SRA rules. On May 10, BMC opened the gates for developers to express their interest in developing the plots. The majority of the 64 plots lie in the western and eastern suburbs, with most falling in Govandi followed by Malad East. In total, the BMC is seeking to develop around 400,000 square metres of slum land in the city. On Tuesday, the civic body released a supplementary document and also extended the date for developers to submit bids till June 25. The bids will be opened on that very day, and technical scrutiny will begin. The BMC made the lack of consent clear in response to clarifications raised in pre-bid consultations by interested developers, saying, 'As the BMC is the landowner, slum dweller consent is not required for redevelopment as per the provisions of Regulation 33(10), VI-1.15 of DCPR 2034.' Slum redevelopment projects typically require a majority consent from residents, but the DCPR makes an exception to the rule. 'While there is the question of carrying out slum redevelopment in a democratic manner, there is no doubt here that the BMC has administrative authority over municipal land and is empowered to initiate action for the removal of unauthorised structures and the eviction of their occupants, following due process,' explained Dhaval Parsana, principal architect at Project Maitree, which works in the field of redevelopment. In this way, at least the eligible slum dwellers are promised housing. Redevelopment may happen at a quicker pace than the prevailing practice, as there will be little scope of LOI (letter of intent) issues on the basis of their consent forms being traded from one developer to another for years on end, often jeopardising their chances of a home. When asked if this was a way to lead to the promised slum-free Mumbai, Parsana did not hold his breath. 'A slum-free city is a distant dream that will take a long time to reach,' he said. 'To eradicate slums, Mumbai needs an affordable rental market that provides an alternative to people coming into the city. It is likely that those deemed ineligible in these slum redevelopment projects will revert to slum homes in other areas if left with no affordable alternative.' Govandi, the area with the most slums in the city and the one that stands to be affected the most, has its roots in forceful evictions conducted when the suburbs of Bandra, Juhu and Andheri had begun being developed. 'This is a classic case of exclusion. You cannot make decisions affecting thousands of families on public land without consulting them. It's against the principles of democracy and natural justice,' said a vehement Faiyaz Alam, president of the Govandi-based NGO New Sangam Welfare Forum, who shot off a letter to the Maharashtra CM, BMC and other authorities. 'No community consultations, surveys or official notices have been issued to inform or involve residents in the decision-making process. The people are not going to be against redevelopment as it will only improve their area, but the process needs to be transparent so that they have the space and time to raise their concerns beforehand. The decisions cannot be made between the builder and BMC alone when it is the residents that stand to be affected.' Parsana questioned what the BMC was offering in these projects to make it lucrative for developers to undertake the whole exercise: from surveying the site, communicating with the slum dwellers, preparing the annexures, providing them with rehabilitation homes, and providing additional housing to the BMC to get the edge over other developers. After the developers are chosen, they will have to communicate with the residents on the project plan and survey them to create an annexure of eligible residents. The civic body has said it will assist in carrying out any necessary evictions.
