One city, one body must for growth, revenue?
Experts say idea is good, but will need detailed planning to work on ground
MUMBAI : Making the civic body the single planning authority for Mumbai – a proposal sent by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to the Maharashtra government – could impact redevelopment of buildings, vertical and infrastructure development, while bringing in considerable revenue to the civic body, according to urban planning experts. If approved by the state, it could change the face of development in parts of Mumbai, such as Andheri (East), Goregaon and parts of east coast, Chembur and Charkop, among others.
The proposal was mentioned in the budget presented BMC chief Iqbal Singh Chahal on Wednesday.
Currently, the city has multiple planning authorities such as the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA), Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (Mhada), Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC), Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) and MBPT. There are many pockets in Mumbai where the BMC is not the planning authority.
For example, the MMRDA is the planning authority for parts of Bandra Reclamation, Bandrakurla Complex and Nariman Point; many areas along the east coast of Mumbai are with Mumbai Port Trust, the Andheri East area is in the possession of MIDC, SRA is the planning authority for all slums in the city from Dahisar to Colaba, and there are 156 layouts of Mhada across the city.
These authorities have to be approached for construction permits in these areas. Moreover, premiums and construction charges are paid to these authorities, at the time of new constructions or redevelopment. BMC’S Development Control and Promotion Regulations 2034 do not apply to these areas. Effectively, the Floor space Index (FSI) that these buildings can avail differs, and the mandatory open space requirement of a plot, at the time of construction, also differs. However, the BMC provides all civic amenities such as water supply, sewerage lines, roads, and fire no-objection certificate to buildings in these areas.
Hussain Indorewala, assistant professor with Kamla Raheja Architecture Institute, said, “If Mhada is doing a redevelopment in its area, then BMC does not benefit from the premiums from construction, and other charges. But it is providing civic amenities, so perhaps the BMC is thinking that it should benefit financially as well. If you look at the DCPR, many parts of Mumbai were not included, as the planning authority for these regions rested with different bodies. So it will make planning more accountable, but the BMC seems to be thinking of this as means of raising revenue.”
Indorewala added, “This means, when plans for infrastructure development and land use are being made in the city, the civic body will be able to plan land use and prescribe development regulations for the entire city. How this will translate on the field, in terms of details like transit-oriented development, remains to be seen. As execution of projects is likely to remain with the respective bodies, we can’t say the BMC won’t need to communicate with any bodies at all, if it becomes the singular planning authority.”
Vilas Nagalkar, a senior citybased architect, said, “For example, the Oshiwara Business District had a higher FSI, meaning buildings in this area could be taller than buildings in the rest of Mumbai. After the DCPR 2034 was finalised, the BMC began to give higher FSI to commercial establishments, and the difference in FSI has now almost been neutralised, only now.”
Moreover, bringing construction permits under one roof for all areas in the city will also impact the BMC’S rank in World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business, according to experts. Shirish Sukhatme, a senior city-based architect, said, “We have projects that are stuck for three plus years because of delay in coordination between the respective planning bodies while giving us permits.”
Mumbai Congress president Bhai Jagtap said, “The Congress is opposed to the idea. Other agencies such as the MMRDA and Mhada have also significantly contributed to the development of the city and their rights should not be taken away. If they are not doing a good job, they should be improved.”
A