Objections to DCR Modifications

Flat No. 16, 4^th floor

‘Ganga Vihar’

‘C’ Road, 55 Marine Drive

Mumbai, 400 020

Date: February, 2007

Shri I.S. Chahal, IAS

The Chief Executive Officer/

Officer on Special Duty,

Slum Rehabilitation Authority,

5^th floor, Griha Nirman Bhavan,

Bandra (East),

Mumbai – 400 051.

Fax No: 2659 0457

Sub:Objections/suggestions regarding Dharavi Redevelopment Project.

Ref:Public Notice dated 19^th January, 2007 issued under

Section 37(1) of the MR&TP Act, 1966 and published in

Loksatta dated 21^st January, 2007.

Sir,

Following are our objections/suggestions, which need to be considered seriously:

1.Slum Rehabilitation Authority (Authority) has been appointed as the Special Planning Authority (SPA) for Planning and Redevelopment of Dharavi Notified Area under Section 40 of the MR&TP Act, 1966 by UDD Notification dated 9 March, 2005. Having become the SPA, the Authority is obliged under subsection 3(d) of Section 40 of the MR&TP Act, 1966 to prepare and publish the draft plan and proposals for inviting suggestions and objections. The Regulations for controlling development have to be an integral part of the plan and proposals and cannot be published in isolation. We therefore believe that the publication to modify the Development Control Regulations (DCRs) is not in conformity with the law and must therefore be withdrawn.

In support of the above contention we wish to make the following additional points:

§The Authority has been given the status of SPA for slum rehabilitation areas. However, this was not adequate in the case of Dharavi as the entire area is not a “slum”. This is why the Authority has been separately appointed as SPA for the planning and redevelopment of Dharavi.

§The Authority’s writing of a letter (confirms the above contention) to the government seeking to modify the existing DCRs, therefore, has no legal standing.

§Similarly, the government’s directive in response to such a letter to modify the regulations appears to be ultra vires.

2.We therefore reiterate that any regulations for controlling development in the Dharavi Notified Area must be part of a Plan and proposals and must be published accordingly.

3.Without prejudice to our above mentioned position, we now proceed to record our objections to the proposed modifications to the DCRs.

i.Modification No 1. DCR 27

This is an open ended regulation with excessive discretionary powers granted to the CEO of the Authority. The yardstick to judge the adequacy of the provision has also not been mentioned. The rule is therefore bad in law and in fact demonstrates the imperative need of having a Plan.

ii.Modification No. 2 DCR 33 (9)

Proposed inclusion of this regulation clearly shows that it intends to deal with a type of redevelopment currently covered neither by slum rehabilitation policy nor by policy regarding cessed buildings. It is therefore necessary to see how such buildings are proposed to be integrated into general redevelopment by way of a comprehensive Plan.

iii.Modification No. 3: DCR 33 (10)

The eligibility for rehabilitation has been restricted to pre-1995 slum dwellers. However how the redevelopment plan intends to deal with ‘ineligible’ slum dwellers is not disclosed. When the Authority was specifically appointed as SPA for the entirety of Dharavi, it was expected that it will prepare and implement plans for all the residents of the area.

iv.Appendix IV – (A)

Applicability of the regulations is confined to developers appointed by the State Government. The process of selecting developers is not clarified. In any case the selection should be based on a transparent competitive process. More importantly, the slum communities’ participation is excluded, which is highly objectionable.

The entitlement of slum dweller is limited to 225 sq.ft. without any opportunity to obtain additional area even on payment. This is undesirable as the very objective of the redevelopment should be to offer opportunity of improvement to existing dwellers.

v.Regulation 1.3, though it assures resettlement within Dharavi, does not assure a consultative process to precede such location decisions. It is necessary that the resettlement decisions are the result of a consultative process.

vi.The condition of obtaining consent of 70% of the slum dwellers has been cleverly deleted and instead a provision of acquiring properties has been inserted. The deletion of obtaining consent is strongly objectionable.

vii.Regulations 3.5. to 3.9 indicate a cap of 4.00 on utilization of FSI. Ostensibly the purpose was to restrict TDR from being transferred to areas outside Dharavi. However, the prescription of a minimum density of 650 tenements per hectare defeats this purpose as may be seen from the following illustration.

-Plot area-10,000 sq.mtr.

-Net area-8500 sq.mtr.

-Density-650 ts/ha.

-By even considering

20.90 sq.m. carpet

(25 sq.mtr.BUA) the

rehab.b.u.a.-16250 sq.mtr.

-Rehab.component by

adding 30% b.u.a.

for amenities-21125 sq.mtr.

-Dev.Rights generated

@ 1:1.33-28096 sq.mtr.

-B.U.A.permissible in

situ at 4.00 FSI,

8500 x 4-34000 sq.mtr.

-Sale b.u.a. in situ

34000-16250-17750 sq.mtr.

-TDR to be floated

outside the plot

(outside DRP area)

28096 – 17750-10,346 sq.mtr.

The original regulations specify 500 t/ha as the density for being eligible to receive incentive FSI. This is proposed to be enhanced to 650 t/ha. We believe such high density, high FSI development is not at all suitable for low income households and should not be adopted. Instead, 500 t/ha may be retained as the maximum density. It would also be consistent with the National Building Code of India, 2005, which prescribes a maximum of 500 t/ha on the net plot area. This, we believe, would not affect the objective of restricting the use of TDR outside of Dharavi by adopting the cap of 4.0 FSI.

viii.Regulation 6 attempts to improve upon certain earlier prescriptions such as distance between two buildings and percent of amenity open space. However, these seem to have been introduced without ascertaining whether under such conditions density of 650 t/ha and FSI of 4 can be achieved. Unlimited powers to the CEO, SRA, should not become the main remedy.

ix.Regulation 9.1 still retains the contribution to the corpus of the society at Rs. 20,000 per household, decided in 1995. Twelve years later, the purchasing power of Rs. 20,000 has been reduced substantially due to inflation. Moreover, the shift towards taller rehabilitation structures has also increased general maintenance expenses - particularly for lifts and the pumping of water. With increased FSI being available and high prices expected from the sale component, it is justifiable that the amount of contribution be substantially increased.

In view of the above observations, we demand that the notice publishing the modifications under reference be withdrawn and a draft Plan and proposals for Dharavi Notified Area be published along with the necessary Development Control Regulations, according to the procedure prescribed under MR&TP Act, 1966.

We shall appreciate an opportunity of presenting our stand in person as well.

Yours faithfully,

Copy for information & necessary action to:

1)Shri S.S. Kshatriya, IAS

Principal Secretary,

Housing & Special Assistance Dept.,

Govt. of Maharashtra, Mantralaya,

Mumbai- 400 032.

Fax No. 2202 5939

2) Shri Ramanand Tewari, IAS

Additional Chief Secretary,

Urban Development Department,

Govt. of Maharashtra, Mantralaya,

Mumbai-400 032.

Fax No. 2202 3986