Cut down non-FSI areas in Prabhadevi project: Panel
The luxury housing project Orchid Crown by DB Realty comprises three residential towers, two buildings of 60 storey each and one of 51 storey with 3, 4 and 5 BHK flats. Ketaki Ghoge reports.mumbai Updated: Jan 19, 2011 02:13 IST
The luxury housing project Orchid Crown by DB Realty comprises three residential towers, two buildings of 60 storey each and one of 51 storey with 3, 4 and 5 BHK flats.
The project was cleared under the state’s public parking scheme, which provides incentive Floor Space Index (FSI) of up to 50% for creation of public parking. The project has public parking for 2,500 vehicles.
The panel, however, has now stalled the project and asked the BMC to review the clearance for 2,500 public parking slots. The minutes of the meeting, available with HT, state: “Considering the highly congested area on which the plot is located and where a number of tall residential buildings already exist, BMC may be requested to review the clearance for 2,500 parking.’’
The panel has also suggested that the developer cut down on non-FSI areas like the meeting area, food joint and car washing facility.
The panel had directed the developer to bring down basements to 2 instead of the proposed 3, but now with construction already happening at the foundation level, the developer has been asked to propose how they would bring down the number of basements.
“We have given them a chance for clarification. If they don’t give a reasonable justification, we can recommend action to the state government and reject the proposal,’’ said a committee member, who did not wish to be named.
The developer after rejection in the first round had gone in appeal to the final state environment impact assessment committee (SEIAA). The SEIAA that holds final authority in such cases had redirected the developer to move back to SEAC after reducing the construction area.
The panel has also asked for various details including detailed traffic plan, as it is apprehensive of congestion in the area due to the project, more space for recreation grounds, etc.
A DB Realty spokesperson said, “These being observations of the honourable members of the SEAC, the appropriate forum to respond to the same is also the SEAC. Given the sensitivities involved, it may be appreciated that a response through the press to SEAC, will not be in keeping with the decorum of the process.”
The project is being developed on erstwhile Crown Mills land and the panel has asked developers to clarify whether it has given requisite open space to state housing agency and rehabilitated existing tenants as per the mill land development policy.