DP 2034 for Mumbai: Revised draft, same mistakes
BMC has received 50,000 suggestions and objections on the DP so far; you have until Monday to send ideascities Updated: Nov 29, 2015 00:12 IST
Despite offering suggestions and raising objections on the draft Development Plan (DP) 2034 to the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) earlier this year, citizens have found many of the same mistakes being repeated in the revised plan.
The corporation received more than 50,000 suggestions and objections from citizens on missing designations, errors in plotting areas and wrong reservations. For instance, citizens had pointed out that the Mahim dargah was marked as an orphanage in the previous plan. However, the famous dargah still retains the same designation.
Godfrey Pimenta, an activist, who pointed out the error, said, “We had specifically said that the dargah should be marked separately in the DP. We had also pointed out a public works department (PWD) office adjacent to the Bombay high court that was clubbed together and marked as ‘court’. The revised plan retains the marking.”
Pimenta has again written to chief minister Devendra Fadnavis and municipal commissioner Ajoy Mehta about several errors in the document. The designated survey, phase one of the revised DP has been uploaded on the BMC website for public scrutiny.
Bandra residents have also pointed out that some religious structures have not been designated in the revised plan. “We cannot accept the excuse that since there are many illegal religious structures, the civic body will not mark them. There are a number of ancient religious places that need to be protected,” said Anil Joseph from the Perry Road Residents Association.
Joseph has written to the BMC about the not marking religious structures in the city in the draft DP. Hindustan Times, through a series of articles, has been pointing out the errors made in the revised plan. Citizens have only two more days to submit their suggestions and objections on the survey, the deadline for which ends on Monday.
A senior official from the DP department, who did not wish to be named, said, “Though the site visits were made by the ward officials, we have retained the reservations from the 1991 DP. So, if you see a school marked as a municipal dispensary, it is because that plot was meant for a dispensary.”