Maharashtra government approves excluded part of DCPR, experts upset

FSI hike will benefit only real estate sector, experts say none of their objections were considered in the recently approved document

The state government on Saturday approved the excluded part of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR) and retained controversial provisions that will benefit only the real estate sector, say experts.

In a turnaround from the last DP, which reduced the FSI in a bid to decongest the city, this DP has increased base permissible FSI in the city to 3 and in the suburbs to 2.5. (HT FILE)

In a turnaround from the last DP, which reduced the FSI in a bid to decongest the city, this DP has increased base permissible FSI in the city to 3 and in the suburbs to 2.5. The higher FSI has been linked to the width of the adjoining road, allowing higher FSI for wider roads. FSI refers to the ratio of the total buildable area on a plot to the size of the plot. In land-starved Mumbai, it typically indicates how high a building can be constructed.

“It is evident that none of the suggestions /objections was considered to be included in the final document. It seems that the state government wanted to appease the real estate sector, reducing the open space available,” said Pankaj Joshi, president, Urban Design Research Institute.

The approved DCPR facilitates vertical development and clears a new floor space index (FSI) regime for the city in the range of 2.5 to 5-plus, allowing maximum buildable rights for commercial towers like hotels (5+), followed by redevelopment for residential use under various special categories that include buildings declared unsafe, private buildings older than 30 years, development on ‘no development’ zones, slum redevelopment, cessed buildings and cluster redevelopment. A no-development zone spread across 2,230 hectares has been opened up for affordable housing by the DCPR. While the rules stipulate the area of the houses be small – ranging from 30 square meters to 60 square meters – there is no cap on the pricing, which means the houses may not actually be affordable. Urban planning experts had sought clarity on this provision and it was suggested that the government earmark areas meant for affordable housing.