No vertical limit: High-rises on tiny plots get OK
Of these, 11 proposals foresee consuming a Floor Space Index (total buildable area on a plot) of over 2.5.
In September, the Supreme Court removed the cap of 2.5 FSI imposed by the High Court on redevelopment of buildings built prior to 1940 and allowed an unlimited vertical growth for such structures even if they are not dilapidated. The SC order also does away with minimum open space required to be kept between two buildings.
These are the first set of proposals to be okayed following the SC order.
A classic example is that of Chunilal Baldev building in Bhuleshwar, one of the most crammed places in the island city. The three-storey building is on a tiny 60 sq mt plot. With a proposed FSI of 4.85, the new building will be at least 15 storeys high. A redevelopment project in Khetwadi has proposed a staggering 6.3 FSI on a narrow 260 sq mt plot, another one in heavily crowded area of Fort has asked for a 4.92 FSI on a narrow 104 sq mt plot.
FSI of over six on a 260 sq mt plot would mean that the building would go as high as 30 storeys. Though legally this may be allowed, such tall structures with little open space around them will end up compromising on residents safety as they will be highly unserviceable, said Pankaj Joshi from the Urban Design Research Institute.
MHADA officials, who are expecting an avalanche of such proposals, state that these 24 projects will now be issued a No-Objection Certificate after which they will be forwarded to the BMC for approval.
Meanwhile, the BMC too has received its share of proposals. These are amended plans for proposals that were approved as per restrictions on FSI imposed by the Bombay High Court two years ago. As per the High Court ruling, these 160 proposals had a FSI cap of 4. Following the Supreme Courts ruling, some of the developers amended their plans and asked for an FSI between 4 and 8, said CV Saste, deputy chief engineer for the BMCs building proposal department.
At this rate the city is going to get completely unlivable. Such constructions will be a fire hazard and lead to traffic congestion in already congested areas. The BMC is bound by rule to approve them. The lack of wide roads and similar infrastructure is not a criteria, said urban planner Shirish Patel, the petitioner in the Supreme Court case.