Highrise panel grapples with towering confusion

Alarmed at the indiscriminate growth of highrises in the city, the state government appointed a five-member committee in 2004 to screen all new proposals. Through the Right to Information Act 2005, DNA obtained the minutes of the committee meetings that took place over the last two years and found that two years on, it is still in the throes of confusion. It follows one yardstick for one highrise and another for another. No standard norms are followed as the committee, its members claim, is still evolving.

The committee suffers from a serious handicap. “Ideally, we should get these proposals before the construction begins. But we are still evolving as a committee,” says Satish Dhupelia, committee member and structural engineer. As it stands today, NoCs from various departments of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) are given before the case comes to the committee, rendering its findings toothless if it finds fault with the clearances.

This undermines the committee, as reflected in the case of a proposed highrise called ‘Runwal Pride’ (CTS 634, 639/1 to 7) at Mulund, LBS Marg, which was granted permission by the BMC’s traffic and fire departments, even though the committee experts pointed out post-facto that the narrow road to the building “makes it difficult to manoeuvre a fire engine in case of an emergency’’.

The minutes of that meeting read: “The vehicle (sic) movement is not smooth and may create chaos since the parking will be used by over 300 vehicles. But the NOC from the MCGM traffic and the fire department were already granted.’’

In BMC’s defence, S Mehta, deputy chief engineer, traffic, told DNA, “Both the fire and traffic departments cleared the proposal because the place was initially free of encroachments. The committee later brought the encroachments to our notice and they have now been removed.’’ Dhupelia says, “We granted approval after they widened the driveway.’’

Out of the 11 proposals cleared by the committee, five were cleared even though they had not submitted an environment impact assessment (EIA) report from the union ministry of environment and forests (MoEF). Even after a member pointed out that the projects are not following the EIA guidelines of the MoEF.

Indeed, the EIA appears to be a stumbling block in most project approvals. While some projects are pinned down for not having an EIA and yet approved, some others are approved subject to EIA clearance and yet others are cleared only after EIA approval.

In another project, the committee cleared Raheja Princess at Prabhadevi even when one of the members said that a “traffic management study needs to be carried out due to its proximity to the Siddhivinayak Temple”.

“They should have carried out a traffic study on how much load the road can take, what is the density of the vehicles in that area and what is capacity of the carriageway. These issues, if not sorted out can cause problems in the future. Even the traffic department should not have given an NOC but it’s not our job to investigate,” said a member requesting anonymity.

And thanks to a critical deficiency in its formation, the committee approves some projects and keeps on hold some others. The GR of July 28, 2004, which brought the committee into being, is riddled with holes.

There is no clear understanding of the norms for approval. As Satish Dhupelia, one of the members of the committee, noted in a meeting on May 3, 2005, “There are no guidelines in the GR issued by the government with respect to the points to be considered for scrutiny of high rise proposals.”

SB Katoley, member, says, “The EIA guidelines we follow are the same as followed by the government of India’s housing project under the July 7 notification.” Under the July 7 notification, EIA is mandatory for projects worth more than Rs 50 crore which has more than a thousand residents.

Being an advisory body, the committee sends its recommendations to the civic chief who decides whether to accept or reject them.

According to the builders, the committee is just delaying the projects and serving no purpose, “If your own departments (BMC) are giving permission, and later your own committee raises objection, I really don’t know what purpose they are serving. My own project was delayed for nearly eight months just because the committee members could not agree among themselves,” said a builder.

Profile of the committee

• Ashok Agarwal, chairman: Former chief justice, Tamil Nadu government
• Satish Dhupelia, member: Structural engineer  
• GB Choudhari, member: Head of department, VJTI college
• SB Katoley, member: Advisor, Maharashtra Pollution Control Board
• AD Jhandwal, member: Chief Fire Officer, Mumbai Fire Brigade
• Mangesh Tambe, member: Chief Engineer, Development Plan, BMC

Loopholes

• BMC issues an NoC in most cases even before the committee’s scrutiny.
• The sewerage planning department’s NoC is not obtained in most cases. This is important because improper planning could cause flooding in the area.
• Traffic management studies are not carried out in most cases. Environment-mitigating measures are not adopted by many high-rises.
• Too many podiums are being provided as parking, which is reducing the open space in the city. To solve this problem a change in the Development Control rules, 1991 should be brought about.
• Norms were relaxed at the time of submission. For instance, developers were given time to get EIA clearance even though it is necessary at the time of submission. Now we have to be more stringent.

Case studies

• Oberoi Woods at CTS No. 590/E/1 to 59 of village Pahadi, Goregaon (36 floors): In its meeting of September 14, 2005 a committee member said the project proponents are not following the EIA guidelines. He said that even the EIA is based on a short study. On December 14, 2005, the committee decided that the proposal can be accepted from the environment point of view. But according to members an EIA study should be carried out over a full season.
  
• Plot no 746, CS no 115, TPS 1V at Mahim (28 floors): The committee recommended a fresh EIA `’as the details in the EIA report and the period of EIA studies are not related to the site under reference.’’ On September 14, as the plot falls under CRZ, the committee cleared the proposal subject to environmental clearance from the union environment ministry.
  
• CTS no 705/1 Oshiwara, Andheri (w) Katoley pointed out the importance of ascertaining whether the soil and groundwater had been contaminated due to the industrial units manufacturing pesticide nearby. Results are awaited. As on March 14, 2006, the soil testing report had not been received.