Bridging the Housing Gap: Proposing Parity in Mumbai's Development Control and Promotion Regulations

Mumbai, often referred to as the "City of Dreams," continues to grapple with a housing shortage that affects thousands of its residents. In a commendable effort to address this issue, the Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR) 2034 introduced the provision of Permanent Transit Camps (PTC) under regulation 33(11). These camps serve as temporary accommodation for individuals affected by infrastructure projects or any other development endeavors, including government-specified housing.

However, a particular clause within this regulation inadvertently restricts the planning authority's ability to maximize housing stock by imposing a minimum road width of 12 meters for PTC schemes. In this article, we will explore the importance of bringing parity between regulation 33(10) and 33(11) to allow PTC schemes on road widths of 9 meters and above, ultimately boosting Mumbai's housing stock.

Expanding the Scope of PTC Schemes:

Under regulation 33(11) of the DCPR 2034, Permanent Transit Camps play a crucial role in providing transit housing to those affected by infrastructure projects and other development initiatives. These camps not only serve as a temporary refuge for affected individuals but also contribute to the greater goal of slum rehabilitation. Surprisingly, while regulation 33(10) extends the benefits of slum rehabilitation projects to certain designated areas, regulation 33(11) fails to incorporate the same flexibility and viability. By rectifying this oversight and allowing PTC schemes to be considered slum rehabilitation projects, we can unlock additional benefits and opportunities for creating more housing solutions.

The Road Width Predicament:

In order to optimize the allocation of available land, it is essential to carefully assess the existing regulations surrounding housing development. The current minimum road width requirement of 12 meters for PTC schemes poses a challenge to the planning authority's ability to generate housing stock efficiently. However, when we examine similar provisions in regulation 33(5) of the DCPR, we find that plots under the MHADA schemes can be developed on road widths of 9 meters and above. This parallel, combined with the fact that the FSI (Floor Space Index) is often 3 or higher, highlights the need to bring about parity between the regulations and allow for 33(11) schemes on road widths of 9 meters and above.

Unlocking Housing Potential:

By harmonizing the road width requirement for PTC schemes with that of MHADA schemes under regulation 33(5), the government can significantly enhance the city's housing stock. Allowing the construction of PTC schemes on road widths of 9 meters and above would not only increase the availability of affordable housing options but also streamline the planning process for infrastructure projects. This progressive step would unleash the true potential of the DCPR 2034 and reinforce Mumbai's commitment to providing adequate housing for all its residents.

Conclusion:

In the pursuit of a vibrant and inclusive Mumbai, addressing the housing shortage is of paramount importance. The DCPR 2034 has made commendable strides in this regard by introducing the concept of Permanent Transit Camps under regulation 33(11). However, the prevailing restriction of a minimum road width of 12 meters curtails the planning authority's ability to generate more housing stock. By aligning the regulations governing PTC schemes with those of MHADA schemes, the government can effectively bridge this gap and unlock the untapped potential for housing development. Mumbai deserves a future where housing is abundant and accessible to all, and it is through progressive policy amendments that we can turn this vision into a reality.