9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the stop work notice and height restriction on Wing 'C'. 2. Correlation between DCR 23 and DCR 38(34) regarding recreational area. 3. Justification of exemptions from DCR 31(1) under DCR Nos. 33(7), (8), and (9). 4. Impact of additional FSI on traffic. 5. Adequacy of fire safety mechanisms for high-rise buildings. Summary: Issue 1: Validity of Stop Work Notice and Height Restriction The Supreme Court addressed the appeal against the Bombay High Court's order quashing the stop work notice dated 22.12.2011 and the height restriction on Wing 'C' to four floors. The Court noted a settlement between the parties, which agreed to limit the Public Parking Lot (PPL) to ground + 4 upper floors and three-level basements, with captive parking from the 5th to 13th floors in Wing 'C'. The Court emphasized that this settlement did not invalidate the Municipal Circular dated 22.6.2011. Issue 2: Correlation Between DCR 23 and DCR 38(34) The Court examined whether the recreational area required under DCR 23 could be reduced by providing it on a podium as per DCR 38(34). It concluded that the minimum recreational area mandated by DCR 23 must be provided at the ground level and cannot be reduced by relying on DCR 38(34). Recreational space on the podium can only be additional to the ground-level requirement. Issue 3: Justification of Exemptions from DCR 31(1) The Court scrutinized the exemptions from height restrictions under DCR 31(1) for schemes under DCR 33(7), (8), and (9). It highlighted the need for a scheme-wise approach and proper supervision, suggesting that the impact of high-rise buildings on the locality and traffic should be examined before granting such exemptions. The Court recommended that these considerations be included in the new Development Plan for Greater Mumbai. Issue 4: Impact of Additional FSI on Traffic The Court noted the significant increase in vehicular population and the resulting traffic congestion. It recommended that the impact of additional FSI on traffic should be assessed locality-wise, and measures should be taken to manage traffic effectively. The Court suggested that the new Development Plan should consider these aspects to ensure sustainable urban development. Issue 5: Adequacy of Fire Safety Mechanisms The Court addressed the adequacy of fire safety mechanisms for high-rise buildings, particularly those exceeding 70 meters. It found the second proviso to DCR 43(1)(A), which allowed reduced open space for fire engine access in certain redevelopment schemes, to be hazardous and discriminatory. The Court held that even for plots up to 600 sq. mts. under DCR 33(7), a minimum open space of 6 meters must be maintained for fire engine maneuverability. Additional Directions: 1. The decision on recreational space and fire safety requirements will apply prospectively to constructions where plans are not yet approved or where the Commencement Certificate (CC) has not been issued. 2. The Government of Maharashtra is directed to reconstitute the 'Technical Committee for High-Rise Buildings' with additional terms of reference, including addressing grievances related to development schemes under DCR 33(7), (8), (9), and (10), and making recommendations for the new Development Plan. 3. The Appellant-Municipal Corporation is directed to provide necessary assistance and honorarium to the committee members. Conclusion: The appeal was disposed of in light of the settlement and the Court's determinations on the additional issues. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
|
