BMC denies Architect Narayan Rane's proposal to normalize unlicensed buildings at the Juhu bungalow

The Architect of Narayan Rane's plea to regularise unlicensed building at the Adhish house in Juhu has been rejected by the  Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC). The Chief engineer's building proposal department sent him a letter directing him to produce documentation within 15 days, which his architect forgot to do while submitting the regularisation application.

 

"Architect has not submitted the list of indicative concessions mentioned in the form, and the proposal is silent on the work planned to be regularized/ retained in CRZ II," according to a BMC refusal letter. According to the OCC Plan, "The plot area is 2209 square metres, and the permitted Built Up Area (BUA) is 2814.81 square metres, both of which are utilized in accordance with the Development Control Rule (DCR) 1967 in the CRZ. The architect has now filed a claim for FSI in accordance with DCPR 2034, which is valid for the entire property.

 

However, the FSI claimed, in this case, is based on mutation entry, which is not allowed because a formal subdivision of the plot has not been approved. It will result in an FSI imbalance and will have an impact on the rights of the residents of other existing buildings on the referenced plot ".

 

The additional requested work on every floor already existing at the site, according to the letter, so the idea does not come within the scope of the proposed work. A list of documents not presented by Rane's architect was also referenced in the letter. A fire department's NOC for a high-rise building, for example, is not filed. For property tax clearing, there is no NOC from the assessment department attached.

 

As required by DCPR 2034, a certificate of title clearance from a solicitor is not submitted. The notification went on to say that there are anomalies in the architect's designs, that there is a parking shortage, and that this was not taken into account when submitting a proposal. The plot area, sections, and floor plot do not meet the DCPR 2034 requirements.

 

On the first and second recreation floors, as well as the 7th Refuge level and terrace, a habitable user is suggested. The architect, on the other hand, has not submitted a submission/explanation for the area under the stairwell/lift/lift lobby area for the aforementioned floors. according to the letter

 

 

image courtesy: twitter @fpjindia