State approves CIDCO’s redevelopment policy for NAINA

Government approves policy for dilapidated building redevelopment in NAINA region, allowing 30% extra area. Villagers demand 2.5 FSI for feasibility.

PANVEL: The state government has approved the policy for the redevelopment of dilapidated buildings in the Navi Mumbai Airport Influence Notified Area (NAINA) region, that had been stuck due to NAINA regulations. While the state government has permitted 30% extra area, the villagers are demanding at least 2.5 FSI (floor space index) to make redevelopment projects feasible for the developers. The demand for implementation of Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations (UDCPR) is being reiterated.

The state issued the notification amending NAINA UDCPR just before the code of conduct came into force. It approves the proposal sent by CIDCO (City and Industrial Development Corporation), the special planning authority for NAINA.

The decision applies to 94 villages in NAINA spread over 225.59 sq km, particularly the 23 villages for which Town Planning Schemes are ready in the first phase. The policy will apply to residents of dilapidated or 30-year-old buildings.

As per the notification, such buildings will get an additional 30% FSI or the residents of the building will get a 15 sqm additional construction area without payment of an additional premium for the redevelopment of the buildings. If additional FSI is required, a premium will have to be paid as per the norms.

The state government has given 30 days for suggestions and objections on the notification to be submitted by April 15. It has appointed the assistant director of town planning of the Konkan Division for the purpose.

The NAINA Prakalp Badhit Shetkari Utkarsh Samiti (NPBSUS) which has been opposing NAINA for a decade now will be filing its objections to the decisions.

The issue had also been taken up by Panvel MLA Prashant Thakur, with the government and Raigad guardian minister Uday Samant, with whom he had held a meeting recently. “There are hundreds of buildings in gram panchayat areas of NAINA which are in a pathetic state. Their redevelopment wasn’t possible due to the establishment of NAINA which did not have a proper policy. This decision will provide a major relief for all,” said Thakur.

The residents of the dilapidated buildings have been living under dangerous conditions with constant threats to their lives, said Thakur. “There have been some instances of slab and plaster falling in these buildings which have been a cause of concern and have caused injuries. The villagers can now look forward to better and safer houses.”

Not everyone is pleased by his move. NPBSUS wants at least 2.5 FSI to make redevelopment feasible. It also wants the new UDCPR to be implemented in NAINA which will enable additional FSI.

According to NPBSUS secretary Rajesh Keni, “We have been opposing NAINA for a decade now through various agitations. Finally, there seems to be some action, but it is not enough. I challenge those advocating the present policy to redevelop just one project on a no-profit-no-loss basis and prove it is possible.”

Keni explained that when a housing society is redeveloped, the residents expect a bigger flat, at least around 30% more than the previous one. “With just 1.3 FSI sanctioned now, why will any developer take interest? Nobody will work for charity.”

“If the new UDCPR, as we have been demanding for long is implemented, the farmers will get additional FSI and incentives. Then it will be feasible for a developer who needs at least 2 to 2.5 FSI for redevelopment. The villagers will also stop opposing the present scheme,” he said.

The body will prepare the objections which will be circulated amongst the villagers, which will then be submitted to the government stating that it is not acceptable to them.

Agreeing with him, Prakash Baviskar, president of the NAINA Builders Association said, “The UDCPR has been implemented all over the state but not in NAINA area, wherein only a few regulations have been taken. The new notification for redevelopment is not of much help as it only reiterates the existing FSI allowed for construction in the area which is just 1.1 FSI in real terms.”