Introduction to Building bye laws and

regulations- their need and relevance

1. Urban Land market and housing reforms is the part of the core
agenda of the Mumbai Transformation process.
2. These reforms are needed in order to create a positive impact on
the quality of life for all sections of the population.
3. The reforms are also critical for fostering an accommodation for
economic growth in the `MMR as well as generating a stream of
revenue that could be ploughed back into infrastructure
improvement.
4. Among the key issues to be addressed under these reforms, is the
rehabilitation of slum dwellings and neighbourhoods and upgrading
the living conditions of families living and promoting transit oriented
development in the old buildings.
5. Facilitating affordable and low-income housing as a
sustainable housing strategy is the biggest challenge and
objective for the policy reform process in general.
6. It is estimated that around 10 lakh households in Mumbai live in
slums and about 4 lakh live in buildings that are in various stages of
dilapidation.
1. Several proactive schemes were introduced in the 1990s to infuse a
pace of change in addressing these issues.

2. However the operations of these schemes gave rise to

innumerable demand side and supply side complexities.

3. The demand side dimensions include matters of property rights in

land and housing, housing finance and housing subsidies.

4. The supply side dimensions include issues of residential

infrastructure and regulations of land and housing development and
the institutional capacity to handle change at the scale of the
problem.
 SLUM STATISTICS

MUMBAI SCENARIO
• 60 % of total population (2001 census) – i.e. 1,959
slum settlements; 6.25 million population living in
slums
• The Island City has 17%; suburbs around 83%
• Slums situated on both, private & govt. land
• Cut off date of 1995 establishes ‘occupancy right’ (not land
rights ) of dwellers
 Why Do People Move to Urban Areas?

MAIN REASONS
Push - Pull Theory explains Migration
• “Push factors” – conditions in the place of origin which PUSH
Individuals out
• Include – unemployment, Poverty, lack of land,
declining agricultural work, draughts; Socio-cultural,
political or religious conflicts;
• “Pull factors” – circumstances in new places that PULL
individuals to move there.
• Include – the possibility of - more employment
opportunities; safety; better services, higher income,
education, better lifestyles, escape from caste /
communal conflicts etc.
 Push - Pull Factors

PUSH Rural Urban

PULL

•Poverty
•Unemployment • Opportunities
•Instability •Employment
•Rural structures market
•Demographic pressure • jobs
•Lack of Land • Higher Salaries
• Communal / Religious • Better services
/ Political conflict • Low barriers
• Modernity
• Better Lifestyle
Migration
 VICIOUS CIRCLE?
• Slum dwellers initially occupy the most un-habitable (along railway tracks,
drains, or high-tension wires; garbage dumps/land fill sites etc.)
• There is Informal administrative & political support in the development of
above (‘squatting’ does not come for free)
• Dwellers salvage land, make it habitable - levelling it & building on it
• Major ‘vote bank’, therefore, over a period of time, service networks appear
• Availability of services and low cost of housing enhances the attractiveness of
the land, densifying these areas
• Upward filtration (residential and commercial) starts i.e. Dharavi or south
Mumbai slums
• This value addition, improves land price
• Governments and private sector now become interested
• “Demolition” drive start
• The ‘weakest link’ is always targetted
 VICIOUS CIRCLE

Occupy Depressed Slowly make it Political leaders /

land habitable Govt. officials
“allow” this
encroachment

Slum dwellers
evicted Overtime, settlement
gets some services

Land prices The land attracts

More
start more dwellers
consolidation
increasing
takes place
THE VISIBLE & INVISIBLE ACTORS
Corporators
 Government Ward Officials
Officials
Slum Leaders
Police
Imala Maliks Anti-
Encroachments
INVISIBLE ACTORS

The ‘better off’ Those above

Live in
poverty line
consolidated,
regularised
slums with
services
Live in the un-
The poorest
VISIBLE ACTORS AND regularized slums
of the poor
TARGETS without services
 REACTIONS OF THE GOVT. OVERTIME

1. SLUM REMOVAL (50s)

Prevalent thinking / ideology
• Slums seen as a ‘physical’ entity
• Slums not complying with DCBR
• ‘Blot’ on the cityscape, City does not need slums
• Therefore, justification of slum removal programs
Counter argument
• Slums more than just physical entities
• Is there a market that supplies affordable housing to the poor?
• Then, what housing options do poor have?
 Environmental Improvement Scheme – EIS (70s)

• Change in thinking - from slum removal to improvement

• Rather than removing, why not improve slum environment?
• Therefore, under EIS - provision of community taps, latrines, pathways.
streetlights and drains

CRITISICM
• Lack of space in slums
• Litigation in courts by private landowners
• Due to ‘Target’ orientation of govt., no participation of community
• Not enough funds with govt. to cover all slums
 SUP – Slum Upgradation Program
BACKGROUND (mainly World Bank thinking)

• Slums seen not as a problem but a solution to housing scarcity (Slums a

‘process’ not a ‘product’)
• SUP acknowledged investments & enterprise of the poor
• Therefore, upgrading existing slums - a viable option
• Based on trinity of affordability - Cost recovery-
Replicability MAIN COMPONENTS
• Land tenure to CBOs (regularization of slums)
• Loans to slum dwellers for upgradation of housing
• Logic? – if affordable housing is provided, costs can be recovered and
SUPs replicated on a large scale
• Provision of community services
 4. SITES AND SERVICES –S&S (80s)
MAIN COMPONENTS (World Bank thinking)
• Slum dwellers to be shifted to ‘serviced sites’ on fringes
of city
• Ready made plots to be provided with built foundation
& basic services
• Households to slowly build as per their affordability and
needs
• i.e. add rooms or consolidate their dwelling as per
their needs
• S&S also based on affordability-Cost recovery-replicability
• In Mumbai example is Charkop
 5.SLUM REDEVELOPMENT SCHEME – SRS – (90s onwards)

• In the present globalized scenario, private

sector intervention in slums
• based on concept of ‘land sharing’ and PPP
• increased FSI on slum plots
• Builders to redevelop slums using increased FSI
A) to shift eligible slum dwellers in multi storied appts.
on same plot
B) Build appts for ‘free sale’ on land that is thus made free
of slums
C) Profits from free sale to subsidize the slum housing
SLUM DEMOLITIONS CONTINUE
 1950-60s SLUM REMOVAL
Slums unwanted in cities

1970s ENVIRONMENTAL
Environment to be improved IMPROVEMENT

1980s SITES AND

SLUM
Slums as ‘solutions’ and SERVICES
not ‘problems’ UPGRADATIO
N

1990 onwards SLUM

REDEVELOPMENT
Private sector involvement
The Afzalpurkar Committee appointed in 1995 recommended a slum
rehabilitation policy, which was enshrined in rule 33(10) of the
Development Control Regulations 1991 (Amended).

Development under Section 33(10) of the DCR for Mumbai

Section 33(10) provides tenements of carpet area of 225 sq. ft. free of
cost to the slum dwellers, who according to the State Policy are
registered on the cut off date of 01/01/1995.

The redevelopment model is supposed to work on the incentive FSI/

TDR. basis

For every square foot of rehab component, an incentive of 0.75 FSI in

the island city area and 1.0 FSI in the suburbs is permitted for the
free sale to cross and subsidize rehabilitation.

In very highly dense slums called ‘difficult areas’ the incentive FSI is
1.33.

The redevelopment can be initiated by societies of the slum dwellers

or land owners (in case of slums on the private lands) or by real
estate developers after getting the consent of not less than 70% of
the slum households.
At the end of the redevelopment process, the slum dwellers’ co-
operative society is given collective lease rights of the land on restricted
tenure.

STATISTICS
The slums located on land needed for vital public purpose or on the
Right of Way can be relocated under 3.11 of Appendix IV of the DCR 33
(10)whereby a land owner or a developer offering relocation of such
slum dwellers on his unencumbered land free of cost gets the incentive
FSI equal to land thus vacated and also the FSI of the area constructed
for rehabilitation. The incentive FSI is transferable through TDR

Permanent Transit Tenement Scheme under the provisions of

DCR 33(14)
In this scheme, the landowner is allowed to develop up to a FSI of 2.5
for suburbs, 2.99 for difficult areas & 2.33 for city (only for govt or
public sector plots).
The additional permitted FSI is used for construction of Transit
Tenements for slum rehabilitation scheme for 10 years on rent to be
fixed by CEO, SRA. After the period of 10 years the owner may use the
tenements for any purpose.
Alternatively the additional FSI can be consumed as follows:
The SRA policy assumes that by selling the extra floor space in the open
market, the Tenements for slum dwellers would be cross subsidized.

While sound in theory, It has worked only in a few high demand

localities and not across the MMR.

Additions to the sale component was tagged to the rehab area. The
policy has encouraged developers inflating the number of slum dwellers
to get higher incentive FSI square footage.

Furthermore, the TDR generated by the schemes has been loaded on

the areas without strengthening the local infrastructure, thereby flouting
the principles of town planning.

Unfortunately, the SRA policy has been captured by real estate

developers, and took decision-making out of the hands of the dwellers
and left them with limited choices.

Finally, the financial viability of the project depends upon the prices of
FSI/TDR, which has seen significant variations in last 10 years.