(i) Good thing about the DPR dated 19.11.2018 is that net area 43.12 acres is uniformly shown on every page this time around. This area has come down from earlier 45 (24+3+18) acres over site analysis pages of earlier DPRs . One more uniformity is seen in Area of plot and Net area used for FSI calculation (Current calculation for FSI2.07 is here). These figures have remained consistent to 221220 SQM and 174542 SQM respectively (equivalent to 54.66 acres and 43.13 acres respectively). Additionally, the setback area has also consistently been used as 46678 SQM equivalent to 11.53 acres in all the vital papers furnished by NBCC during last 6 moths.
Clarity may be called for, because in case of actual loss of land towards roads on being more, would enable us gaining more of free FSI at the multiplier rate of 2.5. The office has always been insisting about uniformity of data everywhere.
(ii)Site analysis page 24/61 of DPR dtd 19.11.2018 measures the land parcels 1, 2 and 3 as 23.23 acres, 3.31 Acres and 16.58 acres (totalling 43.12 acres) in place of 24 acres, 3.6 acres and 18 acres (totalling 45.6 acres) of earlier DPR dated 01.11.2018 in respect of same scheme of project FSI 2.07.
If actual/net available for construction minus setback stands at 43.12/43.13 acres the same should be shown with their actual segmentation viz. 23.23, 3.31 and 16.58 everywhere. If things are other way round that should also be clarified by NBCC.
(iii) Different DPRs different figures of land measurements. The office is of the opinion that there should have been uniformity in the figures used in each of the DPRs and corresponding feasibility & draft DIB notes. Lets See:
- (a) DPR dated 04.06.2018 Land parcels 1, 2 and 3 show up 24 acres 3 acres and 18 acres respectively.
- (b) DPR dated 31.08.2018 Land parcels 1,2 and 3 show up 24 acres 3 acres and 18 acres respectively.
- (c) DPR dated 01.11.2018 Land parcels 1,2 and 3 show up 24 acres, 3.6 acres and 18 acres respectively
- (d) DPR dated 19.11.2018 land parcels 1,2 and 3 show up 23.23 acres, 3.31 acres and 16.58 acres respectively.
(iv)Type VIII quarters page has been incorporated in the DPR dated 19.11.2018, this fulfills one of our requirements conveyed during earlier communication. Having least technical expertise we would not like to comment, however best possible architecture may be ensured by our PMC.
(v) Master Plan, slide No. 45/61 showing scope of our future expansion was a desired clarity before submission of layout to MCGM which is found in place in the current DPR. The ground coverage under master plan however warrants correction and it must change from 8% estimated under FSI 2.07.
(vi) As per last communication from NBCC/ARCOP locations of EOS and ROS stand interchanged. This differs substantially from our submissions to DDTP for doing away with them. (The submission to DDTP in consultation with NBCC/ARCOP is attached here for reference) . Clarity may be required, so that fresh representation could be submitted to DDTP if need arises.
Our Understanding Based on Cross Check of Documents on Records
1. Because AOS area shown in feasibility report under DPR dtd 1.11.2018 and all other previous DPRs is same i.e, 17454 SQM equivalent to 4.3129 acres (which works out to be 10% of 43.12 acres), may be, this time around ARCOP have splitted up the obligatory AOS into 1.20 acres ROS marked as ‘E’ and 3.31acres of amenities (School & hospital marked as C & D respectively) assigning both obligations two different location.
And this all might have been done with an assumption that any EOS and ROS introduced vide DCPR-2034 would be done away with in line with our various representations to DDTP.
NBCC should be asked if our assumption is also the factual consideration taken into account by ARCOP while assigning positions for obligatory AOS.
(Last representation to DDTP on 24.09.18 is here )
2. 43.129 acres only appears to be actual available area with customs for any development activities.
3. Under Site Zoning Section
Page No. 31, LAND 3 (AREA-16.58) ought to have been spllited up as
- SALES RESIDENCE Covered area 108012 SQM
- ROS Area 1.20 Acres , giving thereby an impression that both form integral part of same land, land 3 (if our assumption is correct) to avoid confusion
4. Calculation Assumptions by Team Enclave
- (a)Total area on property card: 226013 SQM = 55.849 (in property records)
- (b)CRZ/Encroached area: 4793 SQM = 1.184 acres
- (c)Available total land: 221220 SQM= 54.664 acres (As per topographical survey)
- (d)Land Lost in Roads and influence thereof: 46678 SQM = 11.534 acres (As per topographical survey)
- (e)Net Available 174542 SQM = 43.130 acres (As per topographical survey)
NBCC may be asked if the following assumption by team Enclave matches the Correct physical position. And if it is not ok, PMC can be asked to send clarification and request to mention the figures uniformly in DPR, F/R and draft DIB note everywhere.
5. ROS area 1.20 shown under Zone 16.58 acre: It may be noted that 174542 SQM is everywhere shown uniformly since June 2018 this translates to 43.130SQM which is sum total of 23.23, 3.3,16.58 respectively. So, ROS area of 1.20 Shown in the land 3 is inclusive of 16.58 and it appears the land segmentation on page 24 of the DPR dtd 19.11.2018 as 23.23, 3.31, 16.58 respectively is correct but the consultant while zoning the land should have specified 1.20 acres ROS (part of AOS obligation) as “This is not exclusive of 16.58”.