Strong objections were recorded at a public hearing conducted by the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) over the Revised Draft Development Plan (DP) 2041 for the Backbay Reclamation Scheme (BBRS) Blocks III to VI. The plan was described as covering approximately 237.02 hectares within South Mumbai’s A-Ward, where open spaces were characterized as essential to urban livability. It was asserted that conversions of gardens and recreation grounds into residential or other intensive uses would be opposed by residents and experts alike.
A lack of critical disclosures was alleged in the document. It was noted that the total development potential for Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) clusters had not been provided, that a comprehensive breakup of existing and proposed built-up areas across land-use categories had not been presented, and that a separate land-use map for 109.88 hectares of newly reclaimed land had not been published. Plot-wise details—such as numbers, sizes, designated uses, and the maximum buildable capacity—were said to be essential for meaningful civic participation but were reported as absent.
Concerns about environmental integrity were also expressed. Existing tree-cover information across the BBRS area was said to be undisclosed, preventing a baseline understanding of ecological impact. Potential land-use changes on plots identified as low-density green spaces—specifically plots 239A and 243A—were viewed as opening the door to large-scale development unless firm caps and transparent disclosures were mandated. It was emphasized that green commons function as urban lungs and community assets, and that their diminution would be inconsistent with long-term public welfare.
Mobility and infrastructure elements within the draft were questioned as well. A series of plots—240, 105, 88A, 88B, 119A, 239A, and 243A—were stated to be reserved for parking facilities for up to 1,000 cars; yet, neither plot dimensions nor detailed capacity calculations were disclosed. Without such data, it was suggested that traffic, access, and environmental implications could not be credibly assessed.
The inclusion of a VIP helipad proposal was additionally contested. It was urged that any aviation facility should be primarily oriented toward public use—especially medical emergencies—and should be cleared only after comprehensive noise and environmental impact assessments. By doing so, it was argued, alignment with broader public health and safety objectives would be better ensured.
Calls for procedural integrity were made throughout the proceedings. It was demanded that complete datasets be released so that residents, experts, and civil society groups could evaluate cumulative impacts. It was concluded by citizen representatives that any plan reducing public green cover or prioritizing elite infrastructure over community needs must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny, with full transparency and verifiable constraints on development potential before any final approval is considered.