A proposal concerning the preparation of local area plans around 27 stations of the Colaba–SEEPZ Metro Line 3 was halted on Wednesday after objections were raised in the standing committee. The move was stalled after concerns were expressed over transparency, cost, procedural clarity and the role of the agency chosen for the exercise. The proposal had been brought forward by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation, but it was not allowed to proceed after criticism was voiced by corporators from across political parties.
The exercise had been designed around the idea of Transit Oriented Development, under which areas within a 500-metre radius of Metro stations were to be surveyed and studied. Through this process, local area plans were to be prepared so that urban development around the Metro corridor could be guided in a more structured way. In its first phase, four stations were to be covered. An estimated amount of Rs 1.37 crore had been proposed for this phase, which worked out to about Rs 34.4 lakh per station. The work had been intended to be completed in five months and was to be undertaken by the MCGM Centre for Municipal Capacity Building & Research.
The proposal, however, was met with immediate resistance. Questions were raised about the absence of a tendering process, and the financial implications were sharply examined. It was argued that proper transparency had not been maintained. It was also pointed out that the BMC was already under financial strain, and therefore such expenditure was being viewed with caution. Through these objections, the entire proposal was placed under scrutiny before any approval could be granted.
Comparisons were also drawn with similar survey work carried out near Delhi Metro stations. It was claimed that those surveys had been completed at much lower costs, reportedly between Rs 20 lakh and Rs 22 lakh. As a result, the rate proposed for the BMC exercise was questioned, and the need for a stronger justification of the cost was implied. The criticism was not limited to expenditure alone, as the larger issue of administrative responsibility was also brought into focus.
It was repeatedly argued that the task should have been handled by the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority rather than by the civic body. Since the MMRDA was already associated with the Metro project, doubts were raised over why the BMC had been assigned this planning work. The logic of overlapping responsibilities was challenged, and it was suggested that the role of MMRDA was being diluted without explanation. At the same time, dissatisfaction was expressed over the lack of detailed information placed before the committee.
The timing of the proposal was also strongly questioned. Since the 27 stations had already been executed, the usefulness of preparing such local area plans at this stage was challenged. It was implied that if these plans were important, they should have been prepared earlier in the project cycle rather than after major execution had already taken place. This concern further weakened support for the proposal.
In the end, the matter was closed temporarily when standing committee chairman Prabhakar Shinde declared the proposal “not taken.” With that announcement, the plan was effectively put on hold. The development was seen as a sign that stronger procedural clarity, financial justification and institutional coordination would be required before such a proposal could be considered again.