Clarification on set back

[sansjunk]

Hello

I have a 30x50 (15.24 x 9.14 meters) site and my architect is claiming that a 8% setback is sufficient as per the BBMP bye laws (which comes to about 2.4 feet). And they do seem right as per the bye laws (attached here: http://www.mybdasites.com/download/file.php?id=205 ).

As per the bye laws if width is above 9 meters then the left and right setback should be 8% of the width. However the guy who is getting my plan approval done has got a plan made where the setbacks are 1 meter on either side and he claims the BBMP Engineer verified it.

Can someone clarify as to what is the correct setback?

[santro]

Hi Sansjunk,

pls refer the Master Plan 2015 page 20 for set back requirements as per law.

Regards
Santro

[sansjunk]

Hi Santro,

That's the same document I am referring to. I wanted clarification on its interpretation

[santro]

pls find the interpretation.

Depth Of the Site
Front Side 12% 12% of 50ft = 6ft
Rear Side 8% 8% of 50ft = 4ft

Width of the Site
Right Side 8% 8% of 30ft =2.4ft
Left side 8% 8% of 30ft =2.4ft

[blrsiteseeker]

Hello



As per the bye laws if width is above 9 meters then the left and right setback should be 8% of the width. However the guy who is getting my plan approval done has got a plan made where the setbacks are 1 meter on either side and he claims the BBMP Engineer verified it.

If the minimum required setback is 2.4', do you think the BBMP would have a problem and correct you if you have more in set back. The FAR is only quoting the minimum required and hence your plan approval guy did not get any comments back from BBMP (since 1 meter is 3' is greater than the minimum required).

[sansjunk]

Thanks for the responses santro and blrsiteseeker.

So the correct interpretation is that the left and right setbacks should be 2.4 feet and not 1 meter (which is about 3.24 inches).

blrsiteseeker, I am in the opposite situation where my actual plan has 2.4 feet setback but the plan made by the BBMP guy for approval shows 1 meter as the setback. I am trying to convince the BBMP guy that even the plan going for approval should show only 2.4 feet. Else my construction would be a deviation from the approved one.

[parkom]

Lady and gentlemen, when I read the bye-law, for buildings upto a height of 11.5m, the byelaw states the setback as 1m for sites upto 9m width and above 9m, it says the setback should be 8% minimum. I think the way it should be interpreted is, it should be 8% subject to a minimum of 1m (3.28 ft). Hence logically, I don't think for a site of 9m+ width, you can have a setback of 2.4ft width, which is less than what a smaller site is supposed to leave (3.28ft).

[sansjunk]

I see what what you are saying parkom but I wish the byelaws were explicit about it. Being ambiguous is the last thing we want in such a document.

[JollyRogers]

I wanted some inputs from the seniors out here. As per my sanction plan, there is a 12000 lts water sump on the North Eastern corner of my site. (Touching the edge of my site). I have got my plan sanctioned and already built the tank. The owner of the neighbouring plot wants me to move my sump 2 feet away from the compound wall (Which is not built yet) saying there should be a setback for the sump and I cannot have it in the corner touching the compound wall. Can anyone let me know if there is any setback for the sump? If yes, why did they approve it in the first place?

In the Bangalore revised Masterplan 2015, I find the following written in section 3.5: "The total area covered by building immediately above the plinth level. Swimming pool, sump
tank, pump house and electric substation, utilities are not included."

Any insight into this is much appreciated. Thanks for your time in advance.

[blrsiteseeker]

Thanks for the responses santro and blrsiteseeker.

So the correct interpretation is that the left and right setbacks should be 2.4 feet and not 1 meter (which is about 3.24 inches).

blrsiteseeker, I am in the opposite situation where my actual plan has 2.4 feet setback but the plan made by the BBMP guy for approval shows 1 meter as the setback. I am trying to convince the BBMP guy that even the plan going for approval should show only 2.4 feet. Else my construction would be a deviation from the approved one.

sorry I fail to understand you. isn't 1 meter greater than 2.4 feet. (as far as I know 1 meter is approx. 3 feet). So if you show 3' (which is more than min required of 2.4') how would you be in violation of BBMP rules. Maybe I am missing something very obvious!