NEW DELHI: Local residents are voicing concerns regarding the selective enforcement of the Unified Building Bylaws (UBBL), claiming it results in “absurd sanctions” for structures sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). They argue that inconsistencies in the guidelines and their interpretation are distorting zonal planning, compromising privacy, increasing fire risks between adjacent properties, and exacerbating noise issues.
For example, properties larger than 500 square meters are mandated to have a six-meter setback at the front and three meters on the remaining sides. However, applicants can obtain approval for smaller plots (250-500 square meters) to utilize a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 225, permitting a three-meter setback in the front, rear, and one side (driveway), while allowing a zero setback or solid wall on the other side.
Residents express that complications arise when homeowners alter the zero-setback side into an effective one-meter setback, building doors, windows, and balconies almost directly at their plot boundary or just one meter away. Bathrooms and kitchens are also being approved on this side, with exhaust fans, AC units, and other fixtures directly facing this narrow space and encroaching on their neighbor’s setback. This trend continues on upper levels as well.
“If both homes on either side convert their zero setbacks into one-meter setbacks with doors, windows, and balconies on all floors, their balconies will almost touch. A fire in one property could easily spread to another, leaving little room for effective firefighting,” commented a resident from south Delhi, who has submitted an RTI request to the MCD on the issue.
MCD officials mentioned that the UBBL permits 75% ground coverage, and if this cannot be achieved while adhering to setbacks on all sides, applicants can seek benefits under the previous category.
“It’s the property owner’s responsibility to make use of available space and build additional floors as necessary. Ideally, there should be a solid wall, but the bylaws do not dictate how to utilize non-mandatory setbacks,” stated an official. “In instances of objections, the issue can be contested if the total covered area, including balconies on upper floors within non-mandatory setbacks, surpasses the allowable FAR.”
Urban design experts, however, perceive the issue from a wider perspective. Professor V K Paul, Director of the School of Planning and Architecture, noted that such challenges are likely to persist in a city like Delhi, asserting that no set of bylaws can provide exhaustive solutions.
“No variable or definition can be elaborated to the extent that it resolves future questions. In contrast to a planned city like Chandigarh, Delhi has evolved organically and faces numerous complications regarding infrastructure development. Given these circumstances, violations are nearly unavoidable. It’s high time we transition from the current regime of prescriptive norms to a more logical framework,” he concluded.
