Developmental Control Norms

[1] The FAR should increase with the size of individual plots since
(i) The proportion/%-age of built-up areas that is required for common facilities like Staircase,
Corridors, Shafts, Lifts, etc. actually reduce with increase in number of dwelling units
(ii) coupled with restriction of “max. dwelling units”, the actual “size of dwelling units”
becomes much large and uneconomical
(iii) HIGHER far in smaller plots actually leads to more dangerous structures and congested
living, apart from raising prices of smaller plots BEYOND REACH OF INTENDED
BENFICIARIES

[2] Stairs, Corridors, Lift-Shafts etc. should be taken out from computation of FAR, as is done in
Alwar / Rajasthan where upto 15% of permitted-FAR is allowed to be used for these without
being counted in FAR

[3] There should be no restriction on number of dwelling units – a minimum size of dwelling unit,
to make for a habitable unit, should suffice.

[4] Minimum Dwelling Size should be increased, to make a habitable unit with better quality of life.
The prescribed max no. of Dwelling Units in a GHS/StudioAptmnt/ARH project should be based
on the following:
(i) about 450 sqft for Studio Apartment (Single Enclosed Dwelling Area)
(ii) about 600 sqft for one-bedroom unit (Only one closed room and one open area) and
(iii) about 750 sqft. For two-bedroom unit (Only two enclosed rooms + 1 open area), and
(iv) about 900 sqft for three-bedroom apartment (3 enclosed rooms+ 1 open areas)

[5] Group Housing, HOSTELS, and Affordable Rental or Public Housing, will not take-off, unless
(i) FAR is increased FROM 200% to 400% - making them economically viable for REITs etc and,
(ii) Minimum plot size is REDUCED to 800 sqyd, to promote entrepreneurs WITH LOWER
CAPITAL and also because larger size plots are fewer and costlier
(iii) Built-Up Area for staircases, corridors and lift-shafts of min prescribed sizes is excluded
from computation of FAR
(iv) There is no restriction on max. no. of dwelling units if they ARE OF min PRESCRIBED size
(v) Multi-Level Parking below Ground (Basement) and Above Ground (Podiums) is provided

[6] Any complex with >= 25 DU’s should be permitted facilities like a canteen, kiosk for ATM, small
shops for GROCERY, PHARMACY, stationary, KIRANA store, etc.

[7] The Right Of Way should be prescribed for each stretch in a layout plan such that
(i) Provision in Layout Plans: Right of way “Prescribed” in the Layout Plan and not Actual
Right Of way is considered for approval/rejection of building/development plans

(ii) Special/slum/Redevelopment Areas: No Village Phirni has a RoW that may prohibit a plot
of requisite min. size, and lying on the phirni, can be denied approval for a Group housing,
Affordable Rental Housing or Studio apartment project

(iii) On Ground Implementation: The Right Of Way provided in the Area Layout Plan should be
implemented by GNCTD (Deptt of Urban Dev. and Rural Dev. Deptt), MCD and DDA, by
way of widening the Public Street, preferably in both directions,
 (iv) Preparation of Zonal Development Plans & Area Layout Plans: This exercise may be
conducted through open public tenders where the tender documents must be prepared
by way of 3-stage tendering in EPC mode as recommended by CVC for complex & EPC
projects

(v) Sanction of individual building plans must be as per “proposed RoW” in the Layout Plan
and not “Actual RoW”

[8] Access to / from Public Streets:

(i) Where the individual sub-divided plot is not connected to a public street, a private passage
of prescribed width on the undivided plot may be provided to provide access to each plot
to the public street of prescribed width.

(ii) Where a public street is wholly abutted by some plots, but the public street is not of
prescribed width, the plot-owners may be permitted to surrender sufficient land to
concerned authority enable widening of public street to achieve the prescribed RoW

[9] Permit “Amalgamation” of plots (essential for realizing objectives in 7.4.2 and 7.4.3):
(i) To promote a habitable dwelling unit, amalgamation & redevelopment to bring about a
plot size of 80 sqyd. Should in fact be encouraged vide a special drive & house-tax
incentives, with however, no increase/decrease in the permitted FAR

(ii) To discourage amalgamation of smaller and medium size plots, no amalgamation of plots
of size FROM 80 upto 400 sq.YD. may be permitted.

(iii) The FAR should increase only upon amalgamation of individual plots which are larger than
400 sqyd., to motivate group housing – better amenities, larger common areas, etc.

[10] Height & Ground Coverage Restrictions: There should be no height restrictions even in
individual plots
(i) Individual Plots are no less safer than Group Housing Projects that have no height
restrictions. Instead, for all Dwelling Units located above a certain height, fire-
extinguishers, and fire-hoses may be made necessary

(ii) Highrise towers are sometimes more economical than low-rise spread out towers

(iii) Guests Houses and Hotel etc. should in fact be allowed higher Ground Coverage as their
occupants are less likely to have cars/vehicles and the ones that come will also be for very
limited duration

[11] Conversion of Landuse (CLU) must be allowed

(i) to both Private and Public entities
(ii) only in specified areas or along identified stretches and
(iii) subject to preserving a minimum area for each landuse to be specified in the Zonal Plan

[12] SIMPLIFIED SINGLE-WINDOW PROCEDURE: Currently, applicants are required to obtain and
submit NOCs from Traffic Police, Fire Safety (Delhi Fire Service) or Archaeology Deptt. for
building plan sanction. This only prolongs/thwarts sanction process and again leads to
corruption and mushrooming of unauthorized construction. It is therefore suggested that
 a. All such departments should be required to forward their requirements to the official in
charge of sanctions in concerned Municipal Corporation. There should be no referral of file
(relating to sanction-application) to any department. There should also be no need to get any
NOC from them. The Building Deptt. of concerned Municipal Corporation should be
empowered to evaluate / decide on sanction as per the norms submitted by these
departments.

b. The requirements of other such departments should only be limited to access-routes and not
impose irrelevant/archaic prohibitions such as radius of construction free zone around a
heritage site, etc.

[13] GENERAL PROVISIONS (‘BULK CHARACTERISTICS’) OF BUILDING BYE-LAWS: The current

provisions are old, obsolete, unnecessarily detailed, thereby exploited by officials & touts to
decline, delay sanctions and lead to unavoidable violations.
(A) HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS: Pointless excuses such as Non-availability of Fire-Tenders to serve
tall buildings should not be enabling causes for imposing illogical restrictions vertical
height of buildings – there are several areas in Delhi where there are skyscrapers. Head-
Office of DDA, the Vikas Minar is itself a tall 20 storied skyscraper. Apart from this, DDA
itself has built many other skyscrapers in areas where no private entity is allowed to build
multi-storied development.

It is therefore requested through this Hon’ble Court that the following suggestions be
evaluated for amending the existing procedures as regards fire-safety, for sanction of
building plans:

(i) The DFS (Delhi Fire Service) should be advised to procure fire-tenders necessary for
high buildings; If tall buildings can be protected in Connaught Place, or at ITO
(Indraprastha Estate) there’s no reason why they can’t be protected anywhere else in
Delhi. If tall buildings of DDA can be protected in case of fire, so can be those of private
developers.

(ii) There should be provisions for installation of fire-prevention in skyscrapers, as in Noida

or Gurgaon, where water-tanks for water-hydrants and fire-fighting pipes are
mandatory.

(B) BASEMENT:
I. Extent: The basement should be allowed till the plot line, or upto a certain distance
from plot-line (say 2m, as provided for side-setbacks for basement).

II. Height: The basements up to the building-line should be allowed to be raised to a

height of 4-5 ft above the ground level to allow natural ventilation. The basement
beyond building line should be retained to ground level and should have a retaining
wall along all 4 sides. The ramp from the plot-line to building line can be used to ply
the cars into & out of stilt parking.

(C) Shaft / Cut-Out in Stilt-Roof should not be insisted upon, as it creates a security risk, and
also passes on heat (due to friction of car-tyres) into the dwelling units. Stilts being open
are anyways Well-ventilated.

(D) Lift and staircase lobbies should compulsorily be the same (share the same floor-landing)
to allow passengers who alight from the lift during an emergency to immediately reach
for stairs to come down.
(E) For plots in urban areas that face/abut more than one public street/road directly, or
through common private passages, the minimum road width regulation should be eased.

(F) Height of Buildings: In rural areas, pucca roads do not exist. Building such roads uses up
a lot of height. Therefore, to ensure that entrances to buildings do not sink below the
front-road when the same is first built or after several cycles of rebuilding of such roads,
the stilt-floor should be allowed to be higher than current 6-inches or 9-inches above the
road level.

*** *** ***

Apurv Agarwal
Apurv78.magis@gmail.com
Mob: 9971 00 2656