The proposed IB complex expansion at 35 Sardar Patel Marg has moved past conceptual consideration by the Delhi Urban Arts Commission, but the project cannot yet proceed to formal approval. DUAC has asked the architect to revise the design, provide fuller documentation and demonstrate compliance with the building controls applicable to the Lutyens’ Bungalow Zone. The episode offers a clear view of how Delhi’s most sensitive government campuses are still required to negotiate the city’s architectural and urban-design framework.
The proposal concerns an established Intelligence Bureau campus in Chanakyapuri’s diplomatic and government enclave. It seeks to add five buildings within the existing complex: an ancillary block, transit accommodation and a guest house, two office buildings, and a business centre. The plan also includes supporting utility infrastructure, including diesel generator sets, transformers and a high-speed diesel yard.
DUAC’s conceptual-stage consideration is therefore not a final clearance. The commission has asked for revisions before the proposal returns at the formal stage. That distinction is important in a city where the design of large institutional campuses affects more than the internal functioning of a single organisation. Building height, façades, entrances, boundary walls, utilities and the relationship between new and existing structures all contribute to the visual character of the surrounding urban area.
The site has a long institutional history. DUAC approved the original office complex plans in November 1991 and subsequently accepted no-objection certificates connected with the completion of various components in 2000 and 2001. The current proposal is not a new occupation of the site, but an attempt to add facilities to an existing campus. That makes the commission’s focus less about whether the institution belongs at the location and more about how additional built form will be inserted into an already established government and diplomatic setting.
This is where the project becomes a useful case study in Delhi’s planning administration. DUAC has asked the architect to show how the proposed buildings relate to existing structures through longitudinal sections and cross-sections. The requested drawings are also expected to establish building heights, façade details, materials and finishes. Such requirements turn a broad conceptual proposal into a document that can be evaluated spatially, rather than only through a site plan or a list of proposed facilities.
The commission has also asked for comprehensive designs for the main entrance gate and boundary wall. These submissions are to include signage and lighting, elements that are often treated as secondary to the main building but that strongly shape the public-facing edge of an institutional campus. In a diplomatic and government enclave, the boundary is part of the streetscape. Its scale, material treatment, lighting and signage influence how a secure compound sits within the surrounding city.
DUAC’s observations on utility infrastructure reveal another recurring challenge in large campuses: the difference between providing services and designing them into the building envelope. The commission found that the plans for the transit accommodation and guest house did not adequately show how clothes-drying areas, outdoor air-conditioning units, rainwater pipes and balcony discharge points would be screened.
These details may appear routine, but they determine whether essential infrastructure remains visually subordinate to the architecture or becomes a prominent feature of the façade. Air-conditioning units, exposed pipes and service areas are necessary for building operation. If they are not coordinated at the design stage, they can produce an improvised external appearance, complicate maintenance and weaken the visual coherence of the campus. DUAC’s request places those everyday operational components inside the formal design review rather than leaving them to be resolved after construction.
The same issue applies to rainwater systems and discharge points. The source report does not establish that the proposal violates any water-management requirement. It does show, however, that the commission wants the way these systems appear and function to be resolved visibly in the drawings. This is a reminder that design review is not limited to iconic façades or public plazas. It also covers the practical infrastructure that makes institutional buildings usable.
The reference to the Lutyens’ Bungalow Zone adds a further layer of control. DUAC has asked the project to comply with applicable statutory provisions and building bye-laws, including norms applicable to the LBZ. The proposal is located in an area where the character of government and diplomatic development is closely linked to scale, visual quality and the relationship between buildings and open surroundings. The commission’s insistence on detailed sections, heights, materials and finishes indicates that compliance will have to be demonstrated through the project’s physical design, not simply asserted in principle.
The review also shows how a planning authority can use the approval process to demand architectural coherence within an existing campus. The proposed buildings perform different functions: offices, accommodation, a guest house, an ancillary block and a business centre. A campus composed of several building types can easily become visually fragmented if each structure is designed as an independent object. DUAC’s request for detailed information on the relationship between the new and existing buildings suggests that the commission is assessing the campus as one composition.
That approach matters because large institutional developments often grow in phases. The original complex was approved decades ago, while the latest plan introduces additional facilities under contemporary operational requirements. The design problem is therefore not only how to build more space, but how to connect new construction to an inherited architectural and spatial framework. The source material does not provide the proposed floor areas, heights or construction timeline, so the eventual scale of that change cannot yet be assessed independently.
DUAC has additionally suggested integrating public art and clerestory solar panels, subject to applicable building regulations. The wording is significant: these are suggestions within a regulated project, not confirmed components of the final design. Public art could contribute to the identity of a large institutional campus, while clerestory solar panels could combine daylighting or energy-related functions with the building envelope. Whether either proposal is adopted will depend on the revised drawings and the relevant rules.
The project’s approval path illustrates the division between development intent and design scrutiny. The Intelligence Bureau’s need for additional facilities is represented in the proposed programme of buildings and utilities. DUAC’s role, as reflected in the report, is to examine the architectural and urban implications of that programme. The commission is not simply checking whether the campus can accommodate more structures. It is asking the architect to demonstrate how the expansion will work as part of its surroundings and how visible service infrastructure will be handled.
For residents, workers and visitors in the wider area, the immediate effects are likely to be experienced through the campus edge and the appearance of the enclave rather than through direct access to the buildings. The source report does not provide information on traffic generation, construction duration, pedestrian movement or changes to public access. Those issues therefore remain outside what can be established from the current material. At this stage, the documented public-facing concerns are architectural quality, visual coherence, utility screening, statutory compliance, entrance and boundary design, and the treatment of public toilets.
The request for detailed public-toilet plans is also notable because it places a basic public-use facility within the same review as façades, materials and solar panels. It suggests that the formal submission is expected to account for the full range of campus components, including facilities that can otherwise disappear from high-level architectural presentations. The final design will have to show how these elements fit into the wider proposal.
The next stage will determine whether the revisions adequately answer DUAC’s observations. The proposal is expected to return to the commission at the formal stage after the architect submits the requested changes and documentation. Until then, the project remains a conceptually considered expansion rather than a formally approved development.
What the review confirms is that an established government campus does not automatically bypass Delhi’s design controls when it seeks to add new buildings. What remains unclear is the final scale, appearance and implementation schedule of the expansion. The formal-stage submission will provide the next opportunity to assess whether the revised proposal resolves its relationship with the existing complex, its utilities, its public-facing edges and the planning requirements of the Lutyens’ Bungalow Zone.
