Delhi: DUAC again rejects plan for Buddha park revamp

In its latest review, DUAC stated that the proposal was scrutinised again and a detailed discussion was also held with the architect through online meetings to seek clarifications.

For the second time, the Delhi Urban Art Commission (DUAC) has refused to grant approval for the proposed redevelopment of Buddha Jayanti Park in the central ridge area, citing unresolved concerns over the project’s rationale, design inconsistencies and incomplete technical details in the submission made by the Central Public Works Department (CPWD).

However, the commission concluded that the resubmitted proposal failed to satisfactorily address earlier concerns.

According to minutes of the commission’s recent meeting in early December last year, the redevelopment proposal was discussed and disapproved in November 2024.

In its latest review, DUAC stated that the proposal was scrutinised again and a detailed discussion was also held with the architect through online meetings to seek clarifications. However, the commission concluded that the resubmitted proposal failed to satisfactorily address earlier concerns.

“It has been observed that the submission has been resubmitted without satisfactorily addressing previous observations… which is not appreciated,” the commission recorded in its observations.

A key issue flagged again relates to the proposed construction of new toilet blocks within the park.

“The drawings mention renovation of the existing toilet, whereas it is observed that the proposal is for demolition and reconstruction of toilet blocks. Also, the submission does not mention the reasons for the renovation/reconstruction,” the commission stated, reiterating its earlier observation that the rationale for redevelopment had not been clearly explained.

“The details of column termination, including the base and its fixing in the ground, materiality, size of the column and their construction detail, are missing and shall be provided,” DUAC noted.

Across multiple components of the project, DUAC pointed to inconsistencies between submitted drawings and 3D visualisations. “Since the submission is at the formal stage, it is essential to ensure that all details in the drawings and the 3D views are consistent to maintain coherence and accuracy across the entire submission,” the commission said.

For the proposed bamboo toilet structures, DUAC said the structural detailing was unclear. The commission observed that 3D views showed bamboo columns supported on concrete pedestals without explaining drainage or maintenance considerations. It directed that detailed sectional drawings be submitted to illustrate fixing methods, base details and construction techniques.

The drainage system for overhead water tanks routed through shafts was also flagged for lack of clarity, along with concerns that certain design elements such as chajjas above shaft screening were “visually inappropriate” and recommended for removal or redesign.

Regarding the entry gate, DUAC noted that it had been shown in isolation without surrounding site features such as boundary walls, sidewalks and signage. It recommended that the gate be presented within its site context and suggested exploring alternative design options using timber to harmonise with the predominantly wood-finished aesthetic proposed across the site.

In the maintenance office block, DUAC pointed out discrepancies between plan drawings and 3D views, including roof profile mismatches and depictions of bamboo columns shown as freestanding without supporting roof elements. The commission said drainage, base fixing and structural bracing details were not adequately explained and required submission of clearer sectional drawings.

Similar inconsistencies were observed in the proposed renovation of the existing café, where 3D views were described as “sketchy” and containing incorrect structural depictions. For the redevelopment of the park’s waterbody, DUAC said submitted drawings did not clearly identify which parts were proposed for intervention, nor did they specify section locations or details of redeveloped ghats.

Summarising its decision, DUAC said, “The proposal has discrepancies, is incoherent, lacks clarity and was resubmitted without satisfactorily addressing its previous observations.”

The commission advised the architect to provide a point-by-point response addressing all outstanding observations before the proposal could be reconsidered.

CPWD did not respond to HT for queries.