𝐑𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐆+𝟐 𝐑𝐮𝐥𝐞 𝐁𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐋𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐒𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐆𝐫𝐨𝐰𝐭𝐡

…𝒄𝒐𝒎𝒎𝒊𝒕𝒕𝒆𝒆 𝒖𝒓𝒈𝒆𝒔 𝒅𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒃𝒖𝒊𝒍𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒉𝒆𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕 𝒓𝒖𝒍𝒆𝒔 𝒕𝒐 𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒈𝒏 𝒔𝒂𝒇𝒆𝒕𝒚 𝒆𝒒𝒖𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒔𝒖𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝒖𝒓𝒃𝒂𝒏 𝒈𝒓𝒐𝒘𝒕𝒉

By Sonam Choden

Debate is intensifying over Bhutan’s three-storey building limit as towns like Gedu, Tsimasham, and Doksum grapple with its economic and development impact. A recent report by the Environment and Climate Change Committee to the National Assembly on the Building Height Restriction Policy (G+2 limits) reveals that, while the rule was intended to ensure safety, architectural harmony, and uniformity, it has led to unintended consequences- limiting investment, reducing rental opportunities, and creating disparities between towns with varied terrain and infrastructure. The review, prompted by petitions from Chukha Dzongkhag and other areas without approved spatial plans, underlines a nationwide concern that bridges architecture, economics, and equity.

“The restriction was implemented following the adoption of the Bhutan Building Regulations (BBR) 2023, the National Human Settlement Policy, and the Building Development Guidelines,” the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport (MoIT) explained. “The aim was to ensure uniformity, safety, and aesthetic harmony.” Yet, as the Committee found, uniformity has come at a cost.

During consultations and field visits to Doksum, Tsimasham, Tsimalakha, and Gedu, the Committee found that residents and local leaders expressed strong concerns regarding the three-storey restriction. They highlighted that although the towns already possess basic infrastructure such as roads, water supply, and sewerage systems, the height limitation has affected investment potential, reduced rental income opportunities, and constrained the economic viability of multiunit apartment constructions.

The Committee observed that the three-storey cap was applied without consideration for differences in topography, geology, risk profile, or infrastructure capacity. The findings emphasize an imbalance between national policy uniformity and local realities. In Tsimasham, for instance, terrain conditions limit basement access, yet owners were still required to designate these spaces exclusively for parking.

“Where basements are technically inaccessible to vehicles, building owners were still required to use them only for parking,” the report noted, describing the situation as resulting in underutilization and economic loss.
Such inconsistencies extend to attic design rules as well. According to the report, the interpretation of attic height and design requirements varies across Dzongkhags, leading to “confusion and perceptions of unequal treatment.” Residents have asked for clearer guidance and more flexibility, particularly in areas constrained by geography.
Local leaders also linked the issue to broader questions of decentralization and economic self-reliance, stating that this restriction contradicts the goal of empowering local development. The Committee summarized the sentiment succinctly:

“There is strong dissatisfaction among residents and local leaders, who view the restriction as inconsistent with decentralization and economic empowerment objectives.”
Equally concerning, the Committee found that no detailed technical, socio-economic, or risk assessment was conducted prior to enforcing the three-storey restriction. This gap, members argued, left room for unintended economic consequences and uneven development.

To address these challenges, the Committee proposed two key recommendations. First, it urged the MoIT to constitute a Joint Technical Committee comprising experts from relevant agencies and local governments to review Section 8 of the BBR 2023, including attic and basement provisions.

The MoIT shall report the status of actions taken to the Fifth Session of the Fourth Parliament,” the report directed.
Second, it recommended that future amendments adopt differentiated height limits based on topography, geological stability, socio-economic context, risk profile, and infrastructure capacity.

“A one-size-fits-all policy does not suit the country’s varied terrain and development potential,” the report implied, calling for a more balanced approach.
The Committee emphasized that while the height restriction was intended to promote safety and visual harmony, it has inadvertently diminished investment potential and constrained viable building design. It further observed that the policy has reduced opportunities for rental income and loan eligibility, particularly for landowners with small plot sizes.
Bhutan’s approach to urban development stands at a crucial turning point. The Committee’s review emphasises that sustainable growth cannot rely solely on uniform regulations but must adapt to the nation’s diverse geographic and socio-economic contexts. The findings call for a balanced framework- one that safeguards architectural harmony and environmental integrity while empowering local communities to pursue responsible development.

As Parliament considers the recommendations, the debate over building height becomes more than a technical issue; it represents the country’s broader effort to harmonize tradition with progress, ensuring that growth remains both inclusive and sustainable for generations to come.