1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of the 1813th meeting held on 01.05.2025 were discussed.

1. The South-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans for additions and alterations at its meeting on 05.02.2020. However, the revised building plans for additions and alterations were approved at the meeting held on 24.04.2025; specific observations were made. 
3. The revised building plans proposal for additions/alterations (addition of a new building block comprising 2B+G+9 floors) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect online on Cisco Web Ex meetings, who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the submission made and the online discussion held, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission previously approved the proposal for additions/alterations in its meeting held on April 24, 2025. However, the same proposal has been resubmitted to the Commission. During an online discussion, the architect clarified that the resubmission was due to a query from the fire department (CFO). The architect further confirmed that no changes have been made to the proposal since its earlier approval by the Commission. The Commission duly noted the clarification provided.

1. The North-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the formal building plan proposal for additions and alterations in its meeting on December 02, 2021. However, the revised building plans submitted later were not approved in the meeting held on March 27, 2025, and specific observations were made.
3. The ‘Haveli at 175, Katra Bariyan, Fatehpuri’ is a listed Grade-III heritage building at Serial No. 331 in the Gazette notification no. F. No. 13(43) MB/UD/2014/1602 dated July 29, 2016 issued by the Department of Urban Development, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
4. The revised building plans proposal for additions and alterations received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-26112123035 dated 02.04.2025, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect online on Cisco Web Ex meetings, who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the submission made and the discussion held, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) In its previous meeting no. 1808 dated March 27.2025, the Commission gave the following observations:

“….c) It was observed that property no. “175, Katra Bariyan, Fatehpuri” has not been specifically demarcated in the properties 173 to 176 by the architect. This demarcation would enable the Commission to review the proposal judiciously….”

The Commission observed that although the architect has demarcated the portion in question, the MCD has not officially verified it. However, photographs clearly indicate that the work on site is in progress.

b) The drawings do not mark floor levels in the plans, and thus, the level changes cannot be comprehended from the submission. To ensure the submission is self-explanatory and complete, it shall be ensured that all drawings have levels marked in the floor plans and the north point.

c) Sections across the site are missing in the submission; thus, the details of cut-out, ventilation, and levels are not comprehensible. A longitudinal section shall be included in the revised submission.

d) The Commission does not appreciate the design of the toilet on the ground floor, as it lacks a ventilation shaft. The toilet shall be redesigned with an appropriate ventilation mechanism and a screening mechanism.

e) The plumbing pipes are also provided inside the shop on the ground floor. A schematic representation explaining the provision of plumbing should be provided in detail, while all plumbing/ rainwater pipes are provided in appropriately screened shafts to ensure they do not mar the aesthetics of the façade.

f) All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations.

g) The solar panels shall be integrated into the design at an appropriate clear height, ensuring that the space beneath can be effectively utilised as well as increasing potential panel area to edge of or beyond footprint. This will help for easier maintenance, increase generative capacity, help for reducing heat load by enhanced area shaded, while most importantly improving the aesthetic by ensuring structure to support panels are better designed and integrated.

h) The Sustainability features shall be as per point 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

i) All plumbing pipes, service equipment, water tanks, air-conditioning units, solar panels, etc., should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of points nos. 10, 11, and 12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval)), as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

5. Overall, the proposal received at the formal stage is incomplete and lacks clarity, and thereby, the Commission could not appreciate it judiciously. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations along with the Commission’s observations as per DUAC letter no: OL-26112123035 dated 02.04.2025 and furnish a pointwise incorporation and reply.

1. The NDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the proposal for the Redevelopment of the GPRA Colony, Sarojini Nagar, in its meeting held on January 17, 2020, with specific observations. However, the NOC for Completion (MLCP Package-9A) was not accepted in the meetings held on March 13, 2025, and April 17, 2025, respectively; observations were accordingly issued.
3. The proposal for NOC for completion (Part-MLCP Package -9A) received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised. Based on the submission made, drawings and photographs submitted, the proposal for part NOC for completion of MLCP Package – 9A is accepted.

1. The CPWD forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not accept the concept of the layout and building plan proposal at its meetings held on January 9, 2025, and March 20, 2025; observations were given.
3. The layout and the building plans proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, along with the replies submitted in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no:   OL-17032562013 dated 26.03.2025. Based on the revised submission made and replies received, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) A compliance to the observations made is submitted, but it also must reflect in drawings with dimensions. The furniture arrangement shown must have proper dimensions.  It is a matter of concern that the proposal, previously reviewed by the Commission, has been resubmitted without addressing the detailed observations in DUAC letter no. OL-17032562013, dated 26.03.2025, the drawings submitted remain the same as before. As the proposal is at the formal stage, all previous observations of the Commission must be addressed thoroughly and systematically. A point-wise compliance statement must be provided in a 'before-and-after' format—clearly highlighting the original submission and the corresponding modifications (including plans, elevations, section, and 3D views)—to facilitate the Commission's comprehensive and informed review.

4. Overall, the proposal received at the formal stage remains non-compliant with the previous observations. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and the Commission’s observations as per DUAC letter no: OL-17032562013 dated 26.03.2025 and furnish a pointwise incorporation and reply.

Building plans proposal in respect of the addition of Activity Block at Cambridge School, Block H, Sriniwaspuri. (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans for additions and alterations at its meeting on April 8, 1980. However, the building plans proposal for adding an Activity Block was not approved at the meeting on 13.03.2025; specific observations were made.
3. The building plans proposal for the additions/alterations (Activity Block G+03 floors) received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised.  Based on the revised submission made, along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-07032527015 dated 19.03.2025, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the proposed parking is open surface parking, which is discouraged as it contributes to environmental concerns like urban flooding. It is recommended that the parking area be relocated to the basement or stilt level (with double-stack parking) to free up the surface area for open green spaces. The revised parking layout and calculations should be clearly illustrated in the drawings and 3D views. Additionally, the design must ensure conflict-free movement between the activity block and the football field to safeguard user safety.

b) To better explain the site, the site photographs shall be supplemented with a key plan showing the angles from which they were captured.

c) The entry to the canteen block is not of appropriate design, size, and poorly designed, forming an acute angle with limited space. The entry should be redesigned to provide ample circulation space, avoid sharp or negative angles, and include adequate weather protection.

d) The area earmarked for hydroponics and horticulture is not explained clearly, i.e., its function, access, usage, details of the glazing, etc., as it is a important design component. The details of the steel roof above the hydroponics and horticulture are not understood, i.e., materiality, fixing, and construction details. It shall be ensured that all details of the roof, floor plans (along with dimensions), and 3d views are included.

e) The entry to the activity room is too close to the lift. To avoid the clash, a lift lobby is suggested.

f) The Commission has observed that the windows do not have protection against harsh weather conditions. They lack shading mechanisms like recessed windows and canopies/chajjas to ensure weather protection. The revised submission should incorporate these elements in the drawings along with the 3d views.

g) The aluminium louvres proposed in the façade appear too long to be stable without any support. Their fixing detail, i.e., structural bracing, is missing, making it an incomplete detail. To make the design scheme self-explanatory, complete details of the material's fixing and structural stability shall be ensured.

h) The purpose of the canopy next to the building is not understood. Also, the canopy's size appears to be big compared to the proportions of the building. The architect shall provide details of the canopy, including materiality, size, function, and purpose.

i) Rainwater drainage shall be explained in detail, including the terrace and ground level, and provided separately schematically.

j) The quality of the drawings and 3D views must be improved to include dimensions, materiality, and other relevant details to make them self-explanatory and comprehensible.

k) All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations.

l) Work of public art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at an appropriate level, shall ensure to be installed in terms of point nos. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

m) The solar panels shall be integrated into the design at an appropriate clear height, ensuring that the space beneath can be effectively utilised as well as increasing potential panel area to edge of or beyond footprint. This will help for easier maintenance, increase generative capacity, help for reducing heat load by enhanced area shaded, while most importantly improving the aesthetic by ensuring structure to support panels are better designed and integrated.

n) The Sustainability features shall be as per point 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

o) All plumbing pipes, service equipment, water tanks, air-conditioning units, solar panels, etc., should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of points nos. 10, 11, and 12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval)), as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

4. Overall, the proposal received at the conceptual stage is incomplete and lacks clarity. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and furnish a pointwise incorporation and reply.

Layout and Building plans proposal in respect of Boys and Girls Hostel at IIT Delhi, Hauz Khas. (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission. 
2. Earlier, the Commission approved the revised layout of Indian Institute of Technology, Hauz Khas on March 09, 2011.
3. The building plans proposal for the addition of New Girls’ and Boys’ Hostel received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised, and the following observation is to be complied with:

a) During its meeting on October 17, 2024, the Commission issued specific guidelines through memorandum no. 1(2)/82-DUAC dated October 29, 2024, for the conceptual proposal under review. It was noted that the architect's COA certificate along with the Authorization from the owner appointing the architect for the project was missing from the checklist. As the proposal is at the conceptual stage, it is imperative to provide accurate and complete documentation, adhering to the requirements specified in the checklist for conceptual proposals (available on the OPAAS login page under "Steps to Submit Proposals for Conceptual Proposals"). This will ensure that the Commission appropriately considers the proposal.

4. The Commission did not consider the proposal due to a lack of information at the Conceptual stage (as per the checklist available on the DUAC website). Thus, the architect is advised to provide complete and correct information to ensure consideration of the proposal.