Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1814th meeting held on 08.05.2025.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of the 1814th meeting held on 08.05.2025 were discussed.

1. The SDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal at its meeting on January 23, 2015, and approved revisions at its meetings on May 24, 2017; specific observations were made.
3. The Commission accepted the NOC (for Part-2) for Completion at its meetings held on May 8, 2025; specific observations were made.
4. The proposal for NOC for completion (Part) received (online) for (part-1) at the completion stage was scrutinised. The Commission noted that Part-1, which has been received for Completion, has one wing that has been constructed and the other that has yet to be constructed.
5. Based on the submission made, including documentation, drawings, and photographs, the proposal for NOC for completion (for Part-1 of the wing that has been constructed) is accepted.

NOC for Completion (Part 1 for the wing which has been constructed) accepted.

1. The SDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal at its meeting on January 23, 2015, and specific observations were made.
3. The proposal for NOC for completion received (online) for Block-B (Index no. 99B) at the completion stage was scrutinised. Based on the submission made, including documentation, drawings, and photographs, the proposal for NOC for completion is accepted.   

NOC for Completion accepted.

1. The SDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. Earlier, the Commission approved the proposal in respect of the site at its meeting on March 16, 1983, and the Commission accepted NOC for completion plans proposal at its meeting held on August 31, 2016. The Commission approved the proposal for additions and alterations (addition of two floors in Block 2 (G+1 floor) and addition of Block 5 (B+G+4 floors)) at its meeting held on September 08, 2018. Subsequently, the Commission did not accept the concept of the proposal for additions and alterations (extension of Block-4 (B+G+3 floors)) at its meeting held on June 20, 2024, August 29, 2024, and September 26, 2024; observations were given.
3. The Commission accepted the concept of the proposal for additions and alterations (addition of a new Block-4 (B+G+3 floors)) at its meeting held on March 20, 2025.
4. The building plans proposal for additions/alterations (addition of a new Block-4 (B+G+3 floors)) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and the following observations are to be complied with:

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

b) Solar panels shall be integrated at an appropriate clear height to ensure effective utilisation of the space beneath. Extending beyond the footprint will allow for larger panel coverage, enhancing generation capacity. This placement also facilitates easy maintenance, reduces heat load through increased shading, and most importantly, improves aesthetics by embedding the panels within a well-designed structural framework.

c) 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.

d) 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.

e) 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.

Approved. Observations given.

1. The North-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. No previous record of approvals(formal/completion) taken from the Commission has been found in the Commission's available record.
3. The building plans proposal for additions/alterations (B+G+3) 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 discussion held, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the existing building has a detailed window feature, i.e. jharokha, with brackets, which are interesting elements and thus shall be incorporated in the proposed design. It is suggested to remove the band around the windows in the proposed design and use the existing architectural element in the windows, as it can double up as a shading mechanism. Elements from the same architectural feature should also be utilised for the doors at the ground floor level.

b) The elevation shows staggered openings with Jaali patterns, which do not look aesthetic and mar the façade's aesthetics. Instead, they shall be converted into one single, unified opening to ensure harmony on the façade. 

c) The floor plans show huge balconies and terraces on different floors, but rainwater drainage is missing from the drawings. The revised submission shall provide it.

d) The floor plans and elevations showed that no plinth has been provided on the ground floor, which directly opens to the road level, which is not appreciated. The details of the plinth and the floor levels should be clearly marked to explain the levels of the site and building. 

e) The structural arrangement of the building, i.e., the location of the columns, is not shown in the floor plans, especially on the basement floor. Therefore, the functioning of the parking and furniture arrangement is not understood. The column arrangement for all floors should be shown in the revised submission.

f) The design of Jaali appears to vary from the 3d views, i.e., a different design is seen in the Jaali proposed in the staircase openings, the screening of the DG set, and that proposed on the ground floor. Jaali designs across all the facades must be the same to ensure uniformity and harmony in design.

g) The DG set seen in the 3d views is missing in the drawings, causing a mismatch in the submission. To ensure a cohesive submission, all details, including services on the ground and terrace, shall be correlated in the drawing and 3d views.

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

i) Solar panels shall be integrated at an appropriate clear height to ensure effective utilisation of the space beneath. Extending beyond the footprint will allow for larger panel coverage, enhancing generation capacity. This placement also facilitates easy maintenance, reduces heat load through increased shading, and most importantly, improves aesthetics by embedding the panels within a well-designed structural framework.

j) 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.

k) 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 formal stage lacks clarity, is incomplete and is incomprehensible, thereby the Commission could not appreciate the proposal judiciously. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and furnish a pointwise incorporation and reply.
    

Not approved, Observations given.

1. The SDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission. 
2. The Commission approved the masterplan layout at its meeting held on October 11, 1996, specific observations were given, and also considered & approved the proposal in respect of the revised Master plan and layout plan at its meeting held on June 24, 1999, specific observations were given. 
3. The Commission accepted the proposal for the Multi-Speciality and Research Centre building plans at its meeting held on October 30, 2024; observations were given.
4. The building plans proposal for Student Centre (G+2) 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 discussion held, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that the proposed student centre forms part of a larger existing campus, and that the site in question was previously designated as Building No. 26, intended for sports and cultural activities.
 
b) The proposed site plan shows parking provision, but it is missing in the 3d views, thus showing a mismatch. To make it a coherent submission, it shall be ensured that all details incorporated in the proposal are correlated in the drawings and 3d views. All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations.

c) The 3D views depict a small gate and boundary wall, but no access road from the outside is shown, making their purpose unclear. To ensure clarity, the revised submission should include the gate and boundary wall's location, design, and construction details.

d) The rear 3D view shows a large, tall Dholpur stone Jaali with glass, the detailing of which was not appreciated by the Commission and could be resolved/simplified.   The horizontal grooves on the façade appear to be placed arbitrarily, as they do not align with the top or bottom edges of any openings, including doors and windows, resulting in a visually cluttered appearance. Additionally, the façade incorporates multiple elements—cornice, grooves, Jaali, and glass—which collectively create a chaotic impression. It is recommended that the façade be simplified by minimising the number of architectural elements and ensuring that groove lines are aligned with other design features to achieve visual coherence.

e) The windows are suggested to be recessed, and sun shading mechanisms with cornices as an element can be provided to add interest to the façade. The internal furniture arrangement of the dining hall is missing, so details of capacity, functioning, and logistics are not understood. It shall be ensured that the internal furniture arrangement overlaps with the column arrangement to ensure clarity.

f) Also, it appears that the column arrangement, especially in areas including the dining hall, bank extension, and hall on the first floor, has not been designed well. Thus, their placement might hinder their functioning. Thus, overlapping the columns with the internal furniture arrangement is imperative to ensure effective functioning within the design.

g) A vertical element to hide the rainwater pipes has been proposed in the façade, which the Commission does not appreciate. Other mechanisms for screening the pipes, including rainwater drainage pipes, should be explored to blend into the façade's aesthetics. 

h) Solar panels shall be integrated at an appropriate clear height to ensure effective utilisation of the space beneath. Extending beyond the footprint will allow for larger panel coverage, enhancing generation capacity. This placement also facilitates easy maintenance, reduces heat load through increased shading, and most importantly, improves aesthetics by embedding the panels within a well-designed structural framework.

i) 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.

j) 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.

k) 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 lacks clarity, is incomplete and is incomprehensible, thereby the Commission could not appreciate the proposal judiciously. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and furnish a pointwise incorporation and reply.
    

Not approved, Observations given.

1. The North-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal at its meetings held on September 26, 2024, and November 07, 2024, respectively; observations were given.
3. The Commission approved the building plans proposal at its meeting on December 5, 2024; observations were given. The Commission did not approve the revised building plans proposal at its meeting held on May 1, 2025; specific observations were given.
4. The revised building plans proposal (for Commercial-cum-Residential building) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the submission approved (formal) by the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation letter no: OL-03122423011 dated 06.05.2025, 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 earlier approved submission, revised submission, and discussion held with the architect, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) It has been observed that the submission has been resubmitted without satisfactorily addressing previous observations outlined in DUAC letter no: OL-03122423011 dated 06.05.2025.

b) The revised building plan proposes a basement + Ground + 3 Upper Floors, with the ground and first floors designated for commercial use, and the second and third floors allocated for residential purposes.

c) The architectural elements in the façade appear to be too cluttered, i.e., the arches, grooves, glass windows with a crisscross pattern, and the cornices at the parapet level make the façade chaotic. It shall be ensured to simplify the façade by reducing the architectural elements, especially the horizontal bands (seen in the side 3d views), which would gather dust, bird droppings, and rainwater, thus marring the aesthetics of the façade.

d) The Commission observed that no sun shading elements have been provided for harsh weather protection; the same shall be ensured to be incorporated in the revised submission.

e) The column arrangement overlapped with furniture layout is missing, especially in areas like halls with big spans; it needs to be provided to explain the building's functioning on all floors.

f) Rainwater drainage in balconies is missing; the revised submission needs to provide this, along with the screening mechanism.

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

h) As this is a revised submission, the comparison sheets (earlier approved façade and the revised façade proposal) should be included to compare the current proposal with the previously approved design scheme.

i) Solar panels shall be integrated at an appropriate clear height to ensure effective utilisation of the space beneath. Extending beyond the footprint will allow for larger panel coverage, enhancing generation capacity. This placement also facilitates easy maintenance, reduces heat load through increased shading, and most importantly, improves aesthetics by embedding the panels within a well-designed structural framework.

j) 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.

k) 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 revised proposal received at the formal stage lacks clarity, is incomplete and is incomprehensible, thereby the Commission could not appreciate the proposal judiciously. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and furnish a pointwise incorporation and reply.

Not approved, observations given.

Building plans proposal for Senior Secondary School for Delhi Public School at Mathura Road. (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The layout plan of the school was already approved on 11-8-1995. The building plan was approved on 26th May, 1997, and the Commission accepted NOC for completion on 23rd April, 2002.
3. The proposal for demolition and reconstruction of the Senior Secondary School received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised, and the following observations are 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 authorisation 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.

Not accepted, Observations given.

Building plans proposal for Additions and alterations in respect of Office building on plot no. 11-A, Rouse Avenue. (Conceptual Stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. No previous record of approvals(formal/completion) taken from the Commission has been found in the Commission's available record.
3. The Commission did not accept the Concept of the building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of a new block and some additions to the existing block) at its meetings held on April 9, 2025, and May 8, 2025, and specific observations were made.
4. The building plans proposal for additions and alterations (addition of a new block) received (online) at the conceptual 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 discussion held with the architect, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The proposal is for addition of a new block (B+G+3) floors and some additions in the existing block.

b) The site photographs show that the existing building has a neat façade, which appears to be balanced and well-maintained due to the minimal architectural elements. In contrast, the proposed building seems to be a basic design with few design improvisations. It is suggested that the architectural vocabulary of the proposed building be matched to that of the existing building to ensure a cohesive design while ensuring harmony.

c) Solar panels shall be integrated at an appropriate clear height to ensure effective utilisation of the space beneath. Extending beyond the footprint will allow for larger panel coverage, enhancing generation capacity. This placement also facilitates easy maintenance, reduces heat load through increased shading, and most importantly, improves aesthetics by embedding the panels within a well-designed structural framework.

d) 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.

e) 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 architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and furnish a pointwise incorporation and reply.

Not accepted, Observations given.

1. The DDA forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. No previous record of approval (Formal/Completion) taken has been found in the available record of the Commission. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal at its meeting held on March 27, 2025; specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation letter no:  OL-20032522110 dated 02.04.2025. Based on the earlier observations and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) It is suggested that the space on the canopy above the fuel dispensers accommodate solar panels.

b) Solar panels on the office block shall be integrated at an appropriate clear height to ensure effective utilisation of the space beneath. Extending beyond the footprint will allow for larger panel coverage, enhancing generation capacity. This placement also facilitates easy maintenance, reduces heat load through increased shading, and most importantly, improves aesthetics by embedding the panels within a well-designed structural framework.

c) 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.

d) 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.