Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1816th meeting held on 22.05.2025.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of the 1816th meeting held on 22.05.2025 were discussed.

1. The NDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the Redevelopment of the GPRA Colony, Sarojini Nagar, at its meeting held on January 17, 2020, and made specific observations. The Commission accepted the NOC for Completion (Part – 19nos. Residential Type II) at its meeting held on October 30, 2024.
3. Now, the partial completion plans proposal for package-1, Part-2 (Residential towers-F-20, 21,22,23, D-24-25 & 26, E-27 & 28, Community-3 & Guard rooms-1,2,3 & 4) were 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 had given due consideration to the design scheme—covering materials, finishes, architectural elements, and façade—at the formal approval stage. However, upon comparing the approved design with the actual built superstructure, as seen in the photographs submitted for the NOC for Completion, deviations from the formally approved scheme have been observed, thereby affecting the aesthetic and visual quality of the façade. Moreover, no satisfactory explanation has been provided by the architect for these deviations.

b) The photographs of the community building indicate that site work is still incomplete: doors and windows are missing, scaffolding remains along the building’s edges, and construction materials are scattered on-site. Updated, uncut photographs of the block from all sides—including terrace views—demonstrating that all site work has been fully finished shall be submitted for the review of the Commission.

c) Approval received from DUAC (at the formal stage) shall be superimposed on the plans/elevations/sections, etc., over the actual built structure on the site, existing and proposed changes made in the design from the approval (by DUAC); to understand the extents of internal deviations as well as external changes made with respect to the sanctioned plan, if any.

d) Appropriate number of photographs of the installation of Solar panels on the terrace of the superstructures shall also be provided.

4. Overall, the proposal received at NOC for the Completion stage lacks clarity, is incomplete and is incomprehensible; therefore, 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.

1. The CPWD forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the proposal for the redevelopment of General Pool Residential Accommodation at Kasturba Nagar in its meeting held on January 28, 2020, along with specific observations. However, the revised Master Plan proposal was not accepted by the Commission in its meeting held on January 16, 2025. Subsequently, the proposal was also not approved at the formal stage in the meetings held on March 6, 2025, and April 24, 2025, with detailed observations.
3. The proposal for revised master plan for the Redevelopment of GPRA Colony received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, along with the approval (formal) given at the meeting held on January 28, 2020, replies submitted in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-21042562016 dated April 29, 2025, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect in-person who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the submission made, discussion held, 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-21042562016 dated April 29, 2025.

b) The Commission noted that the Master Plan for the Redevelopment of the GPRA Colony was approved in the meeting held on January 28, 2020. However, the current submission for the revised Master Plan does not clearly highlight the changes made to the approved plan. Key revisions—such as plot areas, parking provisions, modifications to residential units, and green area details, as well as FAR calculations for the overall site—have not been presented in a comparative format with the approved plan, rendering the submission incomplete and ambiguous. All proposed revisions must be clearly superimposed on the approved Master Plan, clearly indicating the complete scope of the proposal and any areas excluded from it.

c) The path shown as soft pavers in the layout plan is to be integrated with the extended green (adjacent to the banquet area by removing the line of trees between) to ensure that a large, uninterrupted space is available instead of fragmented greens that are not sustainable. Also, the architect mentioned that the green area is being used for transplanted trees from the site. The location of these trees is to be marked on the site to provide clarity on the details of the transplanted trees and their incorporation into the design.

d) The 3D views of the banquet hall shall be updated to accurately reflect the balcony and column details, ensuring a correct and realistic representation.

e) The entrance gate design shows multiple horizontal surfaces which are liable to gather dust, bird droppings and stains from rainwater. It is strongly suggested to reduce the number of horizontal planes while simplifying the design to keep the structure low-maintenance. Additionally, the cornices at the lower level are to be removed to ensure user safety.

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

g) Solar panels shall be integrated at an appropriate clear height to ensure effective utilisation of the space beneath. Extending beyond the footprint will enable larger panel coverage, thereby 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.

h) The proposed artwork on the façade to be removed. Work of public art including paintings, sculptures etc. 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.

i) 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.

j) 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; therefore, 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.

1. The DDA forwarded the proposal (electronically) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on January 3, 2008; the revised building plan proposal was approved in the Commission’s meeting on April 28, 2010. The NOC for the completion plan proposal was approved in the meeting held on November 24, 2010.
3. The building plan proposal for additions and alterations (specifically the addition of lifts and covering of terraces) was approved in the meeting held on October 26, 2016. A subsequent proposal for additions and alterations was approved by the Commission on June 25, 2021, with specific observations. However, the Commission did not accept the completion plans proposal in its meeting held on May 1, 2025, and specific observations were given.
4. The proposal for NOC for part completion received (electronically) at the completion stage was scrutinised, along with the replies submitted in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-29042548060 dated May 6, 2025. Based on the submission made, 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-29042548060 dated May 6, 2025.

b) A Part-completion NOC has been sought for areas previously approved for additions and alterations in the Commission’s meeting held on 25 June 2021. However, the submitted floor plans are not consistent with the approved scheme. The request also includes fragmented portions of the constructed areas, such as sections of the escalator and toilets, which are neither practical nor acceptable. The submission must be revised to accurately reflect the approved layout, with clear demarcation of complete and functional areas for which Part-completion is being sought. Any deviations from the approved scheme must be identified and presented to the Commission for review.

c) As the proposal is at the NOC for Part-completion stage, the submission contains only a limited set of photographs, which do not sufficiently reflect the current status of the areas under consideration. Comprehensive, uncut, and up-to-date site photographs from all sides must be provided, clearly showing the completed façade—including fixed glazing, door and window frames, finished plasterwork, and stonework—along with landscaped areas, completed roadworks, and the installation of solar panels on the terrace.

d) Additionally, the submission is incomplete, as it lacks basement and terrace photographs, superimposed drawings, and a parking calculation/statement. Clear photographs of the basement and rooftop (including all installed services) must be submitted along with the missing documentation to enable a complete review.

e) Earlier observations of the Commission in DUAC letter no: OL-29042548060 dated May 6, 2025 state that:

“…The submission lacks the complete documentation required at the NOC stage. Missing elements include the duly filled proforma, photographs of the basement (including parking provisions), work of art, and terrace showing installed solar panels. To ensure completeness, the revised submission must include uncut and up-to-date site photographs covering all the aforementioned areas…”

Photographs of the terrace area are still not included in the submission. Thus, the compliance has not been addressed, making the submission incomplete.

f) Approval received from DUAC (at the formal stage) shall be superimposed on the plans/elevations/sections, etc., over the actual built structure on the site, existing and proposed changes made in the design from the approval (by DUAC); to understand the extents of internal deviations as well as external changes made with respect to the sanctioned plan, if any.

g) The architect must provide ‘Before’ images (3D views submitted during the DUAC's formal approval) alongside ‘After’ images (current and updated photographs of the built structure) for better understanding.

5. Overall, the proposal received at NOC for the Part-Completion stage lacks clarity, is incomplete and is incomprehensible; therefore, the Commission could not appreciate the proposal judiciously. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations along with the observations provided in DUAC letter no: OL-29042548060 dated May 6, 2025 and furnish a pointwise incorporation and reply.

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 proposal was deferred.

1. The North-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the revised layout plan proposal for Sir Ganga Ram Hospital in its meeting held on March 23, 2011. Subsequently, the Commission accepted the concept proposal for the expansion of the OPD and additional blocks at its meeting held on January 2, 2025, along with specific observations.
3. The building plans proposal (for - Proposed OPD Block-3 (two basement + ground + 10 floor), Proposed fire escape bridge on 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th floor between Super Special Block and MMLCP, Proposed fifth floor on existing Special Ward, Proposed Electrical Sub Station, extended area of Block-1 from ground to 10th floor, Proposed Biomedical Waste) received (online) at the formal stage were scrutinised, along with the replies submitted in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no:  OL-24122427078 dated January 9, 2025. Based on the submission made, 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 enable larger panel coverage, thereby 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.

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 and alterations received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised. Based on the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that while considering the case for additions/alterations, it did not consider and cover the existing built construction at the site. This concerns the proposal for additions/alterations only.

b) Since this is the case of additions/alterations with more floors to be added above an old structure, it was suggested that the added structure shall be designed so that it withstands weather effects, impacts from calamities like earthquakes, etc., as it is an additional structure added to the existing superstructure. It shall be ensured that it is braced firmly to the building and does not impact the safety of the superstructure while making additions/alterations.

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

d) Solar panels shall be integrated at an appropriate clear height to ensure effective utilisation of the space beneath. Extending beyond the footprint will enable larger panel coverage, thereby 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.

e) 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.

f) 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.

1. The DDA forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. Earlier, the Commission approved the layout and building plans at its meeting on January 30, 1997. The Commission accepted the NOC for Completion at its meeting on January 16, 2025.
3. The building plans proposal for additions and alterations (proposed bedroom, toilet, extension of drawing room, bedrooms, balcony area, addition of lifts, addition of public toilet in all blocks) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that while considering the case for additions/alterations, it did not consider and cover the existing built construction at the site. This concerns the proposal for additions and alterations only.

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

c) The added structure/s shall be designed such that they withstand weather effects, impacts from calamities like earthquakes, etc., as it is an additional structure added to the existing superstructure. It shall be ensured that it is braced firmly to the building and does not impact the safety of the superstructure while making additions/alterations.

d) Solar panels shall be integrated at an appropriate clear height to ensure effective utilisation of the space beneath. Extending beyond the footprint will enable larger panel coverage, thereby 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.

e) 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.

f) All plumbing pipes, rain water 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.

1. The NDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. Earlier, the Commission approved the demolition and reconstruction plan proposal at its meeting held on April 28, 2022. The Commission approved the revised building plan proposal (for some changes in the internal arrangements) at its meeting on January 18, 2024.
3. The proposal for NOC for completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised, and the Commission intended to discuss with the architect (online), but he was not available for discussion (online). Based on the replies submitted, the submission made, and the unavailability of the architect for discussion (online), the following observations are to be complied with:  

a) It has been observed from the submitted site photographs that the work on the site is still in progress, including the guardhouse and the boundary wall. Additionally, the rear side gate and wall are not complete, making it an incomplete submission.

b) Approval received from DUAC (at the formal stage) shall be superimposed on the plans/elevations/sections, etc., over the actual built structure on the site, existing and proposed changes made in the design from the approval (by DUAC), to understand the extents of internal deviations as well as external changes made with respect to the sanctioned plan, if any.

c) The architect must provide ‘Before’ images (3D views submitted during the DUAC's formal approval) alongside ‘After’ images (current and updated photographs of the built structure) for better understanding.

4. Overall, the proposal received at NOC for the Completion stage lacks clarity, is incomplete and is incomprehensible; therefore, 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.