Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1817th meeting held on 29.05.2025.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of the 1817th meeting held on 29.05.2025 were discussed.

1. The North-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal in respect of Hansraj College at its meeting held on July 29, 2009, and specific observations were given.
3. The Commission accepted the concept of the building plans proposal for additions and alterations at its meeting held on December 28, 2023, but did not approve it at the formal stage at the meeting held on January 23, 2025 and March 27, 2025; specific observations were given.
4. The revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations [{(addition of 3rd floors over the existing college main building (G+2 Floors), Science Block (G+2 Floors), Zoology and botany dept. building (G+2 Floors), Library Block (G+2 Floors)}, {addition of 2nd and 3rd Floors over the existing Canteen building (G+1 Floors), addition of Girls’ hostel (B+G+5 Floors), demolition and reconstruction of Boys’ Hostel(B+G+5)}]  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-17012523149 dated 02.04.2025, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on CISCO Webex meetings, who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the submission, and the discussion held online, 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) The compliance given by the architect mentions the laundry is proposed on the ground floor of both hostel blocks, i.e. girls and boys, whereas upon online discussion, the architect mentioned that the laundry and pantry are proposed on upper floors, i.e. 1st floor and beyond, thus a mismatch is seen in the provided information. The architect shall ensure that all the drawings, compliance replies, and the project report carry uniform information to ensure coherence in the submission.

c) The detailed plan showing a blow-up of the pantry and laundry shows provision of rooms without natural light and ventilation, which the Commission does not appreciate. Also, shafts for plumbing pipes for the pantry and laundry are missing in the submitted drawing. Additionally, a balcony is marked on the ground floor, which the architect clarified was an error. A revised submission showing provision of plumbing shaft and appropriate fenestrations to ensure natural light and ventilation to be shown for all areas as per the applicable Unified Building Bye Laws 2016. Also, details of the floor are to be revised and submitted to ensure the submission is error-free.

d) The submission mentions the provision of an MS space frame at the terrace level above the open courtyard. The details of the MS space frame are missing from the submission, i.e., detailed drawings and 3D views showing fixing details, materiality, dimensions, and structural details, making it an incomplete submission at the formal stage.

e) The details of the ramp are not appropriately captured in the 3d views; thus, the Commission is unable to appreciate its aesthetics and integration with the remaining building. It shall be ensured that the ramp, along with its covering mechanism, is appropriately depicted in the proposed 3D views, including details of materiality, to provide clarity on its aesthetic appearance.

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

g) 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.

h) Installation of clear story Solar panels on well-designed structural frame integrated with the building design is suggested 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.

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, rainwater 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; 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 North-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal at its meeting held on July 27, 2023 specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal for demolition and reconstruction 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-24072355062 dated 02.08.2023.  Based on the previous observations given, and the submission made the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The building is a notified heritage building, Grade-III listed at serial no. 36 vide gazette notification dated February 25, 2010, issued by the Govt of NCT of Delhi. The proposal mentions demolition of an existing building (current use residential) and proposes a fully commercial building.

b) Discrepancy is observed in the submission received at the formal stage, the concerned local body while forwarding the case to the Commission, mentioned the existing built-up area to be 736.04 sq.m. with a height of 11.0m, whereas the proposed built-up area is mentioned to be 854.20 sq.m i.e. it exceeds the existing area by approximately 100sq.m. The details about permissible Ground coverage, permissible built-up area, permissible height as per byelaws, proposed land use, etc. should be verified by the local body to ensure that the Commission considers /views the proposal with accurate information, as any change in the above will impact urban and built aesthetics of the building.

c) The submitted 3D views do not portray the proposed façade as intended. The views should be rendered appropriately and improved in quality. Enhanced 3D views, including a bird’s-eye view with visible utilities as indicated in the terrace plan, along with material details, must be provided to convey the design scheme clearly.

4. Overall, the proposal received at the formal stage lacks clarity 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 South-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal for the Hi-Tech IT School building (Phase-II) at the IIT Delhi campus, Hauz Khas at its meeting held on November 15, 2006. The Commission returned the proposal at the Completion stage due to incomplete submission vide DUAC letter no: 58(07)/2017-DUAC dated October 16, 2017.
3. The Commission did not accept the completion plans proposal at its meeting held on October 6, 2022.
4. The proposal now received (online) at the Completion stage was scrutinised along with the observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body, i.e., South DMC, in parts ‘B’ of the Proforma. Based on the submission made, including documentation, drawings, and photographs, the proposal for NOC for completion is accepted.

1. The CPWD forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2.  The Commission had previously approved the layout and building plans proposal in respect of the New Hostel building for the School of Engineering & Atal Bihari Vajpayee School of Management & Entrepreneurship (SOE & ABVSME) (Formal) at its meeting on June 4, 2020, subject to specific observations. However, the revised layout and building plan proposal submitted subsequently was not approved in the Commission’s meeting held on May 1, 2025, and specific observations were given.
3. The revised layout and the building plans proposal now 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-24042562018 dated May 06, 2025. Based on the replies submitted and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The proposal pertains to a hostel building with G+11 floors, comprising two blocks (Wing-A and Wing-B), which is integrated into the existing campus.

b) In response to the Commission’s observations vide DUAC letter no: OL-24042562018 dated May 06, 2025, the architect mentions in their compliance response that:

“…Basement is not feasible due to the rocky strata at 0.5m level. Rock blasting is not permitted. Hence, the basement cannot be proposed. While the entire surface parking area will be covered by semi open green paver blocks which shall be permeable allowing rainwater to percolate through thus preventing water stagnation. This shall help in mitigating urban flooding and related environmental concerns. Also, soil report attached…..”

The Commission discourages the provision of heavy surface parking, as it contributes to environmental concerns, such as urban flooding, and has an undesirably negative impact on the visual quality of the built environment. Instead, it is recommended that alternative solutions for parking shall be worked out such as within stilt areas. The stilt height may be increased, if necessary, to facilitate stack parking and effectively meet the parking requirements.

c) The fourth-floor plan shows a proposed terrace/open gym, wherein columns are depicted in the drawing, which is technically incorrect as there are no proposed floors above. Thus, it shall be ensured by the architect to provide corrected and revised drawings, including correct structural details, i.e. placement of columns, along with typical furniture arrangement on all floors, to explain the functioning of the area.

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

e) Installation of clear story Solar panels on well-designed structural frame integrated with the building design is suggested 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.

f) 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.

g) 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.

h) All plumbing pipes, rainwater 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. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and furnish a pointwise incorporation and reply.

Revised layout and the 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 approved on August 11, 1995, followed by the building plan approval on May 26, 1997. The Commission accepted the NOC for completion on April 23, 2002. However, the Commission did not accept the concept of the revised building plan proposal in its meeting held on May 22, 2025, and specific observations were given.
3. The proposal revised layout and the building plans proposal now received for phase-wise demolition and reconstruction of the Senior Secondary School received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission. A detailed discussion was held with the architect who made a detailed presentation and provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the submission and the presentation made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The proposal is for phase-wise demolition and reconstruction of school building with proposed buildings with the following structures:

i. Senior school (basement+ ground with three floors)

ii. Junior school (basement+ ground with three floors)

iii. Multipurpose hall block- (basement +ground)

iv. Housing for principal and staff

b) The proforma filled by the architect mentions the same contact number for both the architect and the owner, thus, incorrect documentation is submitted. It shall be ensured that separate contact and address details are submitted for the architect and the owner to ensure correct documentation.

c) The architect mentioned, in proforma, the presence of a notified heritage building in the school complex which is incorrect. The heritage structure falls outside the school complex and will have development restrictions in some parts of the site. It shall be ensured to clearly mark the impact area of the heritage building in the site layout plan as a no-development/restricted development zone (based on the applicable regulations) to explain the site planning and zoning.

d) The submitted site plan shows provision of open surface parking at the rear edge of the site, whereas the 3d views show proposed open ground, thus inconsistency is seen in the submission. It shall be ensured to submit coordinated and updated drawings and 3d views to make the submission coherent.

e) It has been observed that a large percentage of parking, i.e. approx. 578 ECS has been proposed at the surface in open areas, which is discouraged by the Commission as it leads to environmental issues, including urban flooding, while also impacting the aesthetics of the built environment. Alternatively, it is suggested to maximise the basement footprint by including areas up to the building line between the two proposed academic blocks, thereby accommodating more parking at the basement level. Additionally, it is recommended to increase the basement height to accommodate double-stack parking, which will enable maximising parking provision in the basement, thereby freeing up the ground space for uses such as playgrounds and open fields for sports activities. The architect is advised to revise the parking plans and resubmit with a revised parking matrix that shows the bifurcation of parking provided in the open and basement areas for the Commission’s review.

f) The site plan shows a motorised road between the two academic blocks, which will conflict with the pedestrian movement of the users, primarily students, thereby impacting their safety and security. It shall be ensured that the central road is pedestrian-friendly, thereby segregating vehicular traffic to ensure a seamless pedestrian network and promoting the safety of users.

g) The drawings of the ground floor show toilets at the two edges of the block, wherein it is observed that they are accessed by a common corridor instead of direct entry, which appears to be an unsafe design option. It shall be ensured that the toilet design on all floors is such that boys’ and girls’ toilets are accessible directly from the corridor, i.e. they are not lockable together, while ensuring privacy and safety of the users. Also, light and ventilation for the toilet areas are to be ensured.

h) The plumbing shafts in the toilets of the housing block (including the principal’s residence) appear to be missing. It shall be ensured in all building blocks, including staff housing, that shafts be provided to conceal pipes, including soil, rainwater, etc., so that they do not mar the aesthetics of the façade. Additionally, outdoor air-conditioning units should be appropriately screened by design interventions, such as jaalis and louvres, to ensure the aesthetics of the built environment are maintained.

i) To explain the functioning of typical areas, including classrooms and housing blocks, typical furniture layout arrangements should be submitted to ensure functional clarity in the submission.

j) Details of railing in all blocks primarily academic blocks be such that minimum horizontal members are present, to ensure safety of the users i.e. students.

k) Complete details of Swachh Bharat toilet (as per applicable Unified building bye laws 2016), including location on site plan, detailed drawings, 3d views, along with materiality to be provided in the revised submission.

l) 3d views of all building blocks to be annotated with materiality details to make the design scheme self-explanatory. Additionally, 3D views showing the provision of solar panels at the terrace level, along with their screening mechanism, are to be included in the revised submission.

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

n) Installation of clear story Solar panels on well-designed structural frame integrated with the building design is suggested 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.

o) 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.

p) 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.

q) All plumbing pipes, rainwater 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 lacks clarity, is incomplete, and has inconsistencies. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and furnish a pointwise incorporation and reply.