Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1821st meeting held on 26.06.2025.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of the 1821st meeting held on 26.06.2025 were discussed.

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. The Commission approved the building plans proposal at its meeting on December 5, 2024 with observations. The Commission did not approve the revised building plans proposal at its meetings held on May 1, 2025 and May 22, 2025 respectively specific observations were given.
3. The revised building plans proposal (for Commercial-cum-Residential building for a basement and G+3 floors) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations given by the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation letter no: OL-03122423011 dated 28.05.2025. Based on the earlier approved submission and the revised submission the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that the revised 3D views show glass railings at the parapet level on the back side, while the front side view displays a solid parapet. It should be ensured that the parapet details are consistent on all sides to maintain design harmony. Additionally, glass should be avoided at the parapet level for user safety. It was also observed that the GRC Jaali extends up to the parapet, breaking its continuity. To achieve a cohesive design, the Jaali should be terminated just below the parapet, allowing the solid façade to continue seamlessly.

b) The 3D views lack clarity, meaning the materiality is not clearly visible, which makes the design scheme not self-explanatory. The revised submission should include an appropriate number of uncut 3D views with detailed materiality.

c) Additionally, the site is situated in a densely populated neighbourhood with varying heights and materials. The proposed 3D views, however, are shown in isolation; i.e., they fail to capture the site surroundings and thus are unable to provide clarity about the design approach. It shall be ensured that the submitted 3d views are superimposed in the site surroundings, clearly showing details, including architectural character of the adjacent buildings, street layout and access to the site, height of the buildings and their impact on the light and ventilation of the proposed site to make the proposal self-explanatory and comprehensive.

d) The use of awnings as a sun-shading mechanism should be reconsidered. Instead, permanent sunshades are recommended to ensure durability, low maintenance, and long-term effectiveness on the façade.

e) The 3D views show that the orientation of the solar panels varies, meaning they do not all face south. It should be ensured that all installed solar panels are properly oriented to maximize their efficiency.

f) The Commission emphasizes that solar panel installations should be integrated into the design plan from the beginning, ensuring they are treated as an essential architectural element rather than an afterthought. It is advisable to establish a clear story structure with solar panels mounted above, providing an appropriate height and width to allow for more extensive panel coverage beyond the parapet line.

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. Overall, the revised 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 provide a point-by-point incorporation and response.

1. The South-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 March 14, 2024, April 18, 2024, and July 04, 2024. It also did not accept the concept of the proposal at its meetings on May 16, 2024, and July 25, 2024, where specific observations were made. However, the Commission accepted the concept at its meeting on August 8, 2024, and provided specific observations.
3. The building plan proposal (for building with a basement+G+S+3 floor) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-31072427053 dated 13.08.2024. Based on the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The site is situated in a densely populated neighbourhood with varying heights and materials. The proposed 3D views, however, are shown in isolation; i.e., they fail to capture the site surroundings and thus are unable to provide clarity about the design approach. It shall be ensured that the submitted 3d views are superimposed in the site surroundings, clearly showing details, including architectural character of the adjacent buildings, street layout and access to the site, height of the buildings and their impact on the light and ventilation of the proposed site to make the proposal self-explanatory and comprehensive.

b) The 3d views do not provide clarity in design, i.e. the details of the railing and balcony are not appropriately illustrated in the 3d views, thus making it unclear and not self-explanatory. Also, only one 3d view has been submitted, which does not provide clarity on other sides of the building. All sides, uncut 3d views shall be submitted to ensure the design is self-explanatory and shows all proposed design elements.

c) The installation of clear-story solar panels on a well-designed structural frame, integrated with the building design, is suggested to ensure the 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.

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, 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 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 provide a point-by-point incorporation and response.

1. The DDA forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. Earlier, the Commission approved the revised building plans at its meeting on January 20, 2010, and the NOC at completion was accepted at its meeting held on April 27, 2011. The Commission approved the building plans proposal for additions and alterations at its meeting held on September 29, 2018; specific observations were given.
3. The Commission did not approve the revised building plans for additions and alterations at its meetings on March 13, 2025 and April 3, 2025; observations were given.
4. The revised building plans proposal for additions and alterations (extension of balconies) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no. OL-07032522109 dated April 11, 2025. Based on the replies submitted and the revised submission, the following observations are to be complied with: 

a) The Commission noted that when evaluating the case for additions or alterations, it did not take into account the existing built construction at the site. This relates only to the proposal for additions and alterations.

b) It has been observed that the submission has been resubmitted without satisfactorily addressing previous observations outlined in DUAC letter no: OL-07032522109 dated April 11, 2025. The architect is advised to review each observation in detail and resubmit with the necessary compliances.

c) Incomplete documentation has been received for the proposal at the formal stage, i.e., site photographs, project report, and proforma are missing in the submission, making it incomplete. The architect shall ensure that complete documentation is provided so that the proposal can be reviewed by the Commission.

d) The current submission lacks updated site photographs, which are essential for a complete proposal and must be included in the revised version. Additionally, discrepancies have been noted between the submitted 3D views and the actual site conditions, resulting in unrealistic representations of the proposed development. It should be ensured that updated 3D views, reflecting the proposal as approved by DUAC along with the proposed modifications, are accurately superimposed onto recent site photographs to clearly depict the changes. Furthermore, superimposed plans highlighting the above-mentioned modifications should also be included to make the revised submission self-explanatory.

e) Since it involves additions and alterations, with some portions already existing on site, the added structure should be designed to withstand weather effects and impacts from calamities, such as earthquakes, as it is an extension to the existing superstructure. It must be ensured that it is securely braced to the building and does not compromise the safety of the superstructure during these modifications.

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

g) The installation of clear-story solar panels on a well-designed structural frame, integrated with the building design, is suggested to ensure the 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.

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, 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 revised 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 provide a point-by-point incorporation and response.

1. The CPWD forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the Common Central Secretariat (Building no. 1,2,3) at its meeting held on May 6, 2021, along with specific observations. 
3. The proposal for the NOC for Completion (Part- for CCS-3) received (online) at the completion stage, was scrutinised. This included reviewing the observations and recommendations provided by the concerned local body, i.e., CPWD, in Parts ‘B’ & ‘C’ of the Proforma. A detailed presentation was made by the architect, who provided answers to the Commission's queries. Based on the presentation made, submitted documentation, including drawings, photographs, and the project report, the proposal for the NOC for Completion (Part- for CCS-3) is accepted.

Revised building plans proposal (for demolition and reconstruction) for Senior Secondary School at Delhi Public School, Mathura Road. (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was sent directly by the Architect (online) for review by the Commission.  
2. The layout plan of the school was approved on August 11, 1995, followed by the approval of the building plan on May 26, 1997. The Commission accepted the NOC for the completion of the Nursery Block on April 23, 2002. However, the Commission did not approve the concept of the revised building plan proposal (demolition and reconstruction) in its meetings held on May 22, 2025, and June 12, 2025, and specific observations were provided.
3. The revised layout and building plans proposal for the phased demolition and reconstruction of the Senior Secondary School, now received (online) at the conceptual stage, was scrutinised along with the replies submitted to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no. OL-31052527032 dated June 18, 2025. Based on the submitted replies and revised submission, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The proposal is for phase-wise demolition and reconstruction of the 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 submission involves creating an additional service road by recessing the boundary wall 7.5 m inside the plot boundary. The Commission appreciates the design as a potential example of best practices for similar institutions in the city. However, it was observed that the proposed width of the service lane is stated as 4.00 m, which appears too narrow since two cars cannot pass side by side. It is recommended to ensure a minimum clear carriageway of 7.50 m by reducing the footpath width. Furthermore, detailed cross-sections showing the portion of a municipal main road, footpath, service road, boundary wall, and front setback, along with large-scale plans and dimensions, must be submitted at the formal stage to elucidate the design of the proposed service lane.

c) The submission indicates that the basement has not been expanded as suggested by DUAC in the Commission meeting on 12.06.2025. The architect clarified that the reason for not enlarging the basement is to protect the existing row of trees on the site, as mentioned by the Commission.

d) The Commission observed that, according to the DCR performa, the permitted ground coverage (GC) is 35%, while the achieved GC is 26%. The allowed FAR is 150, but the current FAR is 83.41. The permitted parking requirement is 2812 ECS, but the actual parking provided is 880 ECS. The architect should clarify how any additional parking resulting from the extra FAR will be accommodated on-site when submitting the building plan at the formal stage. This information should be included in the project report, along with point-by-point compliance details and updated drawings, to make the proposal self-explanatory. Additionally, any extra FAR used, along with changes in height and ground coverage, should be detailed for the Commission’s review. ​​​​​​​

e) All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations, etc.​​​​​​​

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 installation of clear-story solar panels on a well-designed structural frame, integrated with the building design, is suggested to ensure the 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. ​​​​​​​

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, 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 in the next submission (formal stage) and furnish a pointwise incorporation and reply.

ound conceptually suitable (not limited to these observations)

'The conceptual suitability is only with reference to the mandate of the Commission. However, it would be reassessed at the formal stage based on the 20-point criteria as available on the DUAC website. It would not be a substitute for formal approval of the proposal referred through the concerned local body in terms of section 12 of the DUAC Act, 1973.