Action Taken Report with respect to the minutes of the 1822nd meeting held on 03.07.2025.

1. Action Taken Report regarding Minutes of 1822nd meeting held on 03.07.2025 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 for additions and alterations at its meeting on November 24, 2022; specific observations were made.
3. The revised building plans proposal for additions and alterations (alterations on ground floor and proposed first to third floor) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation letter no: OL-23112223074, F. No. 23(74)/2022-DUAC dated 28.11.2022, and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that the MCD area (Grade III), the heritage property listed at serial no. 491 is “Haveli at 5766-5767 Mandir wali Gali, Jogiwara,” as per the gazette notification dated July 29, 2016, issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi. However, the proposal submitted for additions/alterations pertains to property number 5767 only.

b) The Commission also noted the letter No: TP/G/MCD/2025/546 dated 09.07.2025 from the Town Planning Department, MCD, which states that:

“…..as per the site report and photographs submitted the property bearing no. 5767 does not haver any heritage features, only property bearing no. 5766 contains heritage features….”

However, since plot no. 5767 is also part of the notified heritage properties along with plot no. 5766 as per the notification dated 29.07.2016, the Commission decided that it cannot be reviewed in isolation and shall be treated as a heritage property for the approval process.

c) Since no bifurcation is indicated between properties No. 5766 and 5767, both have been notified as heritage property. As they are adjoining structures, it was advised that the heritage elements visible in the photographs (Intech Book and other submitted images) shall be replicated. Accordingly, the architectural features of property No. 5766 should be replicated on property No. 5767 to maintain consistency and harmony in the overall façade.

d) While replicating the façade of property No. 5766, the architect must ensure that the height and built-up area of property No. 5767 shall remain harmony, thereby preserving the original built form in accordance with the heritage provisions outlined in the Unified Building Bye Laws, 2016, for buildings in Delhi.

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

f) 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.

g) All plumbing pipes, service equipment, water tanks, air-conditioning units, solar panels, etc., should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of point nos. 10, 11 & 12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) are 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 North-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal for additions and alterations at its meeting on July 3, 2025; specific observations were made.
3. The building plan proposal for addition/alteration (alteration on ground floor and proposed first to third floor) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation letter no: OL-27062523165, F. No. 23(165)/2025-DUAC dated 10.07.2025, 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) 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.

c) 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.

1. The South-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 available record of the Commission.
3. The building plan proposal for demolition and reconstruction (G+2 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, etc.​​​​​​​

b) 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.

c) 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.

1. The DDA forwarded the proposal (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plans proposal at its March 19, 2001, meeting and subsequently accepted the NOC for Completion at its April 12, 2005, meeting. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal for additions and alterations at its meeting on April 03, 2025; specific observations were made.
3. The revised building plans proposal for additions and alterations (addition of bedrooms, toilet, and balconies) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised replies submitted by the architect in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation letter no: OL-26032522112, F. No. 22(112)/2025-DUAC dated 11.04.2025, 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 proposal is at the formal stage, and incomplete documentation has been received, i.e., updated site pictures and proforma are missing from the submission. The architect shall ensure that proposals at the formal stage are accompanied by complete documentation, including updated site photographs, to enable the proposal to be considered and reviewed by the Commission.

c) Since the proposal involves additions and alterations to the building, the screening mechanisms for rainwater pipes and air-conditioning units must be clearly illustrated and annotated in the relevant plans, elevations, and 3D views. These mechanisms should be designed comprehensively to ensure that all services, including drying clothes on balconies, are properly screened and integrated into the overall architectural design.

d) Since new areas are to be added to existing construction, the proposed structure shall be resistant to natural calamities like earthquakes, strong wind conditions, etc., to ensure the safety of the users.

e) 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, as per set back feasibility, 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) 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.

g) All water tanks, rainwater pipes, plumbing pipes, service equipment, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels, etc., should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of points 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 CPWD forwarded the proposal (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The building plans proposal (G+3 floors with a height of 14.85m) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and a detailed discussion was also held with the architect, during which clarifications were provided in response to the Commission’s queries. Based on the replies submitted, the submission made, and the discussion held, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) It was observed that ACP has been extensively used as the primary façade material. The architect is advised to explore alternative design options that replace ACP with more sustainable, durable, and low-maintenance materials, preferably incorporating natural finishes to enhance the overall aesthetic and longevity of the façade.

b) The submitted 3d views lack materiality; it shall be ensured that the 3d views are provided with details of materiality for a better understanding of the proposed facade.    

c) The submitted 3D views show dual chajja projections, which the Commission discourages because they tend to gather dust and serve as nesting sites for birds, reducing the building's aesthetic appeal. The design should avoid such horizontal surfaces; however, if they are unavoidable, these elements should be enclosed or boxed to prevent the accumulation of dust, rainwater, and nests. When open horizontal surfaces are necessary, they should be tapered to ensure proper drainage and prevent stains that could spoil the façade’s appearance.

d) 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, as per set-back feasibility, 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.

e) The Work of public art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex 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.

f) 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.

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

3. 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 CPWD forwarded the proposal (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout/master plan in respect of the Indian Agriculture Research Institute (IARI) campus, Pusa, at its April 19, 2016, meeting.
3. The building plans proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The building is part of a larger master plan wherein the proposal is for a lab building for the Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL), with only the ground floor proposed.

b)  It is suggested to taper the horizontal surfaces so that the rainwater does not leave marks and spoil the aesthetics of the façade. Additionally, the parapet coping is to be sloped inward to prevent rainwater marks from spoiling the façade.

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 Work of public art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex 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.

e) 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 water tanks, rainwater pipes, plumbing pipes, DG set, DG exhaust pipes, service equipment, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels, etc., should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of points 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 CPWD forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal at its meeting held on August 11, 2022; specific observations were made.
3. The proposal for NOC for completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised, and the Commission made a site visit. Based on the submitted documentation, including drawings, photographs, and the conducted site visit, the proposal for the NOC for Completion is accepted.

Revised building plans proposal for addition/alteration in respect of the Indian School for Gyan Mandir Society, Joseph Tito Marg, Sadiq Nagar. (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal at its meeting on December 15, 2006 and accepted the NOC for completion at its May 2, 2012, meeting. The Commission approved the building plans proposal for additions and alterations at its meeting held on April 21, 2022.
3. The revised building plans proposal for additions and alterations 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 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.

1. The North-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its formal stage during its meeting held on November 22, 2017, and approved the revised building plan proposal (for 2 Basement + stilt + Ground + 5 floors) during its meeting on March 21, 2018, specific observations were given.
3. The Commission did not accept the concept of the revised building plan proposal at its meeting held on November 03, 2022, and on December 29, 2022, specific observations were given. Subsequently, the revised proposal was approved (formal stage) in the Commission meeting held on February 02, 2023, with observations.
4. The revised building plan proposal (with 2 basements + G+6 floors, including changes to the internal and external design), received (online) at the formal stage, was scrutinised, and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed from the site photographs submitted by the architect that basement construction has already been carried out. The current proposal, resubmitted for formal approval, includes certain modifications such as façade changes and internal alterations. However, the submission does not clearly specify the revisions made compared to the previously approved scheme, nor does it provide the rationale for these changes. To ensure clearer understanding, the Commission recommends submitting comparative 3D views ‘Before’ (as approved in the previous DUAC submission) and ‘After’ (reflecting the current proposal) to illustrate the extent and nature of the modifications.

b) The site is located in a densely populated neighbourhood with buildings of varying heights and materials. However, the proposed 3D views are presented in isolation; that is, they do not depict the surrounding environment. It should be ensured that the submitted 3D views are integrated into the site surroundings, clearly showing details such as the architectural character of adjacent buildings, street layout, site access, building heights, and their influence on light and ventilation, which shall make the proposal more self-explanatory and comprehensive.

c) Furthermore, the proposed drawings show a ramp at the rear edge of the building leading to the basement; however, this ramp is not visible in the 3D views, which creates ambiguity in the submission. Similarly, the proposed SBM toilet and related services, depicted in the ground floor plan, are also absent. Since the proposal is at the formal stage, it should include complete information, such as detailed plans, elevations, sections, and 3D views of the proposed toilet for the Commission's review.

d) Discrepancy has been observed in the submission, i.e. the comparison shown for the previously approved elevations with the revised elevations is incorrect; moreover, the same elevations have been used to show the comparison. As the submission is at the formal stage, it shall contain the correct information for the Commission's review.

e) Superimposed plans showing the modifications proposed in the current submission compared to the previously approved plans shall be clearly marked to ensure clarity on the changes made.

f) 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.

g) 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, DG set, DG exhaust pipes, 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 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.

The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting the confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.