Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1823rd meeting held on 10.07.2025.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of the 1823rd meeting held on 10.07.2025 were discussed.

1. The South-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal at its meeting on March 27, 2025, specific observations were given.
3. The revised building plans proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised; the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission took note of the reason for the resubmission of the revised proposal indicated in Proforma B that:

“……the DMRC influence zone is passing beneath the site, thus part of the proposed building is stepped back (on the portion of influence zone only), whereas the façade is kept same.”

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

c) The Work of public art - of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex - shall 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 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 of the terrace, reduces heat load through increased shading, and most importantly, improves aesthetics. ​​​​​​​

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, Dg set, DG exhaust pipes, 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.

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 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, May 8, 2025, May 22, 2025, and June 19, 2025 respectively and specific observations were made.
4. The building plans proposal for additions and alterations (addition of a new block and some additions to the existing block) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no. OL-16062527033 dated 24.06.2025. Based on the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The design proposal incorporates provisions for double stack parking arrangements to meet the necessary parking requirements. The architect or proponent to ensure the proper implementation of these arrangements on-site, which will be examined during the proposal's completion stage. All parking arrangements must adhere to the relevant rules, regulations, guidelines, and other applicable requirements.

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

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 of the terrace, 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, 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.

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 residential building (S+G+3 floors) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and a discussion was held with the architect (online) on Cisco WebEx meetings, during which clarifications were provided to the Commission’s queries. Based on the discussion held and the submission made, including drawings and photographs, etc., the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that the submitted site photographs depict a narrow lane extending beyond, whereas the submitted 3D views do not show the lane, creating ambiguity in the submission. Additionally, the site plan details do not match those in the 3D views; for example, the details of building setbacks and boundaries are unclear in the 3D views, which only show a solid block with limited façade, whereas the submitted drawings indicate a larger part of the building extending into the lane along with the property line and setback. 

b) To ensure that the above-mentioned issue is resolved, all sides of the uncut 3D views should be submitted to provide clarity in the submission. The site is in a densely populated neighbourhood with buildings of varying heights and materials. However, the proposed 3D views are presented in isolation; 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.

c) It is recommended to use only one material for the building façade since the exposed façade is limited, and using more than one material would make it appear cluttered. Additionally, material details should be specified in the 3D views.

d) It is recommended to include a window for the bedroom facing the street to ensure better light, ventilation, and views. The details of the updated window should be incorporated into the revised 3D view.

e) The positioning of windows in the front needs to be re-looked at, as the levels of the windows are different.

4. Overall, the proposal received at the formal stage lacks clarity and is incomprehensible. 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 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 plan proposal for additions and alterations at its meeting on December 28, 2023, but did not approve it at the formal stage during the meetings held on January 23, 2025, March 27, 2025, and June 12, 2025; specific observations were provided.
4. The revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations [addition of one floor i.e.3rd floor 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 two floors i.e.2nd and 3rd Floor 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 18.06.2025, 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, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the 3D views depict a ramp covering with a two-sided slope using a polycarbonate sheet. It shall be ensured that the design incorporates gutters on both sides to facilitate proper drainage and prevent water seepage.

b) Parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations, etc.

c) The proposal also includes adding floors above an existing building. A substantial amount of live and dead loads is being added to the existing structure. The structure must be designed to withstand weather effects, impacts from calamities such as earthquakes, and extra loads.​​​​​​​

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 will enable larger panel coverage, thereby enhancing generation capacity. This placement also facilitates easy maintenance of the terrace, reduces heat load through increased shading, and most importantly, improves aesthetics. ​​​​​​​

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) The Work of public art - of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex - shall 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) All plumbing pipes, service equipment, DG set, DG exhaust pipes, 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.

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 Commission's available record.
3. The building plans proposal for additions/alterations received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised; the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The proposal is for building with Basement + G + 3 floors, wherein additions/alterations are proposed in G+2 floors, and the 3rd floor is proposed as an additional floor.

b) 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.

c) The submitted 3D views show the existing structure as G+2 with an added lift, keeping the lower G+2 floors as it is and only proposing the third floor. However, the proposed 3D views indicate a complete renovation of the external façade, which conflicts with the proposal's intent and the submitted report, creating ambiguity in the formal submission. The architect must ensure that the proposed elevation of the third floor in the 3D views matches the existing elevation, as it is an extension of the current building. If the proposal also involves fully renovating the external façade, the submission must be revised accordingly and resubmitted.

d) The proposed 3D view shows the staircase landing window aligned with other doors and windows, which is inaccurate as the mid-landing and floor levels are different. An accurate representation of all doors, windows, and related details must be provided to ensure coordination between the plans and 3D views.

e) The site photographs include the term 'proposed site view,' which seems incorrect and should be changed to 'site view.' Additionally, the submitted photographs lack clarity and do not sufficiently show the existing building façade details, as only the third floor is being proposed for modification.

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

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 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. The Commission approved the layout and building plans proposal at its meeting held on May 24, 1996, and specific observations were given. The proposal for NOC for completion was considered by the subcommittee at its meeting held on May 18, 2005, Observations were given.
3. The Commission did not approve the completion plans proposal (Part) at its meeting held on   October 10, 2024; specific observations were given.
4. The proposal for NOC for completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-07102448045 dated 16.10.2024. Based on the replies submitted, and the submission made including drawings, photographs, etc, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) It has been noted that the submission was resubmitted without satisfactorily addressing the concerns raised in DUAC letter no. OL-07102448045 dated 16.10.2024.

b) The architect has indicated that the proposal is for a full NOC for completion; however, this has not been sufficiently documented with photographs. Six residential blocks (A, B, C, D, E, F) exist, but only a few unannotated photos have been provided. Furthermore, some areas, including the Basement, boundary wall, and terrace, are missing from the documentation. The NOC for Completion proposal must comprise comprehensive documentation, including photographs of the relevant areas for which the NOC is required, with clear annotations.

c) Further, the Commission had observed in its earlier observation that:

“….. several temporary extensions have been added to the society, covering balconies and adversely affecting the aesthetics of the area. These temporary coverings must be removed, and façade shall be made as per original sanction before resubmitting the case for NOC for completion…”

The architect in their reply has indicated that:

“…….Completion is required for full completion any unauthorized covering etc will be removed during FAR construction…”

The Commission reiterated that all temporary coverings must be removed, and the façade shall be made as per the original sanction (formal approval), given in the year 2005, before resubmitting the case for NOC for completion.

d) To the Commission’s observation that:

“…….For a better understanding of the proposal side by side photographs ‘Before (submitted 3d views at the time of DUAC formal approval) and After (current actual built construction)’ of the constructed building blocks to be provided…”

The architect has replied that:

“…..The photographs at the time of DUAC approval are not available. The current 3D views are submitted…”

During the review, it was noted that no 3D views are submitted but not the photographs of existing construction, resulting in an incorrect statement provided by the architect.

5. Overall, an incomplete submission supported by incomplete documentation has been received at the Completion stage for the consideration of the Commission. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations provided by the Commission, including those communicated vide DUAC observation letter no. OL-07102448045 dated 16.10.2024, and furnish a pointwise incorporation & reply.

1. The CPWD 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. The proposal for NOC for the completion of package-1, Part-2 (Co-Ed. Senior Secondary School), received (online) at the completion stage, was scrutinised.  Based on the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission took note of the email dated July 23, 2025, from the architect/proponent that:

“…… Kindly consider the request to postpone our project meeting to next week, as due to bad wheather photography is not complete today…”

However, some other discrepancies were also observed during the review, including missing elevations and sections, superimposed drawings, photographs of the completed work of art, terrace photographs, and photographs of the gate and boundary wall. The NOC for the completion proposal must include comprehensive documentation, such as photographs of the relevant areas for which the NOC is required, with clear annotations.

b) For a better understanding of the proposal side by side photographs ‘Before (submitted 3d views at the time of DUAC formal approval) and After (current actual built construction)' of the constructed building blocks to be provided.

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

4. Overall, the proposal received at the completion stage is lacking in clarity and missing documentation. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish a pointwise incorporation & reply.

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 meetings held on May 1, 2025, and June 12, 2025, respectively, and specific observations were given.
3. The revised layout and the building plans proposal, now 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-10062562023 dated June 18, 2025. Based on the replies submitted and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) Two options for accommodating requisite car parking requirements were presented; option II was found to be more appropriate. All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations, etc. It is also suggested to make provision for drivers’ rest rooms and drinking water in the parking area.

b) 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 of the terrace, reduces heat load through increased shading, and most importantly, improves aesthetics.

c) 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.

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.

1. The DDA forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plans at its meeting on May 26, 1995, but did not accept the NOC for completion at its meeting on November 19, 2004. The proposal for revised layout and building plans was referred back to the DDA at its meeting on June 14, 2017, with specific observations. Subsequently, the Commission approved it at its meeting on August 9, 2017.
3. The Commission did not approve the completion plans proposal at its meeting held of April 3, 2025, specific observations were given.
4. The proposal for NOC for completion received (online) 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-29032548056 dated 11.04.2025.  Based on the replies submitted, including drawings and photographs, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) It has been noted that the submission was resubmitted without satisfactorily addressing the concerns raised in DUAC letter no. OL-29032548056 dated 11.04.2025.

b) The proposal is at the completion stage, and the submitted documentation is inadequate. It contains only a few cropped photographs of the gate, boundary wall, terrace, and basement, without the seven residential blocks that form a significant part of the development.

c) Furthermore, the architect has indicated a provision for 67 ECS in the basement; however, the basement appears incomplete, lacking finished flooring and proper access. The ramp passage is currently obstructed with stored materials and remains unfinished, rendering it unsuitable for functional parking use, which contradicts with the statement furnished by the architect.

d) 3D renderings of the proposal depict solar panels installed across all sections of the residential building terraces. However, photographs of the terraces clearly show that no solar panels are present. For proposals at NOC for completion stage, need to provide correct information to facilitate judicious review of the Commission.

e) Further, the Commission reiterated all its observations communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-29032548056 dated 11.04.2025 and advised the architect of its compliance.

5. Overall, the proposal received at the completion stage is incomplete, lacking in clarity and incomprehensible. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations including communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-29032548056 dated 11.04.2025 and furnish a pointwise incorporation & reply.

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 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, May 22, 2025 and July 10, 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 replies submitted to the previous observations given by the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation letter no: OL-03122423011 dated July 16, 2025. Based on the earlier approved submission and the revised submission, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The design proposal incorporates provisions for double-stack parking arrangements to meet the necessary parking requirements. The architect or proponent to ensure the proper implementation of these arrangements on-site, which will be examined during the proposal's completion stage. All parking arrangements must adhere to the relevant rules, regulations, guidelines, and other applicable requirements.

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

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, 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.