Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1825th meeting held on 24.07.2025.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of the 1825th meeting held on 24.07.2025 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 at its meetings on January 30, 2025 and March 6, 2025, respectively; specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal for residential building received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-05032523005 dated 12-03-2025, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that the building at 528, Kucha Pati Ram is a listed Grade-III heritage structure, listed at Serial No. 369 in Gazette Notification No. F. No. 13(43) MB/UD/2014/1602 dated July 29, 2016, issued by the Department of Urban Development, Government of NCT of Delhi.

b) Based on the project report and the photographs submitted, it is evident that the building has already been constructed on site.  The proposal was presented at the formal stage as a “proposed building,”.

4. Since construction has already been undertaken at the site, the matter is hereby referred back to the concerned local authority i.e., MCD for necessary action in accordance with the applicable norms, regulations, and guidelines stipulated in the Unified Building Bye-Laws (UBBL) for Delhi, 2016.

1. The South-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the redevelopment of WHO-SEARO's building plans proposal at its meeting on August 11, 2018, and the proposal for additions and alterations (addition of a service block) at its meeting on August 08, 2024; observations were given. The Commission did not accept the NOC for the completion plans proposal at its meeting on April 3, 2025, and specific observations were given.
3. 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: 58(48)/2025-DUAC, OL-02042558048 dated 11.04.2025. Based on the submission made, including drawings, photographs, etc, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that detailed observations were communicated through DUAC observation letter no. 58(48)/2025-DUAC, OL-02042558048, dated 11.04.2025, but the provided accomplices for the same were unsatisfactory.

b) Although the proposal is at the completion stage, it lacks adequate photographic documentation of the constructed building. Certain areas appear unfinished, with ongoing finishing work. The submission should include uncut photographs of all sides particularly the rear façade as well as clear views of the main gate, the connecting bridge to the main building, and the service block etc. An adequate number of comprehensive site photographs must be provided to ensure a clear understanding of the site and its surroundings. These should be resubmitted with complete, uncut views from all angles.

c) While approving the proposal at the formal stage at its meeting held on August 11, 2018, the Commission is observed that:

“……..Provisions for work of art and public toilets be made as per provisions of Unified Building Bye-laws for Delhi-2016….”

The proposal at the Completion stage shall have completed the work of Art, the same found to be missing in the submission.

d) It is again reiterated 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….”

4. Overall, the proposal received at the NOC for completion stage lacks appropriate documentation including providing adequate photographs of the areas requires completion. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and furnish pointwise incorporation and reply. 

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 demolition and reconstruction (2B+G+2 floors) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and 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. Nevertheless, the architect or proponent must ensure the proper implementation of these arrangements on-site, which will be examined during the proposal's completion stage. All parking arrangements adhere to the relevant rules, regulations, guidelines, and other applicable requirements.

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, reduces heat load through increased shading, and most importantly, improves aesthetics.

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, 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.

1. The North-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal for a residential building at its meeting on July 24, 2025; specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal for residential building (S+G+3 floors) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, along with the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-19072523010 dated 30-07-2025, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) 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.

b) 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.

1. The South-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The layout plan was already approved by DUAC on July 15, 2015 and the building plan of staff quarters (stilt+ground+7 floors for 120 DU units) was approved by the Commission in its meeting held on November 23, 2016.
3. The proposal for NOC for completion (staff quarters for Service Personnel) received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised and a detailed discussion was held with the architect online who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission.  Based on the discussion held, submission made including drawings, documentations, and photographs, etc, the proposal for NOC for (staff quarters for Service Personnel) is accepted.

1. The CPWD forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. Earlier, the Commission approved the Layout/Master plan proposal for the Indian Agriculture Research Institute (IARI) Campus, Pusa, at its meeting held on April 19, 2016.  The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal for New Girls’ Hostel at its meeting held on March 20, 2025, specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal for the New Girls’ Hostel received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-17032562012 dated 26.03.2025, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect online who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission.  Based on the previous observations given, discussion held, and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission took note of the letter no: 107-39/2023-24/W/1635 dated 06.08.2025 from IARI Pusa, New Delhi indicating that:

“……the Competent Authority has accorded approval that appropriate provisions for multi-level car parking (MLCP), basement parking, or still parking shall be duly incorporated in all future developments within the IARI Pusa campus, in accordance with DUAC’s recommendation…”

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.

1. The CPWD forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The building plan proposal for Central Ayurveda Research Institute (comprised of 02B+G+06 floors) was scrutinised, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect, who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission.  Based on the discussion held and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission examined the project report and site plan, noting that while the plans include two basements for parking, about 33 cars still need surface parking, which could be used for landscaping. To avoid surface parking and promote groundwater recharge, the Commission recommends increasing the basement height to accommodate these 33 cars, possibly through double stacking, to meet current and future parking needs. 
 
b) Furthermore, it was observed that, as an Ayurveda Research Institute with in-house patient facilities, the institute lacks consolidated green areas that would benefit not only patients but also visitors and users. The Commission noted the presence of large terraces on the second and fourth floors, which could be suitably transformed into landscaped green spaces. 

c) The proposed basement ramps and their supporting framework lack detailed design. Furthermore, provisions for rainwater management through gutters or similar systems are missing. This aspect should be reassessed considering visual appeal, aesthetics, and rainwater handling, with all relevant details, including materials.

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, reduces heat load through increased shading, and most importantly, improves aesthetics.

e) 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.

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, 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.

3. Overall, the proposal received at the formal stage lacks clarity and needs improvement. 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 layout and the building plan proposal for plots no. A, C, and D at its meeting held on March 18, 2020, specific observations were given. The Commission accept the NOC for completion (Part- for plot -A) at its meeting held on February 2, 2023, specific observations were given.
3. The Commission accept the NOC for completion (Part- for plot C and D (D1 and D2) at its meeting held on November 14, 2024, specific observations were given.
4. The proposal for NOC for completion for (Part- for Plot C and D (D1 and D2)) received (online) the completion stage was scrutinised.   Based on the submission made including drawings, photographs, and email dated 07.08.2025 etc., the following is noted:

a) The Commission took note that NOC for completion has already been issued vide DUAC observation letter no: OL- 12112448046, 48(46)/2024-DUAC dated 19.11.2024 and email dated 07.08.2025 from the architect indicating that:

“….. This is in reference to the case for Block C and D (D1 and D2 building) Ware house and Commercial development for NDRAVG Business Park, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi.

We want to bring into your kind notice, the NOC for completion Block C and D ( D1 and D2building) has already been accepted and granted by the commission vide letter no. OL12112448046 dated 19th November 2024. How ever while taking the approval/NOC from fire department certain observations has been raised regarding usage of the building floors asper NBC, so we have to change the usage of the floors. After updating the same, we have received NOC from the Fire Department also. Now, as there is change in the usage of the floors, DDA has forwarded the drawings again to DUAC to revalidate the changes.

This is further to bring into your kind notice, there is No change in the building envelop line and elevations which has already been approved by the commission. The detail summary and the approved NOC letter is here by attached for your kind reference….”

5. In view of the above, including submission made, drawings, photographs, and email dated 07.08.2025 etc., the proposal for NOC for Completion is accepted.

1. The DDA forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the proposal for addition/alterations (addition of fifth & sixth floor and minor internal changes in existing fourth floor) at its meeting held on July 6, 2023.
3. The proposal for NOC for completion (Part-fifth and sixth floor, and some internal changes in fourth floor) received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised.  Based on the submission made including drawings, photographs, etc, the proposal for NOC for (Part-fifth and sixth floor, and minor internal changes in fourth floor) is accepted.

1. The DIAL forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the master plan of the hospitality district at IGI airport at its meeting held on March 09, 2011, and the revised conceptual master plan was accepted in the meeting of the Commission held on October 18, 2017, with specific observations given.
3. The building plan proposal for the Hospital building (comprises 4 Basements and ground + 6 floors) was scrutinised, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect online, who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the discussion held and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) During discussion with the architect, it was suggested to explore alternatives to the ACP envisaged for the outer façade. The architect responded vide their email dated 08.08.2025 that:

“……..For the limited areas where ACP has been proposed, as suggested by the Commission, we are proposing the following alternative materials, each carefully considered for its aesthetics, durability, and compatibility with the overall design intent:

i. Stone Lam

Stone laminate is a composite material designed to mimic the look and feel of natural stone, like granite or marble, but at a lower cost and with easier installation. It's made by bonding thin layers of decorative paper and resin, often with a stone-inspired design, under high pressure and heat. It is lightweight, easy to install, and provides a premium finish

ii. Sintered Stone

A premium surface material with a natural stone appearance. It is highly durable, UV-resistant, and adds a refined, high-quality finish to select façade elements….”

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

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) 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.

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, 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.

1. The NDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plans proposal at its meeting held on February 1, 1991 and subsequently accepted the NOC for completion at its meeting held on September 16, 1994.
3.   The building plan proposal for Bihar Niwas (comprises of 02 Basements + ground + 6 floors) was scrutinised and a detailed discussion was held with the architect online, who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the discussion held and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that the proposal for ‘Bihar Niwas’ was approved initially in 1991, and the present submission pertains to the construction of a new building following the demolition of the existing structure.

b) The Commission noted that the proposed façade has a modern look that does not suitably reflect the sovereign states representation in Delhi.  It lacks inspiration from the rich cultural context of the state in terms of art, architecture, and historical features that collectively form Bihar’s rich heritage. Even a modern building that represents the aspirations of the people or leadership of Bihar would be more suitable than just another modern building.  It is recommended that the building’s elevation be redesigned while drawing greater inspiration from the state’s heritage, competitive capacities, and/or its aspirations. The overall aesthetics should be improved, with façade details developed more thoroughly. The revised submission must include detailed architectural drawings and 3D visualisations.

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) 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.

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, 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.

4. Overall, the proposal received at the formal stage lacks clarity and needs improvement. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and provide a point-by-point incorporation and response.

Layout and Building Plans Proposal (Demolition & Reconstruction) for DTC Group Housing at Shadipur. (Conceptual Stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission did not accept the layout and building plan proposal (conceptual) at its meetings held on December 14, 2023, August 29, 2024, October 17, 2024 and December 19, 2024, respectively; observations were given.
3. The layout and building plans proposal for demolition and reconstruction received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised, along with the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Conceptually Unsuitable letter no: OL-11122427076 dated 30.12.2024. A detailed presentation was made by the architect, who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the previous observations given, presentation made, and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The arrival experience at the complex currently appears uninviting, as the club’s exterior walls are plain and lack visual appeal. The blank façade results in a less engaging approach, whether by pedestrian or vehicular. Likewise, the podium parking presents an unattractive view, with parking areas visible at eye level and inadequate screening. To create a more welcoming entry, the façades of both the club building and the podium parking should be enhanced with appealing architectural and design elements. For the podium parking, low-maintenance screening solutions such as natural creepers are recommended to conceal utility areas while preserving the overall aesthetics.

b) The swimming pool’s current location at the complex entrance seems to have been planned without enough consideration for user privacy. It is advisable to install proper screening around the pool area to maintain privacy. Also, the pool entrance to provide direct access from within the club premises, allowing users to enter without leaving the site. The blank façade overlooking the pool should also be appropriately treated to improve its visual appeal and create a more inviting environment for both users and visitors.

c) Appropriate provisions shall be made in the proposed balconies to hide outdoor air-conditioner units, so they do not spoil the area's aesthetics.​​​​​​​

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, reduces heat load through increased shading, and most importantly, improves aesthetics.​​​​​​​

e) 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.​​​​​​​

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, 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.

4. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and provide a point-by-point incorporation and response in the next submission (formal stage).

Found 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.

Building plans proposal (Demolition & Reconstruction) in respect of New - Proposed Academic Block and Type -C Residence at IIT Delhi, Hauz Khas. (Conceptual Stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission. 
2. The Commission approved the revised layout plan at its meeting held on September 02, 2015.
3. The building plans proposal for ‘Academic Block and Type-C Residence’ received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect online, who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the discussion held and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the current proposal is part of a large campus with several existing structures. An area near the proposed site, identified in the IIT Delhi Campus Master Plan as a ‘double basement with two-stack parking,’ has been earmarked for a Multi-Level Car Park (MLCP) to cater to the parking requirements of the ‘Type-C Residences, the New Girls Hostel Building (Bldg. No. 50B), and Hostel F (Boys Hostel) (Bldg. No. 89A)’. However, no specific proposal for the MLCP has been submitted. The repeated submission of new development plans, following the demolition of existing campus buildings, without adequate parking provisions in basements or MLCPs, risks turning the campus into a surface parking area, thereby reducing green spaces. Such changes could lead to environmental concerns, including an increase in paved surfaces that aggravate urban flooding and place additional strain on city infrastructure.

b) The issue was discussed with the project architect to evaluate possible future developments on the campus. The Commission needs a detailed area statement in a table, showing the allowed and proposed ground coverage and the FAR for both current and future projects. This data will help assess how parking needs for both existing and upcoming projects can be met within the MLCP, helping to preserve surface green spaces and improve groundwater recharge.

c) Additionally, the proponent must submit a letter of undertaking confirming that parking needs for future buildings shall be met through basement parking, multi-level car parking (MLCP), or stilt parking, to prevent the expansion of surface parking, minimise hard-paved areas, and maintain the city’s green cover. All parking provisions must comply with all relevant norms, guidelines, and regulations.

d) To aid the process, the architect confirms to prepare a comprehensive MLCP design, in coordination with the proponent and get it approved from the Commission.

A. Academic Block:

a) The Commission noted that while most of the required parking is proposed within the two planned basements, 30 cars are intended to be accommodated in the nearby area marked for the proposed MLCP. It was suggested that the basement height be increased to allow for double-stack parking, thereby meeting the entire parking requirement within the academic block itself.

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, reduces heat load through increased shading, and most importantly, improves aesthetics.

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, 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.

4. Overall, the proposal received at the conceptual stage needs further improvement. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and provide a point-by-point incorporation and response.
    

Not accepted (Type -C Residence), observations given.

Found conceptually suitable- (Academic Block only)

(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.

Building plans proposal (Demolition & Reconstruction) in respect of New Girls Hostel Building (Bldg. No. 50 B) at IIT Delhi Campus, Hauz Khas. (Conceptual Stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The proposal was deferred.

Building plans proposal (Demolition & Reconstruction) in respect of Hostel F (Boys Hostel) (Bldg. No. 89A) at IIT Delhi Campus, Hauz Khas. (Conceptual Stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The proposal was deferred.

Building plans proposal for addition/alteration in respect of the Indian School Design 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 plan proposal (without basement) at its meeting held on December 15, 2006, and the NOC for the Completion plan proposal (without basement) was accepted in the meeting held on May 02, 2012. The Commission approved the building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of 4^th floor, a lift, lift lobby and a fire escape staircase) at its meeting held on April 21, 2022, specific observations were given.
3. The Commission did not accept the conceptual proposal for addition/alterations (addition of proposed fourth floor, ramp, lift, lift lobby and a fire-fighting staircase, two basements (B1 & B2) below the existing playground) at its meeting held on July 17, 2025; specific observations were given.
4. The building plans proposal for additions and alterations (addition of proposed fourth floor, ramp, lift, lift lobby and a fire-fighting staircase, two basements (B1 & B2) below the existing playground) received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised along with the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-15072527037 dated 23-07-2025, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that it had already approved the proposal for additions and alterations (including a fourth floor, a lift, a lift lobby, and a fire escape staircase) at its meeting on April 21, 2022.

b) However, the reason for submitting a revised proposal at the conceptual stage has not been clarified, as no comparison has been provided between the previously approved scheme and the current submission at this stage. The revisions made to the earlier approved design, along with the reasons for these changes, have not been specified. To enable proper assessment, the Commission recommends providing comparisons ‘Before’ (as approved in the formal stage) and ‘After’ (reflecting the current proposal at the concept stage) to clearly show the extent and nature of the modifications.

c) The proposal also features two basements, created by splitting the existing playground into two parts. Currently, the design is unclear and lacks enough detail. It needs to be revisited and resubmitted with comprehensive information, including detailed sections of the existing superstructure, the proposed basements, playground, vehicular ramps, and related elements, along with material specifications. Additionally, the covering materials for the fire escape staircase should be specified with all necessary details.

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, reduces heat load through increased shading, and most importantly, improves aesthetics.

e) 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.

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, 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 conceptual stage lacks clarity and needs further improvement. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and provide a point-by-point incorporation and response.