Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1827th meeting held on 08.08.2025.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of the 1827th meeting held on 08.08.2025 were discussed.

1. The NDMC 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. The Commission did not accept the NOC for Completion for Co-Ed. Senior Secondary School in Redevelopment of Sarojini Nagar PKG IVC at its meeting held on July 24, 2025 specific observations were given.
3. The proposal for NOC for the completion of package-IVC (Co-Ed. Senior Secondary School), received (online) at the completion stage, 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 including drawings, documentations, photographs etc., the proposal for NOC for Completion is accepted.

1. The NDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on April 23, 2020, but approved the proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on November 27, 2020. Specific observations were given.
3. The proposal for NOC for the completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised. Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations, photographs, etc., the proposal for NOC for Completion is accepted.

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. The Commission accepted the layout and building plan proposal (conceptual) at its meetings held on August 08, 2025, and specific observations were given.
3. The revised 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 suitable letter no: OL-16072527038 dated 13.08.2025. The following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that the Layout and Building Plans Proposal (Demolition & Reconstruction) for DTC Group Housing at Shadipur had been reviewed previously by the Commission at the conceptual stage, and some specific observations were given vide DUAC conceptual stage DUAC observation letter no:  OL-16072527038 dated 13.08.2025. However, it was noted that the proposal had been submitted again at the conceptual stage without satisfactory compliance.

4. In view of the unsatisfactory compliance with its previous observations, the proposal could not be reviewed judiciously. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations provided by the Commission and furnish a point-wise incorporation & reply.

Revised Building plans proposal in respect of the Hospital building at FC-53, Pitampura. (Conceptual Stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. Earlier, the Commission did not accept the concept of the proposal at its meeting held on June 04, 2020, and specific observations were given. The Commission approved the building plans proposal (formally forwarded by the North-DMC) at its meeting held on 25 June 2021. Subsequently, the Commission approved the building plans proposal (formally forwarded by the DDA) at its meeting held on 27 October 2022, and specific observations were given.
3. The revised building plan proposal for the Hospital building received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and the Commission intended to discuss the proposal with the architect (online), but he was not available. Based on the revised submission made, unavailability of the architect for discussion, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The building's plumbing system is unclear. The locations of plumbing shafts should be marked on the plans for all floors. If plumbing pipes are left exposed, they could detract from the façade's aesthetics. The plumbing layout and screening methods for the pipes on the façade need to be shown on the relevant plans. The area housing the DG set, including its exhaust pipes, should be adequately screened so they are not visible and do not spoil the complex's aesthetics.

b) It was observed that the location of the public toilet and the guard room, etc., are also part of the submission, but their detailed drawings (including screening mechanism, elevations, sections, 3D views, etc.) have not been submitted. The Commission observed that these components have a bearing on the complex's overall visual, urban, and aesthetic quality.

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. This placement also facilitates easy maintenance, reduces heat load through increased shading, and most importantly, improves aesthetics. 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.

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) 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.

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.

Proposal in respect of additions and alterations at premises no.  P-7/90, Connaught Circus, Connaught Place.  (Conceptual Stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. No previous record of approval has been found in the available record of the Commission.
3. The proposal for additions/alterations (Chajja to be repaired, Parapet wall to be repaired, Existing door window to be repaired, White wash/Paint same as color and texture, Existing cornice to be maintained, Existing column to be maintained, Existing window to be repaired/maintained, Existing railing to be repaired/painted, Proposed signage board, Proposed fixed glass, Proposed glass door, Public Corridor, Proposed water tank, Proposed lift/machine room, Proposed stair case, Fire escape stair case, Proposed toilet, Dress room, Bed room, Kitchen, Living Dinning area for residential purpose at (Second floor), Concealing roof top equipment’s like solar panel system, solar heater system and AC units through 1.50 m high MS louvers)) received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised along with the project report, drawings, documentations etc., the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the proposal relates to the Connaught Circus area, constructed and completed in 1933. The proposal (No. P-7/90) consist of ground, mezzanine, first, and second floors, with commercial activities on the ground, mezzanine, and first floors. The project report and submissions propose extensive alterations, including the removal of load-bearing walls on these floors, the introduction of new staircases and lifts, covering the roof with an RCC slab, and proposing additional floor area on the second floor, among other changes.

b) Additionally, the site is situated in a dense neighbourhood. It shall be ensured that the submitted 3d views are superimposed in the actual site & its surroundings to make the proposal self-explanatory and comprehensive. 

c) Complete Site photographs of the existing building and surrounding buildings to be provided in the submission to explain the character of the buildings in the complex and their impact on the proposed development.

d) Proposed design of the shopfront door, fire escape staircase, and screening mechanism of services proposed on the terrace with materiality shall be submitted for an appropriate assessment of the proposal. Also, a huge DG set is situated on the ground floor, but not shown in the proposed design. The area housing the DG set, including its exhaust pipes, should be adequately screened so they are not visible and do not spoil the complex's aesthetics.

e) Further, the architect in its project report indicates that:

“….Set within the iconic colonnades of Connaught Place, the proposal for P-7/90, Block-P represents a sensitive renewal comprising additions and alterations in accordance with UBBL 2016. It revitalizes the Ground, Mezzanine, and First floors for commercial use, while respectfully retaining the residential unit on the Second floor, fully aligned with the provisions of MPD-2021. The existing building height and elevations remain unchanged, and reliance on NDMC’s pooled parking ensures minimal impact on the public realm….”

However, the extensive modifications proposed for this age-old building, including new staircases and lifts, roof covering with an RCC slab, and additional floor area on the second floor, have not been supported with details of permissible, existing, and proposed areas presented in a comparative chart, for a judicious review by the Commission.

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

g) The building's plumbing system is unclear. The locations of plumbing shafts should be marked on the plans for all floors. If plumbing pipes are left exposed, they could detract from the façade's aesthetics. The plumbing layout and screening methods for the pipes on the façade need to be shown on the relevant plans.

h) 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. This placement also facilitates easy maintenance, reduces heat load through increased shading, and most importantly, improves aesthetics. 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) 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.

j) 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 is incomplete and needs improvement. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and provide the current status of the site conditions, along with a point-by-point incorporation and response.
    

Not accepted, observations given.

Building plans proposal in respect of Faculty Residence 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 Commission approved the revised layout of the Indian Institute of Technology, Hauz Khas, at its meeting held on September 2, 2015.
3. The building plans proposal for demolition and reconstruction (Faculty Residence comprising of four (04) towers, each of S+12 floors) received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) A discrepancy was observed in the submission, as a significant portion marked as ‘Proposed Lawn’ has also been shown as part of the design scheme, which does not align with the envisaged layout.

b) The Commission noted that the proposal forms part of a large campus with multiple existing structures. An area adjacent to the proposed site, identified in the IIT Delhi Campus Master Plan as a ‘double basement with two-stack parking,’ has been designated for a Multi-Level Car Park (MLCP). 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 converting the campus into a surface parking zone, thereby reducing green spaces. Such changes may also lead to environmental concerns, including increased paved areas that exacerbate urban flooding and put additional pressure on city infrastructure.

c) To evaluate possible future developments on the campus. The Commission needs a detailed area statement in a tabular form, 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.

d) 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.

e) It is recommended that the MLCP be designed to reflect the highest standards of design, technology, and innovation, incorporating sustainable features on façades, terraces, and other elements. These cost-effective screening solutions can serve as a benchmark for future projects across the city. The architect is also required to submit the design and detailed drawings of the MLCP, along with the submission of the Faculty Residence, to facilitate the Commission’s review and approval process and to ensure complete documentation.

f) 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.

g) Site photographs of the surrounding buildings to be provided in the submission to explain the character of the buildings in the complex and their impact on the proposed development.

h) A signage policy should be adopted on the site to maintain uniformity. They need to be appropriately located to ensure that they do not mar the aesthetics of the façade.

i) 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. This placement also facilitates easy maintenance, reduces heat load through increased shading, and most importantly, improves aesthetics.

j) The Sustainability features shall be as per point 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

k) 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.

l) 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 is incomplete and needs improvement. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and provide a point-by-point incorporation and response.

Not accepted, observations given.