Action Taken Reports in respect of minutes of the 1882nd meeting held on 06.08.2026.

1. Action Taken Reports in respect of minutes of the 1882nd meeting held on 06.08.2026 were discussed.

1. The North-DMC forwarded (through email) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal for additions and alterations at its meeting held on July 10, 2026; specific observations were given.
3. The building proposal for residential building (Internal modifications are proposed on the ground floor to facilitate residential use. Additionally, the construction of residential floors from the 1st to the 3rd floor is proposed over the existing building) received (through email) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-07072623199 dated 21.07.2026.  Based on the submission made, including replies submitted to previous observations, drawings and photographs, etc., the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that when evaluating the case for additions or alterations, it did not take into account the existing built construction at the site. This relates only to the proposal for additions and alterations. The Commission observed that the proposal has been examined solely from the perspective of architectural quality, urban aesthetics, and visual considerations.

b) The proposal is for the additions/alterations, a lot of live/dead load is being added to the existing building. Structure shall be designed to withstand weather effects and impacts from calamities such as earthquakes, etc., as it is an additional structure added to the existing superstructure. The local body shall ensure the structural safety of the additions/alterations done on the existing superstructure.

c) It shall be ensured that all projections are contained entirely within the plot boundaries and that no projection extends over the municipal road. The concerned local body shall ensure compliance with the applicable provisions of the Unified Building Bye-Laws (UBBL), prevailing norms, regulations, and other statutory requirements.

d) All plumbing pipes, rainwater pipes, water discharge from the balconies, the 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.

e) The architect is also advised to go through the DUAC Memorandums issued vide letter no: 1(2)/82-DUAC dated 07.10.2025 (available on the DUAC website www.duac.org.in) for various issues related to the DUAC approvals.

1. The North-DMC forwarded (through OPAAS) 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 proposal for residential building (comprising of stilt + ground + third floor) received (through OPAAS) at the formal stage was scrutinised.  Based on the submission made, including drawings and photographs, etc., the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed from the submitted drawings, documentation, and site photographs that the proposal appears to involve demolition and reconstruction. However, the existing photographs have not been adequately annotated to clearly identify the property and the specific portions for which the proposal has been submitted for the Commission's consideration. The revised submission shall accordingly include appropriately labelled and annotated photographic documentation for clarity.

Further, if the proposal involves demolition and reconstruction, the revised submission shall also include the requisite demolition plans, elevations, sections, and other relevant drawings clearly indicating the extent of demolition and proposed reconstruction.

b) Adequate documentation of the site context and its immediate surroundings has not been provided. Comprehensive site and contextual references shall be suitably annotated, including through photographic documentation, to show the existing built environment and surrounding context to facilitate a clear understanding of the proposal by the Commission.

c) The proposed 3D views of the façade have been submitted without appropriate labelling and identification of the proposed materials and finishes, making it difficult to comprehensively assess the proposal from visual and aesthetic considerations. An adequate number of annotated 3D views shall therefore be submitted, clearly indicating the materials and finishes proposed for the façade. Bird's-eye views shall also be provided to clearly illustrate the terrace layout, including the location of utilities and the proposed screening arrangements, to facilitate a comprehensive understanding of their visual impact on the overall design.

d) The Commission observed discrepancies in the submission, as architectural elements depicted in the proposed 3D views have not been reflected in the corresponding plans, rendering the submission incomplete and inconsistent. The same shall be appropriately incorporated and duly coordinated in all relevant drawings, including plans, elevations, and sections, to ensure consistency and facilitate the judicious review of the proposal by the Commission.

4. Overall, the proposal received at the formal stage has discrepancies, 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 North-DMC forwarded (through OPAAS) 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 proposal for residential building (comprising of ground + third floor) received (through OPAAS) at the formal stage was scrutinised.  Based on the submission made, including drawings and photographs, etc., the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the proposal has been examined solely from the perspective of architectural quality, urban aesthetics, and visual considerations.

b) It shall be ensured that all projections are contained entirely within the plot boundaries and that no projection extends over the municipal road. The concerned local body shall ensure compliance with the applicable provisions of the Unified Building Bye-Laws (UBBL), prevailing norms, regulations, and other statutory requirements.

c) All plumbing pipes, rainwater pipes, water discharge from the balconies, the 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.

d) The architect is also advised to go through the DUAC Memorandums issued vide letter no: 1(2)/82-DUAC dated 07.10.2025 (available on the DUAC website www.duac.org.in) for various issues related to the DUAC approvals.

1. The CPWD forwarded (through OPAAS) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the redevelopment of GPRA Srinivaspuri at its meeting held on May 29, 2019.  The Commission approved the revised proposal in respect of GPRA Srinivaspuri (package-1) at its meeting held on November 20, 2025; specific observations were made.
3. The revised layout and building plan proposal for (Package-2: construction of 1230 nos. Type-II Residential Units and 02 nos. Multi-Level Car Parking namely MLCP-1 and MLCP-2 including Development Works & Service etc.) received (through OPAAS) at the formal stage was scrutinised. The concerned Architect made a detailed presentation on the updated Master Plan of the site. A detailed discussion was also held with the Architect online through Cisco Webex, during which clarifications were provided in response to the queries raised by the Commission. Based on the presentation given, submission made, including drawings and photographs submitted, and the discussion held, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the Architect has submitted a revised Master Plan of the site incorporating the changes and modifications made from 2019 to date. During the discussion, it was informed that certain portions of the site have been retained, while others have been completed or are under construction in accordance with the approvals (formal) given from time to time. The Commission reviewed the overall Master Plan holistically and emphasized the need for a comprehensive, site-specific and consolidated Master Plan clearly depicting the existing status of the site, works carried out, works under construction, and areas proposed for revision or future development. Accordingly, the following details shall be incorporated in the revised Master Plan and supporting documentation:

i) Although the locations of the two existing schools have been indicated, the existing local shops located in between the entry/exists of the Type-II residential block have not been marked. The same shall be clearly indicated in the revised Master Plan and supported by appropriate photographic documentation for the information and record of the Commission.

ii) The revised Master Plan shall provide a consolidated representation of the entire site, clearly distinguishing and appropriately marking, through suitable colour coding and legends, the areas already approved and completed, areas retained, works under construction, and areas presently under revision or likely to be modified/developed in future. The submission shall be supported by appropriate photographic documentation of the existing and under-construction works to provide a clear and updated understanding of the site for the information, future reference, and record of the Commission.

iii) The Architect shall prepare a comprehensive comparative statement/chart for the overall DCR matrix including ground coverage, FAR details (permissible, achieved, and for future use, if any), parking calculations in a similar fashion in a comparative chart starting 2019 to current date for the information, future reference and record of the Commission.

iv) Updated and comprehensive photographic documentation of the site and its surrounding context, as existing on date, shall also be submitted for future reference and record of the Commission.

b) The Commission observed that, although two Multi-Level Car Parking facilities (MLCP-1 and MLCP-2) have been proposed to accommodate the parking requirements of the Type-II residential development, a substantial extent of surface parking has still been provided. The Commission was of the view that the location of the MLCPs, particularly MLCP-2, may be revisited and strategically positioned closer to the Tower-T4 to improve parking distribution, operational efficiency, and vehicular circulation. Such rationalisation may also facilitate better integration of the landscaped open area behind the Towers-T3 with the central green/park, thereby enhancing the continuity of the landscape improving the overall visual and aesthetic quality of the complex and maintaining its overall architectural charater. 

c) Further, it was observed that the proposed residential towers have an overall height of approximately 111.65 m, whereas the proposed MLCPs have an overall height of only approximately 19.40 m. The Commission was of the view that the feasibility of increasing the height and parking capacity of the MLCPs may be explored, wherever permissible, to accommodate a greater proportion of the parking requirement within these facilities. This would help substantially reduce surface parking and consequently release additional areas for landscaped open and green spaces, thereby improving the environmental quality, visual character, and overall living experience within the complex.

d) The detailed ground floor plans of the individual residential towers, including the two MLCP blocks, have been submitted in isolation and do not adequately depict their relationship with the surrounding site and circulation network. The details, including access roads, entry and exit points, drop-off areas, access to individual towers and MLCPs, peripheral parking, and their interrelationship with the overall site planning, have not been clearly indicated. The ground floor plans of each tower (including MLCPs) shall therefore be revisited and appropriately detailed to clearly illustrate the above aspects and facilitate the judicious review and consideration of the proposal by the Commission.

e) Considering the overall height of the proposed residential towers (approximately 111.65 m), it was observed that these buildings would be highly visible from distant locations, including the nearby Mahatma Gandhi Road (Ring Road). In this context, the Commission noted that several of the residential towers lack the following architectural and façade-related provisions:

i) The submission does not adequately detail the proposed arrangements for screening outdoor air-conditioning units and providing dedicated clothes-drying facilities including its screening mechanism with material specifications and architectural detailing within the proposed balconies. Appropriate design interventions shall be explored to ensure that these service elements are suitably integrated and effectively screened without adversely affecting the architectural character and visual aesthetics of the development. The revised submission shall include enlarged typical plans, elevations, and sections clearly depicting these provisions, along with the proposed screening mechanisms, material specifications, and relevant architectural detailing.

ii) Detailed façade (skin) sections, in enlarged details, for typical residential towers, shall clearly depict the architectural elements, sun-shading features, material specifications etc., to facilitate a comprehensive understanding of the proposed façade treatment for the overall building envelop.

f) The proposed building services and landscaped green areas on the terraces of the MLCP blocks shall be duly coordinated with the relevant plans and drawings. The revised submission shall clearly indicate the rainwater drainage/discharge arrangements, integration of services, and other relevant details necessary to clearly demonstrate the overall design scheme.

g) All plans, elevations, sections, views, and other relevant drawings shall be fully coordinated and consistent with each other, clearly reflecting the proposed design in its entirety, so as to facilitate a comprehensive review and assessment of the proposal by the commission.

h) The Work of public art (except for the residential towers) 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) and Memorandum dated October 07, 2025 available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in. Any deviations in the artwork from the approved design must be submitted to the Commission for prior approval before the commencement of construction, to ensure compliance and facilitate final approval upon project completion.

i) All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations, etc. (in terms of points no. 18 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

j) All plumbing pipes, rainwater pipes, water discharge from the balconies, service equipment, DG Set, DG exhaust pipes, water tanks, air-conditioning units, solar panels., 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.

k) 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, subject to feasibility as per building bye-laws. This placement also facilitates easy maintenance, reduces heat load through increased shading, and improves aesthetics. The sustainability features shall be as per Point 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

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

1. The CPWD forwarded (through OPAAS) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2.  The Commission approved the redevelopment of GPRA Srinivaspuri at its meeting held on May 29, 2019.  The Commission approved the revised proposal in respect of GPRA Srinivaspuri (Package-1) at its meeting held on November 20, 2025; specific observations were made.
3. The revised layout and building plan proposal for (Package-3: construction of 1220 nos. Type-IV Residential Units, 1 no. Maternity Block & Police Station including Development Works & Service etc.) received (through OPAAS) at the formal stage was scrutinised. The concerned Architect made a detailed presentation on the updated Master Plan of the site. A detailed discussion was also held with the Architect online through Cisco Webex, during which clarifications were provided in response to the queries raised by the Commission. Based on the presentation given, submission made, including drawings and photographs submitted, and the discussion held, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the Architect has submitted a revised Master Plan of the site incorporating the changes and modifications made from 2019 to date. During the discussion, it was informed that certain portions of the site have been retained, while others have been completed or are under construction in accordance with the approvals (formal) given from time to time. The Commission reviewed the overall Master Plan holistically and emphasized the need for a comprehensive, site-specific and consolidated Master Plan clearly depicting the existing status of the site, works carried out, works under construction, and areas proposed for revision or future development. Accordingly, the following details shall be incorporated in the revised Master Plan and supporting documentation:

i) The revised Master Plan shall provide a consolidated representation of the entire site, clearly distinguishing and appropriately marking, through suitable colour coding and legends, the areas already approved and completed, areas retained, works under construction, and areas presently under revision or likely to be modified/developed in future. The submission shall be supported by appropriate photographic documentation of the existing and under-construction works to provide a clear and updated understanding of the site for the information, future reference, and record of the Commission.

ii) The Architect shall prepare a comprehensive comparative statement/chart for the overall DCR matrix including ground coverage, FAR details (permissible, achieved, and for future use, if any), parking calculations in a similar fashion in a comparative chart starting 2019 to current date for the information, future reference and record of the Commission.

iii) Updated and comprehensive photographic documentation of the site and its surrounding context, as existing on date, shall also be submitted for future reference and record of the Commission.

b) The Commission observed that a substantial land parcel has been allocated for a 33 kV Sub-station in the vicinity of the Type-IV Towers. Considering the overall height of the proposed residential towers (approximately 96.05 m), the sub-station area would be prominently visible from the upper floors of the peripheral towers. From the perspective of long-term visual and environmental quality, a comprehensive landscape and screening scheme, including the plantation of suitable tall-growing trees and other appropriate landscape elements, shall be evolved to effectively screen and integrate the sub-station within the overall urban and landscape character of the complex, thereby minimising its visual impact on the residential development.

c) The Commission observed that the proposal has been received for the residential towers (Type-IV), Police Station, and the maternity block. But, the detailed ground floor plans of the individual residential towers, including the Police Station, and the maternity block, have been submitted in isolation and do not adequately depict their relationship with the surrounding site and circulation network. The details, including access roads, entry and exit points, drop-off areas, access to individual towers, the Police Station, and the maternity block, peripheral parking, and their interrelationship with the overall site planning, have not been clearly indicated. The ground floor plans of each tower (including the Police Station, and the maternity block) shall therefore be revisited and appropriately detailed to clearly illustrate the above aspects and facilitate the judicious review and consideration of the proposal by the Commission.

d) General Observations for the Residential Towers, residential accommodation (above Police Station, and maternity hall):

i) The submission does not adequately detail the proposed arrangements for screening outdoor air-conditioning units and providing dedicated clothes-drying facilities including its screening mechanism with material specifications and architectural detailing within the proposed balconies. Appropriate design interventions shall be explored to ensure that these service elements are suitably integrated and effectively screened without adversely affecting the architectural character and visual aesthetics of the development. The revised submission shall include enlarged typical plans, elevations, and sections clearly depicting these provisions, along with the proposed screening mechanisms, material specifications, and relevant architectural detailing.

ii) Detailed façade (skin) sections, in enlarged details, for typical residential towers, shall clearly depict the architectural elements, sun-shading features, material specifications etc., to facilitate a comprehensive understanding of the proposed façade treatment for the overall building envelop.

iii) The Commission observed that suitable permanent architectural treatment/protective features may be incorporated in the design of all windows to obviate the need for temporary and ad-hoc covering in future and to maintain a uniform and aesthetically coherent façade treatment throughout the complex.

e) All plans, elevations, sections, views, and other relevant drawings shall be fully coordinated and consistent with each other. Uniform nomenclature shall be adopted throughout the submission to ensure clarity and consistency and to facilitate comprehensive review and assessment of the proposal by the commission.

f) The Work of public art (except for the residential towers) 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) and Memorandum dated October 07, 2025 available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in. Any deviations in the artwork from the approved design must be submitted to the Commission for prior approval before the commencement of construction, to ensure compliance and facilitate final approval upon project completion.

g) All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations, etc. (in terms of points no. 18 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, water discharge from the balconies, service equipment, DG Set, DG exhaust pipes, water tanks, air-conditioning units, solar panels., 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.

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, subject to feasibility as per building bye-laws. This placement also facilitates easy maintenance, reduces heat load through increased shading, and improves aesthetics. The sustainability features shall be as per Point 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

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

1. The NDMC forwarded (through email) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the redevelopment of GPRA Colony, Sarojini Nagar at its meeting held on January 17, 2020. 
3. Thereafter, the Commission accepted the NOC for completion of the residential Type-II towers, namely Tower F-20, B-21, F-22, F-23, D-24 to D-26, E-27 and E-28, under Part-GPRA Colony, PKG-1, Type-II, Part-2, at its meeting held on 31 July, 2025.
4. The proposal for NOC for Completion (comprising of Community Hall-03 building (Part GPRA Colony, Pkg-1, Type-II, Part-2) received (through email) at the Completion stage was scrutinized along with the approval (at formal stage) given.  Based on the submission, including the Completion drawings, supporting drawings/documentation, and site photographs, the proposal for NOC for Completion (comprising of Community Hall-03 building (Part GPRA Colony, Pkg-1, Type-II, Part-2) is accepted.

1. The NDMC forwarded (through OPAAS) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the redevelopment of GPRA Colony, Sarojini Nagar at its meeting held on January 17, 2020. 
3. The revised building plans proposal for Residential Apartment received (through OPAAS) at the formal stage was scrutinised.  Based on the submission made, including drawings/documentations and photographs submitted, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission, upon examining the comparative statement submitted by the Architect indicating the previous sanctioned proposal vis-a-vis the current revised proposal, observed that substantial changes/modifications have been made from the Master Plan approved by the Commission in its meeting held on 17.01.2020. Similar variations have also been noted in the successive submissions pertaining to different phases of the redevelopment of the GPRA Colony, Sarojini Nagar.

b) During one such revised submission at its meeting held on August 06, 2026, the Commission has indicated the following:

“.....c ) It was again observed that the Architect has submitted the part NOC for Completion proposal without first revising and updating the overall Master Plan of the GPRA, Sarojini Nagar, despite the observations and assurances recorded in this regard. The Commission, therefore, decided that the complete Master Plan of the GPRA, Sarojini Nagar, approved by the Commission on 17.01.2020, shall be comprehensively revised to incorporate all modifications and changes carried out from the date of the original approval up to the present, including all part NOCs for Completion obtained to date, works completed, works under execution, and the development proposed/likely to be undertaken in future. The revised Master Plan shall present a consolidated and updated picture of the entire redevelopment scheme, duly reflecting the present and envisaged development of the campus, and shall be submitted to the Commission for consideration and approval before any further part NOC for Completion proposals are submitted.

d ) In view of the above, the Commission decided that no further part NOC for Completion proposal pertaining to the GPRA, Sarojini Nagar, shall be taken up for consideration until the comprehensive revised Master Plan, incorporating the above-mentioned modifications and future provisions, is submitted and approved by the Commission. This shall enable the Commission to examine subsequent part NOC for Completion proposals in their entirety and in the context of the approved overall development plan, thereby facilitating their judicious consideration...”

c) In view of the proposal for repeated modifications in the approved Master Plan of the       Redevelopment of GPRA Sarojini Nagar, the Commission opined that the Commission approved the redevelopment of GPRA Colony, Sarojini Nagar at its meeting held on January 17, 2020, and observed that extensive modifications to this date has been made in the overall Master plan of the GPRA Sarojini Nagar. The Commission reviewed the overall Master Plan holistically and emphasized the need for a comprehensive, site-specific and consolidated Master Plan clearly depicting the existing status of the site, works carried out, works under construction, and areas proposed for revision or future development. Accordingly, the following details shall be incorporated in the revised Master Plan and supporting documentation:

i) The revised Master Plan shall provide a consolidated representation of the entire site, clearly distinguishing and appropriately marking, through suitable colour coding and legends, the areas already approved and completed, areas retained, works under construction, and areas presently under revision or likely to be modified/developed in future. The submission shall be supported by appropriate photographic documentation of the existing and under-construction works to provide a clear and updated understanding of the site for the information, future reference, and record of the Commission.

ii) The Architect shall prepare a comprehensive comparative statement/chart for the overall DCR matrix including ground coverage, FAR details (permissible, achieved, and for future use, if any), parking calculations in a similar fashion in a comparative chart starting 2020 to current date for the information, future reference and record of the Commission.

iii) Updated and comprehensive photographic documentation of the site and its surrounding context, as existing on date, shall also be submitted for future reference and record of the Commission.

d) In view of the above, the Commission decided that no further proposal pertaining to the GPRA, Sarojini Nagar, shall be taken up for consideration until the comprehensive revised Master Plan, incorporating the above-mentioned modifications and future provisions, is submitted and approved by the Commission. This shall enable the Commission to examine subsequent proposals in their entirety and in the context of the approved overall development plan, thereby facilitating their judicious consideration.

4. Overall, in view of the pending comprehensive modifications/revisions to be incorporated in the approved Master plan of the GPRA Sarojini Nagar area, the proposal could not be reviewed judiciously by the Commission. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and provide a point-by-point incorporation and response.

1. The CPWD forwarded (through OPAAS) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the proposal for the construction of the New Academic Building at the Law College of the University received at formal stage at its meetings held on July 11, 2024 and December 11, 2025. Specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal for construction of New Academic Building received (through OPAAS) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-02122562050 dated 18.12.2025.  Based on the submission made, including previous observations, drawings, documentations, and replies submitted, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The conflict free movement of the pedestrian as well as vehicular movement of the users shall be ensured throughout the site. All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations, etc. (in terms of points no. 18 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., 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.

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, subject to feasibility as per building bye-laws. This placement also facilitates easy maintenance, reduces heat load through increased shading, and improves aesthetics. The sustainability features shall be as per Point 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

d) The architect is also advised to go through the DUAC Memorandums issued vide letter no: 1(2)/82-DUAC dated 07.10.2025 (available on the DUAC website www.duac.org.in) for various issues related to the DUAC approvals.

1. The CPWD forwarded (through OPAAS) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The proposal was deferred by the Commission.

Building plan proposal in respect of Residential building (Stilt+G+3) at plot no. 1233, Mahal Sarai, Kashmere Gate. (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (through OPAAS) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve (formal) the proposal for additions and alterations at its meetings held on December 24, 2025, May 19, 2026 and July 7, 2026; specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal received (through OPAAS) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-30062623027 dated 13.07.2026, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect (online) on Cisco Webex meetings, during which clarifications were provided to the Commission’s queries. Based on the submission made, including previous observations, drawings, photographs, and discussion held, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission has observed that while reviewing the proposal at its meeting held on 07.07.2026, the following was observed:

“......c ) It was observed from the submitted site photographs that the existing building has been substantially demolished, except for the front façade, which exhibits heritage architectural elements contributing to the character of the surrounding built environment....”

The Commission observed that the proposal has been examined solely from the perspective of architectural quality, urban aesthetics, and visual considerations. The Architect was advised to incorporate, wherever appropriate, architectural elements consistent with those existing on the façade, particularly above the doors at the first-floor level, to maintain continuity and coherence in the overall architectural expression.

b) It shall be ensured that all projections are contained entirely within the plot boundaries and that no projection extends over the municipal road. The concerned local body shall ensure compliance with the applicable provisions of the Unified Building Bye-Laws (UBBL), prevailing norms, regulations, and other statutory requirements.

c) All plumbing pipes, rainwater pipes, water discharge from the balconies, the 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 architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and provide a point-by-point incorporation and response in the next submission (at Formal Stage) for the consideration of the Commission.

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 Art Installation by Mohan Foundation at Central Park, Connaught Place, New Delhi. (Conceptual stage)

1. he proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (through OPAAS) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the proposal for Art Installation by Mohan Foundation at its meeting held on December 26, 2024; specific observations were given.
3. The proposal for Art work installation by Mohan Foundation received (through OPAAS) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted in response to the DUAC observations communicated vide letter no: OL-18122424022 dated 03-01-2025. Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations, photographs and replies submitted, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that a green buffer of approximately 2'-0" to 4'-0" has been provided around the work of art. Considering the likelihood of visitors gathering around the artwork for viewing, appreciation and taking selfies, it was suggested that the proposed green buffer be removed and the envisaged paved pathway, presently of 4'-0" size be increased to 7'-0" in width, to facilitate better pedestrian movement and accommodate the anticipated gathering around the artwork.

b) The Commission observed that the paved pathway leading to the work of art has been lined with planters/vegetation on both sides. It was suggested that suitable openings be provided at appropriate locations to facilitate better crowd movement and effective crowd management.

c) It was also suggested to effectively correct and coordinate the overall submission in all respect including plans/elevations/3D views etc., and other relevant drawings in the next submission (formal stage) for the review of the Commission.

4. Overall, the submission received at the conceptual stage shall incorporate the above observations of the Commission. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and provide a point-by-point incorporation and response.

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 in respect of “Addition Alteration of Shree Mahavir Ji Temple, Located G.K-1 New Delhi”. (Conceptual stage)

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

Deferred

Building plans proposal for additions and alterations in respect of IBIS Hotel at Asset-9, Delhi Aerocity, Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. (Conceptual stage)

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

Deferred

Revised layout plan, and proposed Hospital Building (Block N-1) at   Moolchand Khairati Ram Hospital situated at Lajpat Nagar-III, New Delhi. (Conceptual stage)

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

Deferred