Action Taken Reports in respect of minutes of the 1887th meeting held on 03.09.2026.

1. Action Taken Reports in respect of minutes of the 1887th meeting held on 03.09.2026 were discussed.

1. he North-DMC forwarded (through OPAAS) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. No previous record of approval (Formal/Completion) taken has been found in the available record of the Commission.
3. The building proposal for residential building (comprising of basement + ground + 3 floors) 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, upon comparing the actual site photographs provided in the project report with the proposal submitted for Formal Stage approval, observed that the proposal appears to involve demolition and reconstruction of the existing structure.

b) The Commission observed that the proposal is being reviewed and evaluated with due consideration to its visual quality, urban aesthetics, architectural expression, and compatibility with the surrounding context.

c) The jalli pattern proposed for the shafts and the railing design shall adopt a consistent visual language, with coordinated patterns, proportions and material treatment, to achieve greater harmony, coherence and uniformity in the overall front elevation.

d) No window projections shall be permitted beyond the approved building line, as such projections have not been approved by the Commission. The concerned local body shall ensure strict compliance with the approved drawings and take necessary measures to prevent any unauthorized projections during or after construction. It shall further be ensured that all projections remain entirely within the plot boundaries and comply with the applicable Building Bye-Laws and other statutory provisions.

e) As the building is situated within a densely developed area, the proposed development may have implications for the structural safety of the surrounding buildings. It was observed that the structural details, including the location of columns, have not been indicated in the basement drawings. The structural scheme shall therefore be appropriately coordinated and reflected in the drawings. The concerned local body shall ensure adequate structural safety and stability of the proposed building and the adjoining/surrounding structures, in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions and structural safety requirements.

f) It is advised that the lift be extended up to the terrace level till convenient access to the terrace for activities. Further, it is suggested a window or ventilator shall be provided in the rear bedroom to ensure adequate natural light and ventilation. To further improve light and ventilation, it is also advised to provide a balcony by suitably carving out the lobby area at the ground floor, subject to compliance with the applicable provisions. The concerned local body shall ensure that adequate provisions for natural light and ventilation are incorporated in accordance with the applicable Building Bye-Laws.

g) The provisions for road widening shall be addressed by the concerned local body in accordance with prevailing UBBL norms, regulations, and applicable statutory provisions.

h) All plumbing pipes, rainwater pipes, service equipment, water tanks, air-conditioning units, solar panels, drying of clothes 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.

i) 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 South-DMC forwarded (through OPAAS) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal at its meeting held on September 3, 2026; specific observations were given.
3. The building proposal for residential building (comprising of basement + stilt + ground to third floors) received (through OPAAS) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-01092655023 dated 10.09.2026. Based on the submission made, including drawing, photographs and replies submitted, etc., the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission, upon comparing the actual site photographs provided in the project report with the proposal submitted for Formal Stage approval, observed that the proposal appears to involve demolition and reconstruction of the existing structure.

b) The Commission observed that the proposal is being reviewed and evaluated with due consideration to its visual quality, urban aesthetics, architectural expression, and compatibility with the surrounding context.

c) It was observed that the architect had submitted two options for the proposed façade for consideration of the Commission. Upon examination, Option 1 was found to be more appropriate in terms of the proposed architectural expression and façade treatment.

d) As the building is situated within a densely developed area, where the proposed development may have implications for the surrounding buildings, the concerned local body shall ensure the structural safety of the building and its surroundings.

e) It shall be ensured that all projections are contained entirely within the plot boundaries and comply with the applicable Building Bye-Laws and statutory provisions.

f) The provisions for road widening shall be addressed by the concerned local body in accordance with prevailing UBBL norms, regulations, and applicable statutory provisions.

g) The rear boundary wall is not indicated in the drawings and views. Local body to shall ensure that the rear boundary is provided in accordance with the applicable provisions of UBBL 2016. Any change in the elevation shall be brought to the notice of Commission.

h) 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.

i) All plumbing pipes, rainwater pipes, service equipment, water tanks, air-conditioning units, solar panels, drying of clothes 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.

j) 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. he NDMC forwarded (through email) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on October 24, 2025, specific observations were given.
3. The Commission did not accept the NOC for Completion plans proposal received at completion stage at its meeting held on July 30, 2026; specific observations were given.
4. The Completion plans proposal received (through email) was scrutinised along with the replies submitted to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-24072650007 dated 05.08.2026, and email dated 16.09.2026. Based on the submission, including the Completion drawings, supporting drawings/documentation, site photographs, replies submitted, and email dated 16.09.2026, the proposal for NOC for Completion is accepted.

1. The DDA forwarded (through OPAAS) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The building proposal for proposed professional College (comprising of basement + stilts+ ground + 8 floors) 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 is being reviewed and evaluated with due consideration to its visual quality, urban aesthetics, architectural expression, and compatibility with the surrounding context. The building proposal has been examined with respect to its elevation, façade treatment, materiality, built form, and screening of utilities.

b) The submission has been submitted at the formal stage but the photographs of the existing site context have not been provided clearly to understand the existing situation in the right context.  An appropriate nos. of annotated site photographs shall be provided to get in-depth clarity of the site and surroundings. They need to be resubmitted with proper uncut views from all sides for the better understanding of the Commission.

c) The Commission observed that the proposed college campus is planned on a plot area of 12,000 sqm. Upon examination, it was observed that the overall design requires further consideration with regard to site planning, accessibility, usability, efficiency and student comfort. The drop-off area and main entrances are not adequately located within the site, and the main entrance is not provided with an appropriate porch or other suitable shading mechanism. The proposed building is also planned in a manner that leaves limited provision for open and green spaces for the students. Certain building wings have acute-angled geometries which require appropriate architectural resolution. Further, the overall design scheme lacks sufficient clarity and efficiency, particularly with regard to the long internal corridors, which do not appear to have adequate provisions for natural light and ventilation.

d) Upon detailed examination, the Commission further observed that the ground floor level is approximately 3.80 m above the existing ground level and is accessed through a continuous flight of steps without an intermediate landing. The staircase also lacks adequate handrail provisions and an overhead porch, thereby affecting the safety and convenience of access to the building.

e) Accordingly, the proposal shall be reviewed comprehensively with due consideration to the usability and efficiency of the campus, student comfort, accessibility, circulation, provision of adequate open and green spaces, natural light and ventilation, and appropriate architectural treatment of the building form. It shall specifically be ensured that an intermediate landing, suitable handrails and an overhead porch are provided at the main entrance to facilitate safe and comfortable access to the ground floor.

f) Further, the Commission observed that the internal corridor is excessively long and lacks adequate provision for natural light and ventilation, particularly at both ends, where no fenestration/openings are provided.

g) The Commission observed that the proposal submitted at the Formal Stage is incomplete, as the plans, elevations and sections do not correspond with the proposed 3D views, resulting in a lack of coherence in the submission. Further, certain architectural elements depicted in the 3D views, including glazing, vertical louvres, etc., are not reflected in the corresponding drawings, thereby making the design intent unclear. Accordingly, the drawings shall be revised and duly coordinated to ensure consistency among the plans, elevations, sections and 3D views, with all proposed architectural elements appropriately reflected, so as to provide a complete, clear and coherent submission for consideration of the Commission.

h) Skin section drawings shall be provided to adequately illustrate the construction and detailing of the proposed façade and to reflect the elements shown in the 3D views. In addition, sections through the double-height spaces, including the auditorium, badminton hall, and other such areas, shall be provided to clearly demonstrate their spatial configuration and functioning.

i) The Commission observed that the detailed ground floor plans have been submitted in isolation and do not adequately demonstrate their relationship with the surrounding site and overall circulation network. Essential details, including access roads, entry and exit points, drop-off areas and their access arrangements, peripheral roads, and their integration with the overall site planning, have not been clearly indicated. The ground floor plans shall therefore be revisited and appropriately detailed (including enlarged details) to clearly illustrate these aspects and facilitate the judicious review and consideration of the proposal by the Commission.

j) The proposal has been submitted at the Formal Stage; however, the structural arrangement of the proposed building has not been indicated in the submission. The Commission observed that the structural system and its arrangement may have a direct bearing on both the external façade, internal planning and functionality of the building, including the basement and stilt-level parking provisions. Accordingly, the structural arrangement shall be appropriately integrated with and reflected in the architectural drawings at this stage, with due consideration to its impact on the building form, internal planning, circulation and parking layout, to facilitate effective review and consideration by the Commission.

k) The Commission observed that parking has been proposed at surface level (P1), in the stilt and in the basement. It is strongly recommended that the surface parking (P1) be removed and relocated to the basement by providing double-stack parking, or alternatively accommodated within a podium parking arrangement, as permissible under the applicable Building Bye-Laws. This would facilitate the release of surface areas for landscaped open spaces and improve the usability of the campus for students. 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.

l) The Commission observed that, considering the nature of the proposal as a college campus involving substantial pedestrian and vehicular movement, the pedestrian and vehicular circulation within the site is not sufficiently self-explanatory. Accordingly, a comprehensive mobility and circulation plan shall be submitted, clearly illustrating the seamless and conflict-free movement of pedestrians and vehicles from the site entry points within the campus. The plan shall clearly indicate the segregation of pedestrian and vehicular movement, along with the principal movement routes, access points and circulation patterns, to facilitate effective review and understanding of the proposed site circulation.

m) Since the building appears to be fully air-conditioned, the location of outdoor air-conditioning units and their screening mechanism are not clearly indicated in the submission and appear to be missing from the terrace plan. Appropriate screening shall be provided at the terrace level to ensure that the units do not adversely affect the aesthetic quality of the building complex.

n) It was observed that some of the proposed toilets do not have the adequate arrangements of the plumbing shafts, exposed external plumbing pipes could impact the visual and the aesthetics of the façade. It shall be ensured that all toilets should have the provisions of the plumbing shafts to appropriately screen the plumbing arrangements.

o) Further, the submission does not clearly indicate the location and integration of essential services and utilities, including the overhead water tank, rainwater pipes and other service infrastructure. 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.

p) It was observed that the terrace plan indicates a parapet wall of 1.5 m height, whereas the 3D views depict a lower parapet height, resulting in a discrepancy between the drawings and the visual representations. It was further observed that the lower parapet height depicted in the 3D views may not provide adequate screening of the terrace services. Accordingly, the 3D views shall be revised to accurately reflect the proposed 1.5 m parapet height as indicated in the drawings, thereby maintaining a uniform skyline and coherent architectural expression of the façade. All drawings and 3D views shall be duly coordinated to ensure consistency across the submission and maintain the overall visual and aesthetic quality of the building.

q) The Commission observed that the submission is incomplete, as details of the Swachh Bharat toilet, entrance gate, boundary wall and guard house have not been provided. As these elements constitute the primary interface of the complex with the surrounding urban environment, the revised submission shall include complete and coordinated plans, elevations, sections and 3D views for all such components. Particular attention shall be given to the design and detailing of the entrance gate and boundary wall, including gate/grill details, materials and their architectural treatment, as these elements have a significant bearing on the overall visual quality and aesthetics of the complex. It shall further be ensured that utilities are appropriately screened and consistently represented across all relevant drawings and 3D views, with the plans, elevations, sections and 3D representations duly coordinated.

r) The Commission observed that the site layout indicates a sharp turning radius at the basement entry/exit, which may impede smooth and safe vehicular movement. Accordingly, the road geometry and associated landscape design shall be suitably revised, wherever required, to provide an adequate turning radius and ensure smooth and conflict-free ingress and egress to and from the basement.

s) All plumbing pipes, rainwater pipes, service equipment, DG Set, DG exhaust pipes, water tanks, air-conditioning units, solar panels, drying of clothes 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.

t) 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) and Memorandum dated October 07, 2025 available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

u) The submitted site plan do not match the submitted landscape plan. Further, the submitted landscape proposal lacks sufficient clarity. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted at an appropriate scale, clearly indicating the hardscape and softscape areas, existing and proposed trees, species, plantation details, site levels, and other landscape elements (in terms of points nos. 6 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

v) 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.

3. 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 NDMC forwarded (through OPAAS) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the master plan for the redevelopment of GPRA Colony, Sarojini Nagar at its meeting held on January 17, 2020. 
3. The Commission did not approve the revised building plans proposal for residential apartment at its meeting held on August 20, 2026; specific observations were given.
4. The revised building plans proposal for residential apartments (comprising of 16 towers, tower A1 to A7, B1 to B6, and C1 to C3) including community hall (2B+G) received (through OPAAS) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-13082624014 dated 31.08.2026.  Based on the submission made, including drawing, photographs and replies submitted, etc., the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the proposal has been submitted for the following:

(i) Residential Apartments (comprising of 16 towers, tower A1 to A7, B1 to B6, and C1 to C3): 2B+G+11 floors

(ii) Community hall (2B+G)

b) The Commission observed that the architect has stated in the reply:

“…The revised Master Plan is hereby submitted to the Commission for formal consideration and approval prior to submission of any subsequent proposals for Part Completion NOCs...”

In this regard, it is clarified that the present proposal has been examined by the Commission only with respect to the Residential Apartment Block and not with respect to the revised Master Plan. The updated/revised Master Plan submitted along with the proposal has been taken on record for documentation purposes only and shall not be construed as having been considered or approved by the Commission.

c) It shall be ensured that any NOC for Completion Certificate for the project is obtained only after securing all requisite approvals from the concerned authorities/agencies based on the revised Master Plan submitted to the Commission.

d) The Commission observed that the proposal is being reviewed and evaluated with due consideration to its visual quality, urban aesthetics, architectural expression, and compatibility with the surrounding context. The building proposal has been examined with respect to its elevation, façade treatment, materiality, built form, and screening of utilities. The internal planning and functional aspects, including safety and security provisions, shall be verified by the concerned local authority to ensure compliance with the applicable provisions of the Unified Building Bye-Laws (UBBL).

e) 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.

f) All plumbing pipes, rainwater pipes, drying of cloths, 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.

g) 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) 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.

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, 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.

i) 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.

Building plans proposal in respect of HSD Filling Station at Vir Banda Bairagi Marg, Road no. 40, Sarai Basti Delhi – 110035. (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. No previous record of approval (Formal/Completion) taken has been found in the available record of the Commission.
3. The building proposal for HSD Filling station (comprising of new G+1 sales building, comprising a sales room and an electrical panel room) received (through OPAAS) at the conceptual 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 is being reviewed and evaluated with due consideration to its visual quality, urban aesthetics, architectural expression, and compatibility with the surrounding context. The building proposal has been examined with respect to its elevation, façade treatment, materiality, built form, and screening of utilities.

b) It was observed by the Commission that the plans, elevations, and sections are not coordinated with the 3D views, as several elements shown in the drawings are not reflected in the 3D views. It shall be ensured that all drawings are coordinated and consistent with the 3D views for a coherent submission.

c) The location of the air inflator, being close to the exit, is likely to impede smooth vehicular egress. It shall be relocated to ensure unobstructed movement of vehicles. Further, the locations of facilities such as EV charging stations, the PUC area, and other service spaces including CNG dispensers etc., have not been indicated in the drawings, rendering the submission incomplete; the drawings shall be revised accordingly.

d) Complete details of all services, including the air-conditioning system, rainwater pipes, and other service infrastructure, shall be provided for the main building, including the sales room, electrical room, storeroom, and other ancillary spaces. 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.

e) The Work of public art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex shall ensure to be installed in terms of point nos. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) and Memorandum dated October 07, 2025 available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

4. Overall, the proposal received at the conceptual 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.

Not accepted, returned with observations.

1. The South-DMC forwarded (through email) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and the building plan proposal for the 100 bedded hospital building at its meeting held on December 26, 2001 and the revised proposal was approved in the meeting held on September 28, 2011. The NOC for completion was accepted in the meeting held on January 11, 2016.
3. The Commission accepted the layout and building plan proposal for residential accommodation for faculty and staff proposed in Phase-III (conceptual stage) at its meeting held on December 30, 2021, specific observations were given.
4. Subsequently, the Commission approved the layout and building plan proposal for residential accommodation for faculty and staff in Phase-III (formal stage) at its meeting held on January 20, 2022, specific observations were given.
5. The Completion plans proposal (Residential Accommodation for Faculty and Staff) received (through email) was scrutinised. Based on the submission, including the Completion drawings, supporting drawings/documentation and site photographs submitted, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the proposal has been submitted for NOC for Completion of the Residential Accommodation for Faculty and Staff; however, the areas covered under the present NOC for Completion have not been adequately denoted and demarcated in the relevant drawings, resulting in lack of clarity regarding the extent of the areas under consideration. Accordingly, it shall be ensured that the overall layout plan clearly identifies and demarcates the areas for which NOC for Completion has already been obtained and the areas presently submitted for NOC for Completion, for clarity and review.

b) It was also noted that the development works at the site are still in progress, and water stagnation is visibly observed on the terraces. Accordingly, the updated status of the works in progress, duly annotated and supported by relevant photographs, shall be submitted for review and consideration of the Commission. It shall be ensured that all development works are completed prior to submission of the proposal for Occupancy/NOC for Completion.

c) For a better understanding of the proposal, all sides photographs, i.e. ‘Before (submitted 3d views at the time of DUAC formal approval) and After (current actual built construction)’ of the constructed building blocks, are to be provided.

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

e) All services on terrace including solar panels shall be appropriately screened so as not to remain visible from outside and effect the visual and aesthetics of the façade and complex. 

6. Overall, an incomplete submission along with discrepancies has been received at the Completion stage for the consideration of the Commission. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above and furnish a point-by-point incorporation and response.

Layout and building plans proposal in respect of Intelligence Bureau Complex at 35, Sardar Patel Marg. (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (through OPAAS) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The proposal was deferred for detailed presentation by the architect in the next meeting.