Action Taken Report in respect of minutes of the 1888th meeting and held on 10.09.2026.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of minutes of the 1888th meeting held on 10.09.2026 was discussed.

1. The North-DMC forwarded (through email) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal at its meeting held on May 14, 2026; specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal for addition and alterations (alterations to the ground floor, proposed first to third floor) received (through OPAAS) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the proposal approved in the meeting held on 14.05.2026. Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations, photographs submitted, and previous approval (formal) given, 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.

b) The current proposal for additions/alterations was reviewed with reference to the proposal for which Formal Stage approval was granted by the Commission at its meeting held on 14.05.2026. Upon comparison, the Commission observed discrepancies between the two submissions, including with regard to the plot areas, extent of the plots and the façade approved by the Commission. It was further observed that certain portions identified in the plans as “Other Owner Shop” have also been incorporated/shown in the present Formal Stage proposal. The access to the first floor has also been shown through the terrace of the shop belonging to another owner, which is not clearly explained or understood from the submission.

c) The Commission observed that the present Formal Stage proposal is not sufficiently clear or comprehensible to enable effective examination of the proposed additions/alterations. Accordingly, for better understanding and assessment of the proposal, the revised submission shall be prepared in a comparative format, clearly indicating the earlier proposal/approval vis-à-vis the present proposal, including, inter alia, the plot area and extent, approved and proposed façade, built-up areas, portions belonging to other owners, the reasons for their inclusion/indication in the present submission, access arrangements, previously approved façade treatment and the proposed changes thereto. Any other relevant information considered necessary by the architect to clearly explain the overall design scheme and the proposed additions/alterations shall also be incorporated. The revised submission shall be clear, comprehensive and duly coordinated to facilitate effective review and consideration by the Commission.

d) The Commission observed that the jaali/fencing indicated in the plans and 3D views appears to fall within the adjoining/other owner’s property. The same shall be reviewed in the revised submission. Since the proposal is at the Formal Stage, it shall be ensured that all plans, elevations, sections and 3D views are fully coordinated and consistent with one another, accurately reflecting the proposed development and property boundaries, for judicious review by the Commission.

e) The Commission observed that the front façade comprises varying levels and depths. To facilitate a clear understanding of the proposed façade treatment, the levels shall be clearly indicated on the elevations, along with detailed skin/façade sections illustrating the proposed façade treatment, materials, finishes and other relevant architectural elements. It shall further be ensured that all elevational features and architectural elements shown in the elevations are duly reflected in the corresponding plans, with the plans, elevations, sections and 3D views appropriately coordinated and consistent with one another.

4. Overall, in view of the discrepancies and lack of clarity observed in the Formal Stage submission, the proposal is hereby returned to the local body with the suggestion that the architect duly address and incorporate all the above observations and submit a comprehensive point-wise compliance and response for further consideration by the Commission.

1. The NDMC 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 additions/alterations (comprising of ground + 2 floors) received (through OPAAS) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco Web Ex meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the submission made, including drawings, photographs, and the discussion held 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.

b) The entire proposal shall adhere to all the applicable statutory provisions, and norms/regulations of the prevailing Lutyens Bungalow Zone (LBZ) guidelines.

c) The Commission noted that the proposal has been submitted for additions/alterations to the existing built structure, which has a distinct architectural vocabulary and character. It was observed that the proposed modifications to the existing structure are not clearly identifiable or comprehensible in the submitted visual representations, including the 3D views. Further, the proposed 3D views do not indicate the materiality and proposed façade treatment, rendering the Formal Stage submission incomplete. Accordingly, the revised submission shall clearly identify and illustrate the proposed additions/alterations and incorporate appropriate annotations indicating the façade materials and finishes, with the plans, elevations and 3D views duly coordinated for clear understanding and effective examination by the Commission.

d) The Commission observed that the overall quality of the 3D views requires substantial improvement. The revised 3D views shall accurately represent the proposed development and shall clearly depict the utilities and services located on the terrace, particularly in the bird’s-eye views, to facilitate a comprehensive understanding and effective examination of the proposal by the Commission.

e) It was observed that the property is accessed from the front through the main road, with an adjoining property in the front side, left side, and a service road at the rear. However, the extent of the property on the right side has not been clearly indicated in the layout plan. As this may have implications for the façade treatment, visual character and overall aesthetics of the development, the property boundaries and adjoining context shall be clearly marked and appropriately reflected in the revised submission for clarity.

f) The proposal pertains to additions/alterations to the existing building. Accordingly, the existing and proposed drawings shall be superimposed in different colours to clearly highlight and identify the proposed modifications to the existing structure. The drawings shall be appropriately annotated to indicate the proposed materials, finishes and other relevant architectural elements, duly corresponding with the proposal drawings and 3D views. The revised submission shall be coordinated and presented in a clear and comprehensive manner to facilitate proper understanding of the proposed scheme by the Commission.

g) The Commission observed that new balconies have been proposed without indicating provisions for rainwater discharge pipes (RWPs), designated spaces for drying clothes, outdoor air-conditioning units, and suitable screening mechanisms for these services and utilities. It was noted that, if not appropriately addressed at this stage, these elements may adversely affect the visual character and overall architectural quality of the building. Accordingly, the scheme shall be revised to incorporate appropriate provisions and screening for all such services and utilities, and the same shall be duly reflected and coordinated in the relevant plans, elevations, sections and 3D views.

h) It was observed that the windows are provided with appropriate sun-shading mechanisms to provide protection from harsh weather conditions, including direct sunlight and rain. As the proposed façade modifications may involve alterations to the existing window and shading arrangements at certain locations, the same shall be reviewed and suitably integrated with the proposed façade treatment. The necessary corrections shall be incorporated in the drawings, and the revised and duly coordinated drawings shall be submitted for review and consideration by the Commission.

i) The Commission observed that the submission does not clearly indicate whether the existing entrance gate and boundary wall are proposed to be retained or modified. Since these elements form an important part of the property’s interface and may have a bearing on its overall visual quality and aesthetics, the proposal shall clearly indicate the treatment proposed for the existing gate and boundary wall, including whether they are to be retained, modified or replaced. The same shall be appropriately reflected in the plans, elevations, sections and 3D views for clarity and effective consideration by the Commission.

j) Further, it was observed that glass railings have been proposed for the balconies and parapets, which may result in the utilities and services located behind them being visible and thereby affect the overall visual quality and aesthetics of the property. Accordingly, the proposed railing treatment shall be reviewed and suitably revised, with due consideration to the screening of utilities and the overall architectural expression. The revised treatment shall be clearly reflected in the relevant drawings and 3D views and submitted for consideration by the Commission.

k) The proposal pertains to additions/alterations to the existing building; a lot of live/dead load is being added to the existing building. However, the structural arrangement for the proposed additions/alterations has not been indicated in the submission. The Commission observed that the proposed structural additions at a later stage could have implications for the architectural treatment, façade composition and overall visual aesthetics of the building. Accordingly, the structural scheme shall be appropriately designed and integrated with the existing structural system, in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions and structural safety norms. The relevant structural details shall be duly reflected in the revised submission including plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc. for consideration by the Commission.

l) Further, the provision of ‘khurra’ on the terrace for disposal of surface runoff shall be reviewed and suitably detailed to ensure proper drainage.

m) Overall, the submission shall be collated and presented in a comparative format, clearly indicating the existing development with the proposed additions/alterations superimposed on the existing structure. The presentation shall accurately depict the proposed changes in their actual context, including their visual and architectural impact on the existing development, to facilitate a clear, realistic and comprehensive understanding and judicious review of the proposal by the Commission.

4. Overall, in view of the discrepancies and lack of clarity observed in the Formal Stage submission, the proposal is hereby returned to the local body with the suggestion that the architect duly address and incorporate all the above observations and submit a comprehensive point-wise compliance and response for further consideration by the Commission.

Building plans proposal for addition and alteration in respect of IBIS Hotel at Asset no. 9, Delhi Aerocity, Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi.   (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (through email) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on May 12, 2010 and subsequently accepted the NOC for Part Completion at its meeting held on November 21, 2013. Thereafter, the Commission accepted the NOC for Completion of the overall scheme at its meeting held on October 05, 2016.
3. The Commission did not accept the concept of the proposal received at conceptual stage at its meeting held on August 25, 2026; specific observations were given.
4. The building plans proposal for additions and alterations (adding architectural elements at driveways with lighting design to transform the arrival experience from Day to Night, Converting Bar and Restaurant to all day dining coffee-shop) in respect of IBIS Hotel at Asset-9 received (through email) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised.  Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations, 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.

b) The Commission observed that while considering the proposal at its meeting held on August 25, 2026, specific observations were communicated vide conceptual letter no: OL-14082627040 dated 01.09.2026 and requested the architect to provide a point-by-point incorporation and response, but the same was found missing in the submission, which is not appreciated.

c) The architect in its project report has indicated that the proposal is for:

“...adding architectural elements at driveways with lighting design to transform the arrival experience from Day to Night, Converting Bar and Restaurant to all day dining coffee-shop...”

d) It was observed that the proposed modifications have been superimposed in yellow colour on the proposal drawings. However, as per the Unified Building Bye-Laws for Delhi, 2016 (UBBL-2016), yellow colour is conventionally used to denote demolition, which may lead to confusion in understanding the proposed additions/alterations.

e) Accordingly, the architect shall ensure that the drawings are prepared using the appropriate colour nomenclature as prescribed under the applicable UBBL provisions, clearly distinguishing the existing, proposed and demolition elements, as applicable, to facilitate clarity and effective examination of the proposal by the Commission.

f) The concerned local body shall ensure that the proposal shall adhere to all the applicable statutory provisions, norms, regulations, guidelines and relevant Building Bye-Laws.

5. Overall, the architect is advised to incorporate all the above observations of the Commission including communicated vide conceptual letter no: OL-14082627040 dated 01.09.2026 in the next submission i.e., 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.

1. The 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 plans proposal for residential building (comprising of basement + stilt + ground + third floors) 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 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.

b) 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.

c) As the building is situated within a densely developed area, where the proposed development may have implications for the surrounding buildings. The structural arrangement has not been shown in the drawings, the concerned local body shall ensure the structural safety of the building and its surroundings.

d) 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.

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

f) All plumbing pipes, rainwater pipes, discharge from the balconies, 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.

g) 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.