Action Taken Reports in respect of minutes of the 1890th meeting held on 18.09.2026.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of minutes of the 1890th meeting held on 18.09.2026 were discussed.

1. The North-DMC forwarded (through OPAAS) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the proposal at its meeting held on August 20, 2026, specific observations were given.
3. The building proposal for residential building (comprising of stilt + ground + 3 floors) received (through OPAAS) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-18082623036 dated 31.08.2026. And a detailed discussion was held with the architect online on Cisco Web Ex meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the submission made, including drawings, photographs, project report, previous observations of the Commission, and discussion held with the architect 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 20, 2026, specific observations were communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-18052623036 dated 31.08.2026 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. It shall be ensured that any revised/resubmitted proposal is accompanied by a comprehensive point-wise response to all observations of the Commission, with corresponding revisions duly incorporated in the proposal and all requisite supporting documents submitted, so as to ensure completeness and facilitate effective examination by the Commission.

c) The Commission observed that the front 3D view indicates a vacant/recessed portion of the site, without clearly indicating whether it is intended for proposed road widening or any other purpose. The purpose and extent of the area shall be clearly indicated and consistently reflected in all relevant drawings, including plans, elevations and 3D views, for clarity and review by the Commission.

d) 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.

e) Adequate natural light and ventilation shall be provided to all habitable rooms, kitchens, toilets and other applicable spaces in accordance with the relevant provisions of the applicable Building Bye-Laws, norms and guidelines.

f) As the building is situated within a densely developed area, the proposed development may have implications for the structural safety of the surrounding buildings. The structural arrangement has not been indicated in the drawings. Accordingly, the structural system shall be appropriately considered and incorporated in the revised submission, with due regard to the structural safety and stability of the proposed and adjoining structures, for review and consideration by the Commission.

g) It was further observed that, being a residential building, the submission does not adequately indicate provisions for drying clothes, outdoor air-conditioning units, rainwater discharge from balconies, and associated plumbing arrangements for kitchens and toilets. Provisions for rainwater pipes and other exposed services have also not been clearly addressed in the Formal Stage submission. As these elements, if exposed, may affect the visual quality and aesthetics of the façade, the scheme shall be suitably revised to incorporate and appropriately screen all such services and utilities 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. And the same shall be clearly reflected and coordinated in the relevant plans, elevations, sections and 3D views for the review of the Commission.

4. Overall, the submission received at the formal stage has discrepancies and needs improvements and due to non-compliance with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation Letter No. OL-18082623036  dated 31.08.2026, 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 North-DMC forwarded (through email) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2.  Earlier, the Commission approved the building plans of the school campus of St. Xaviers School Education Society at Shahabad Daulatpur at its meeting held on September 29, 1995.  Subsequently, NOC for Completion of the St. Xaviers School for Xaviers Education Society was issued on July 29, 2015.
3.  The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal for additions and alterations (additional school building block with connecting bridge comprising of ground + four floors) at its meetings held on July 16, 2026 and September 3, 2026 and specific observations were given.
4. The building plans proposal for an additional building block (additional school building block comprising of ground + four floors) received (through email) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: 23(201)/2026-DUAC, OL-09072623201 dated 10.09.2026. And a detailed discussion was held with the architect online on Cisco Web Ex meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the submission made, including drawings, photographs, project report, previous observations of the Commission, replies submitted, and discussion held with the architect etc., the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that when evaluating the case for additions, it did not take into account the existing built construction at the site. This relates only to the proposal for additions only.

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 has been observed that the submission has been re-submitted without satisfactorily addressing previous observations outlined in DUAC letter no: 23(201)/2026-DUAC, OL-09072623201 dated 10.09.2026, which is not appreciated.

d) A very specific observation related to the parking provisions in the proposed building block was given vide DUAC letter no: 23(201)/2026-DUAC, OL-09072623201 dated 24.07.2026, the same is being reiterated as under:

“......f) The Commission suggested to explore the feasibility of accommodating the additional parking requirements within a basement beneath the proposed block, so as to minimise surface parking to improve ground water recharge and maximise the availability of open areas for landscaping, thereby improving the environmental quality and visual character of the campus....”

e) Related to the same issue vide DUAC observations letter OL-09072623201 dated 10.09.2026 that:

“......The Commission emphasized that the parking requirements derived from the proposed building block, shall be fully accommodated within the basement and stilt areas falling within the building footprint....”

f) The architect in its reply has indicated that:

“....The observation regarding 491 ECS has been noted.

In this regard it is humbly submitted that providing a basement for parking below the proposed additional block is not feasible for the following reasons:

1. The site falls in low-lying area of Rohini having high water table. Excavation for basement will adversely affect ground water recharge and structural safety of existing school buildings.

2. School is functional with 3000+ students. Deep excavation in close proximity to existing functional school building poses safety risk.

3. As per NBC norms, basement parking in a school building with movement of small children is not desirable from safety and ventilation point of view. Instead, the entire requisite parking is being accommodated as under within the site itself, without basement/stilt:

i) 245 ECS as per achieved FAR / built-up area of existing & proposed block is provided in surface We require 87 ECS for the newly proposed building block and 158 ECS for the existing buildings; we have designated a surface parking area to accommodate a total of 245 ECS...”

The Commission noted the replies and submissions made by the architect regarding the parking provisions during the online interaction. However, the Commission reiterated that the parking requirement generated by the proposed building block shall be fully accommodated within the basement and stilt areas falling within the building footprint. The architect, in one of the replies, referred to the relevant NBC provisions relating to basements in school buildings. The architect was requested to furnish the relevant provisions/citations in the revised submission for review and consideration by the Commission.

g) The Commission found the replies regarding the parking provisions unsatisfactory and reiterated that alternative solutions shall be explored for the feasible accommodation of the additional parking requirement generated by the proposed block including MLCP/stack parking provisions. The proposal shall aim to minimise surface parking, thereby maximising open and landscaped areas, facilitating groundwater recharge, and enhancing the environmental quality and overall visual character of the campus.

h) The Commission observed that the site shown on the Google Earth imagery does not appear to be adequately correlated with the submitted site plan. For better understanding of the existing site conditions, it is suggested that the proposed building block, associated services and parking areas be superimposed on the Google Earth imagery. This would also help assess the existing vegetation, particularly the large concentration of existing trees noticed in the area proposed for open surface parking, and facilitate a clearer understanding of the site context and its relationship with the proposed development.

5. Overall, in view of the unsatisfactory compliance with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation Letter No. 23(201)/2026-DUAC, OL-09072623201 dated 24.07.2026 and the subsequent observations dated 10.09.2026, the proposal is returned to the concerned local body with the suggestion that the architect duly address and incorporate all the observations communicated vide the aforesaid letters and submit a comprehensive point-wise compliance and response for further consideration by the Commission.

1. The North-DMC forwarded (through email) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The ‘Haveli at 384 Haveli Haider Quli’ is a listed Grade-III heritage building at Serial No. 145 in the Gazette notification no. F. No. 13(43) MB/UD/2014/1602 dated July 29, 2016 issued by the Department of Urban Development, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
3. The Commission did not approve the proposal for additions and alterations at its meeting held on January 30, 2025; specific observations were given.
4. The building plans proposal for additions and alterations received (through email) at the formal stage was scrutinised. Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations, photographs submitted, and previous observations given 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.

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) While reviewing the proposed façade, particularly the side elevation, the Commission observed that the window lintels, design elements and detailing on either side of the imaginary line through the mumty are not visually consistent. From the perspective of visual quality and aesthetics, the elements on the right side do not adequately correspond with those on the left side. Accordingly, it was suggested that the façade treatment shall be reviewed and suitably coordinated, the left-side façade treatment be made consistent with the right side, to ensure visual cohesion, symmetry and consistency in the overall architectural expression.

d) Being a residential building, appropriate provisions for drying clothes, outdoor air-conditioning units, rainwater discharge from balconies, and associated plumbing arrangements for kitchens and toilets shall be ensured so as not to impact the visual and aesthetics of the façade.

e) The proposal is for the additions/alterations to the existing building, resulting in an additional structural load on the existing framework, the local body shall ensure the structural safety and stability of the entire structure and proposed additions/alterations in accordance with the applicable codes and regulations.

f) As the building is situated within a densely developed area, the proposed development may have implications for the structural safety of the surrounding buildings. 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.

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 NDMC forwarded (through email) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approve the building plans proposal (for 500 rooms hotel at Sardar Patel Marg) at its meeting held on February 12, 1981. 
3. The building plans proposal for additions and alterations received (through email) at the formal stage was scrutinised. Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations and photographs submitted 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.

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 Commission noted that as per the submitted documents, the proposal is for:

“.......the extension of the existing Capital Kitchen as a cafeteria on first floor within the existing hotel premises...”

The Commission observed that no record of the previous NOC for completion taken for the approval (formal) given in the year 1981 is available in its records. Accordingly, the concerned local body shall ensure that NOC for Completion shall be obtained for the extended/additional portion and shall also furnish to the Commission a copy of the NOC for Completion pertaining to the approval given in 1981, for record and reference.

d) The proposal is for the additions/alterations to the existing building, resulting in an additional structural load on the existing framework, the local body shall ensure the structural safety and stability of the entire structure and proposed additions/alterations in accordance with the applicable codes and regulations.

e) All plumbing pipes, rainwater pipes, water discharge, service equipment, 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.

f) 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 email) 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 Commission did not approve the revised layout and building plans proposal in respect of (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.) at its meeting held on August 20, 2026; specific observations were given.  
4. 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 email) at the formal stage was scrutinized along with the replies submitted to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-10082662018 dated 31.08.2026. Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations, photographs and replies submitted 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 noted that while forwarding the case for consideration the local body has indicated that:

“.......The Masterplan attached with this submission, submitted for seeking DUAC approval for Package II, is provided for reference purposes only. The complete Masterplan for the Srinivaspuri Redevelopment Project shall be submitted separately for approval by the concerned local body, as per applicable provisions....”

While considering the case for Package-2, the revised Master Plan submitted along with the proposal has been reviewed only to the extent relevant to Package-2. The concerned local body shall ensure that a complete and updated Master Plan incorporating all revisions/modifications including with correct colour coding, made across all phases is submitted to the Commission for consideration. This will facilitate proper reference and comprehensive review of subsequent proposals submitted for NOC for Completion of buildings under different phases.

c) The railing proposed for the balconies of all residential units shall be suitably designed to ensure adequate child safety and security, with appropriate height, spacing and detailing, in accordance with the applicable Building Bye-Laws and safety provisions.

d) A uniform signage policy shall be adopted across all residential units throughout the campus to ensure consistency, visual harmony and aesthetic quality, while facilitating effective wayfinding and identification.

e) The concerned local body shall ensure that the width and height of the main entrance gate to the residential campus are adequate to facilitate the smooth and unobstructed movement of vehicles, including fire tenders and other emergency/service vehicles, in accordance with the applicable norms, regulations and statutory provisions.

f) 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.

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

h) The submission indicates that the public artwork shown is tentative. The Commission suggested that the final design and details of the public artwork shall be submitted to the Commission for review and approval prior to its implementation, once the artwork is finalized 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) 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 byelaws. 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.

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. The CPWD forwarded (through email) 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 Commission did not approve the revised layout and building plans proposal in respect of (Package-3: construction of 1220 nos. Type-IV Residential Units, 1 no. Maternity Block & Police Station including Development Works & Service etc.) at its meeting held on August 20, 2026; specific observations were given.
4. 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 along with the replies submitted to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-10082662020 dated 31.08.2026. Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations, photographs and replies submitted 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 noted that while forwarding the case for consideration the local body has indicated that:

“.......The Masterplan attached with this submission, submitted for seeking DUAC approval for Package II, is provided for reference purposes only. The complete Masterplan for the Srinivaspuri Redevelopment Project shall be submitted separately for approval by the concerned local body, as per applicable provisions....”

While considering the case for Package-3, the revised Master Plan submitted along with the proposal has been reviewed only to the extent relevant to Package-3. The concerned local body shall ensure that a complete and updated Master Plan incorporating all revisions/modifications including with correct colour coding, made across all phases is submitted to the Commission for consideration. This will facilitate proper reference and comprehensive review of subsequent proposals submitted for NOC for Completion of buildings under different phases.

c) The railing proposed for the balconies of all residential units shall be suitably designed to ensure adequate child safety and security, with appropriate height, spacing and detailing, in accordance with the applicable Building Bye-Laws and safety provisions.

d) A uniform signage policy shall be adopted across all residential units throughout the campus to ensure consistency, visual harmony and aesthetic quality, while facilitating effective wayfinding and identification.

e) The concerned local body shall ensure that the width and height of the main entrance gate to the residential campus are adequate to facilitate the smooth and unobstructed movement of vehicles, including fire tenders and other emergency/service vehicles, in accordance with the applicable norms, regulations and statutory provisions.

f) 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.

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

h) The submission indicates that the public artwork shown is tentative. The Commission suggested that the final design and details of the public artwork shall be submitted to the Commission for review and approval prior to its implementation, once the artwork is finalized, 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) 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 byelaws. 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.

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. The CPWD forwarded (through email) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal for Redevelopment of Kothi No. 06, Rajaji Marg at its meeting held on February 3, 2022.
3. The proposal for NOC for Completion (Redevelopment of Bungalow at No. 06, Rajaji Marg) received (through email) at the Completion stage was scrutinized.  Based on the submission made including drawings, documentation, site photographs, etc., the proposal for NOC for Completion (Redevelopment of Bungalow at No. 06, Rajaji Marg) is accepted.