Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1820th meeting held on 19.06.2025.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of the 1820th meeting held on 19.06.2025 was discussed.

1. The North-DMC forwarded (online) 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 plan proposal for addition/alteration (alteration on ground floor and proposed first to third floor) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that while considering the case for additions/alterations, it did not consider and cover the existing built construction at the site. This concerns the proposal for additions and alterations only.

b) As per the submitted photographs, it is evident that the building's structure has already been erected on site. A sufficient number of photographs of the plot shall be provided to facilitate understanding.

c) Additionally, the site is situated in a densely populated neighbourhood with varying heights and materials. The proposed 3D views, however, are shown in isolation; i.e., they fail to capture the site surroundings and thus are unable to provide clarity about the design approach. It shall be ensured that the submitted 3d views are superimposed in the site surroundings, clearly showing details, including architectural character of the adjacent buildings, street layout and access to the site, height of the buildings and their impact on the light and ventilation of the proposed site to make the proposal self-explanatory and comprehensive.

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

e) All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations, etc.

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

g) All plumbing pipes, rainwater pipes, 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 proposal received at the formal stage lacks clarity and is incomprehensible; therefore, the Commission could not appreciate the proposal judiciously. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and provide a point-by-point incorporation and response.

1. The East-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting on January 23, 2015, and accepted the NOC for completion at its meeting on July 7, 2022, with specific observations given.
3. The Commission did not accept the concept of the building plans proposal for additions and alterations at its meeting held on February 27, 2025, and March 13, 2025, but accepted the concept of the proposal at its meeting on May 8, 2025, and provided specific observations.
4. The building plan proposal for addition alterations (addition of a new block denoted as Block ‘D’ in the layout with G+10+service floor), some addition of areas from ground to sixth floor on the existing building, and addition on full floors from seventh to tenth floor above) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, along with the replies submitted in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-06052527027 dated May 14, 2025, 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 replies submitted, submission made, and the discussion held, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that while considering the case for additions/alterations, it did not consider and cover the existing built construction at the site. This concerns the proposal for additions and alterations only.

b) Since it involves additions and alterations, additional floors are being constructed above an existing built superstructure. The added structure shall be designed to withstand weather effects and impacts from calamities, such as earthquakes, as it is an additional structure added to the existing superstructure. It shall be ensured that it is securely braced to the building and does not compromise the safety of the superstructure during additions or alterations.  Furthermore, grooves or other suitable techniques shall be used to ensure that surface cracks that are highly likely to form over time at joints between new and old sections of construction are not visible from a distance.

c) The Commission observed that the submitted site photographs show a green colour covering the exhaust pipe, which is not visually pleasing. The Commission suggested exploring alternatives to conceal the exhaust pipe, ensuring that urban and environmental aesthetics are maintained. During the discussion with the architect, he agreed to screen it with Jaali’s in the same design as ones already used on the existing façade to ensure harmony in design.

d) All parking provisions shall comply with all applicable norms, guidelines, regulations, and other relevant requirements.

e) 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. Extending beyond the footprint will enable larger panel coverage, thereby enhancing generation capacity. This placement also facilitates easy maintenance, reduces heat load through increased shading, and most importantly, improves aesthetics.

f) Work of public art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at an appropriate level, shall ensure to be installed in terms of point nos. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

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

h) All plumbing pipes, DG set, DG exhaust pipes, rainwater pipes, 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.

1. The South-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the revised layout plan for the South Asian University Campus at its meeting held on June 18, 2014. The Commission subsequently approved the building plans for the proposal at its meeting held on August 31, 2016.
3. The proposal for NOC for Completion (Institute of SAARC Studies Inter Disciplinary Research Centre (Academic) building no. 10) received (online) at the Completion stage, was scrutinised along with the observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body, i.e., South DMC, in parts ‘B’ of the Proforma. Based on the submission made, including letter no: SAU/9A-157/2024/Vol-II/519 dated 28.03.2025 along with its annexures from the Registrar, SAU, documentation, drawings, and photographs, the proposal for NOC for completion (Institute of SAARC Studies Inter Disciplinary Research Centre (Academic) building no. 10 is accepted.

1. The North-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The building plan proposal (Ground+3 floors) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The submitted photographs indicate that the building is situated in a densely built-up area with varied building heights and materials. However, the proposed 3D views depict the building in isolation, surrounded by greenery, and fail to reflect the actual site context. As a result, they do not adequately convey the overall design intent. The 3D views be revised and superimposed onto the actual site surroundings, clearly depicting adjacent architectural character, street layout, site access, building heights, and their potential impact on light and ventilation.

b) All parking provisions shall comply with all applicable norms, guidelines, regulations, and other relevant requirements.

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

d) All plumbing pipes, DG set, DG exhaust pipes, rainwater pipes, 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.

3. Overall, the proposal received at the formal stage lacks clarity and is incomprehensible; therefore, the Commission could not appreciate the proposal judiciously. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and provide a point-by-point incorporation and response.

1. The NDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal for additions and alterations at its meeting held on November 19, 2018, and provided specific observations.
3. The revised building plan proposal for demolition and reconstruction (Ground+2 floors) was received (online) at the formal stage, 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 and the discussion held, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that it had earlier approved a proposal for additions and alterations in its meeting held on November 19, 2018, based on specific 3D views envisioned at that time. A revised proposal has now been submitted, seeking approval for demolition and complete reconstruction with an entirely new design scheme, including updated 3D views for a structure comprising Ground + 2 floors.

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 observed two different pergola designs—one with far side tied rafters and another without tying member. To ensure uniformity and structural stability, it is recommended that the pergola design used at the rear (with far side tied rafters) be adopted consistently throughout the design proposal.

d) All parking provisions shall comply with all applicable norms, guidelines, regulations, and other relevant requirements.

e) 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. Extending beyond the footprint will enable larger panel coverage, thereby enhancing generation capacity. This placement also facilitates easy maintenance, reduces heat load through increased shading, and most importantly, improves aesthetics.

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

g) All plumbing pipes, DG set, DG exhaust pipes, rainwater pipes, 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.

1. The NDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the proposal for the GPRA Colony at Sarojini Nagar in its meeting held on January 17, 2020. However, the Commission did not accept the proposal for NOC for Completion for Part 2 of Package I, Type II, at its meeting on June 5, 2025.
3. The proposal for NOC for Completion (residential towers type-II, i.e. Tower F-20, B-21, F-22, F-23, D-24 to 26, E-27,28, each of 2B+G+12 Floors, Community building (G+2 floors), Guard room 1 to 4) received (online) at the Completion stage, was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission Communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-28052550008 dated 10.06.2025. A detailed discussion was held with the architect on CISCO Webex meetings, who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the discussion held and submission made, including documentation, drawings, and photographs, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that detailed and specific observations were communicated vide DUAC observation letter no. OL-28052550008 dated 10.06.2025 with the request to submit a point-wise incorporation. No point-wise reply to its detailed observations has been given, which is not appreciated.

b) The Commission noted the Undertaking submitted by NBCC dated 13 June 2025, indicating the planned increase of solar capacity from 83 kW to 1,200 kW, with the tendering process currently in progress.

c) During the online discussion, the architect mentioned that photographs of the solar panel installation would be shared once the work is completed. The architect was accordingly asked to submit a detailed design plan reflecting the revised solar capacity. This should include the terrace-level layout of the solar panels, structural details of the mounting frames, and the proposed screening mechanisms, all illustrated through aerial 3D views for the Commission’s review.

d) The submitted photographs of the residential tower show a deviation in the colour scheme from that previously approved by the Commission in the DUAC meeting dated 17 January 2020. Also, it is reiterated from the previous observation of the Commission meeting dated 05.06.2025 that:

“a) The Commission had given due consideration to the design scheme—covering materials, finishes, architectural elements, and façade—at the formal approval stage. However, upon comparing the approved design with the actual built superstructure, as seen in the photographs submitted for the NOC for Completion, deviations from the formally approved scheme have been observed, thereby affecting the aesthetic and visual quality of the façade….”

The above observation has not been addressed in the current submission, making it incomplete. It must be ensured that any deviations from the previously approved design scheme are submitted to DUAC for prior approval before execution.

e) The submission lacks terrace photographs that show the installed utilities. Additionally, the submitted photographs of the community building display exposed pipes at the upper levels, with concealment boxes that end abruptly and lack proper detailing, which negatively affects the visual appeal of the façade. This treatment is neither appreciated nor acceptable. The architect is advised to ensure a clean and cohesive façade. When applying for the NOC for completion, the architect must ensure that no external pipes, wiring, temporary concealment boxes, earthing plates, or unapproved signage are visible.

f) 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. Extending beyond the footprint will enable larger panel coverage, thereby enhancing generation capacity. This placement also facilitates easy maintenance, reduces heat load through increased shading, and most importantly, improves aesthetics.

5. Overall, the proposal received at NOC for the Completion stage lacks clarity, is incomplete and is incomprehensible; therefore, the Commission could not appreciate the proposal judiciously. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and provide a point-by-point incorporation and response.

1. The CPWD forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The construction of the proposed CRPF campus is scheduled in two phases. The Commission approved the proposal for the CRPF Campus at Bawana (Phase 1, comprising Type II, III, IV, and V (Combination), and 180 men’s barracks) at its meeting held on January 28, 2020, and specific observations were made.
3. The building plan proposal for (GO’s Mess/Suits in CRPF) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised. Based on the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the proposal is part of a larger campus with existing developments in the surrounding area. Therefore, it cannot be reviewed in isolation and must be assessed together with the adjacent facilities.  3D views—including aerial and night-time views should be overlaid onto the actual site context, clearly illustrating nearby structures, road networks, and other relevant features to enhance understanding of the proposal within its environment.

b) The current submission does not include the existing site context. Clear and adequate site photographs from all angles must be provided to illustrate the current conditions, including neighbouring buildings. 

c) The drop-off area at the entrance should be reviewed to ensure that vehicles have enough turning space and do not block the pedestrian ramp for persons with disabilities. The revised submission should show the entire driveway, clearly dividing space for both vehicles and pedestrians.

d) 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. Extending beyond the footprint will enable larger panel coverage, thereby enhancing generation capacity. This placement also facilitates easy maintenance, reduces heat load through increased shading, and most importantly, improves aesthetics.

e) All parking provisions shall comply with all applicable norms, guidelines, regulations, and other relevant requirements.

f) Work of public art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at an appropriate level, shall ensure to be installed in terms of point nos. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

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

h) All plumbing pipes, DG set, DG exhaust pipes, rainwater pipes, 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 proposal received at the formal stage lacks clarity, is incomplete, and is incomprehensible; therefore, the Commission could not appreciate the proposal judiciously. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and provide a point-by-point incorporation and response.

Building plans proposal in respect of residential building at plot no.3, Maharaja Lal Lane, Civil Lines (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not accept the concept of the building plans proposal at its meetings on February 6, 2025, February 20, 2025, and April 3, 2025; specific observations were provided.
3. The building plans proposal received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised, along with the replies submitted in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-24032527020 dated April 11, 2025. Based on the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) 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. Extending beyond the footprint will enable larger panel coverage, thereby enhancing generation capacity. This placement also facilitates easy maintenance, reduces heat load through increased shading, and most importantly, improves aesthetics.

b) All parking provisions shall comply with all applicable norms, guidelines, regulations, and other relevant requirements.

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

d) All plumbing pipes, DG set, DG exhaust pipes, rainwater pipes, 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

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