Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1829th meeting held on 21.08.2025.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of the 1829th meeting held on 21.08.2025 were discussed.

1. The South-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 plans proposal for (Basement+stilt+ground+3 floors) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and a discussion was held with the architect (online) on Cisco Webex meetings, during which clarifications were provided to the Commission’s queries. Based on the submission made, including drawings and photographs, and discussion held etc., the following observation is to be complied with:

a) From the submission, it was evident that the proposal is for (Demolition & Reconstruction), but no demolition plans have been submitted.

b) The structural details, columns are missing in the submission. Since the building footprint has a large span and houses a basement along with stilts, structural arrangement is important as it impacts functionality and façade design. It shall be ensured that a complete structural arrangement is provided for all floors, along with the parking arrangement, to explain the façade design. All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations, etc.

c) The windows depicted in the 3D views currently appear to be fixed, and their details are unclear in terms of whether the shutters are openable, fixed, or provided with ventilators. The architect shall provide clarity on the window design, including detailed drawings specifying the type, dimensions, material specifications, and the proposed opening mechanism.

d) The 3D view indicates exterior finishing with stone cladding; however, the submission does not include details regarding its materiality and pattern, rendering the submission incomplete at this formal stage. It shall be ensured that the revised submission provides comprehensive details of the stone cladding, including fixing methodology, pattern, and material specifications.

e) It shall be ensured that the building is constructed in accordance with the plans approved by the Commission, in order to facilitate the issuance of the NOC for completion at a later stage.

f) The statement for parking calculation is missing in the submission. It shall be ensured that all requisite documents and drawings, including the parking calculation statement, are provided in the revised submission to meet the requirements of the formal stage. All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations, etc.

g) Provision of rainwater drainage in the terrace level is not shown in the submitted drawings. It shall be ensured to provide details of drainage, wherein the provision of screening mechanisms for concealment of the rainwater pipes shall also be provided so as not to mar the urban aesthetics of the façade.

h) 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.

i) 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 needs improvement. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and provide a point-by-point incorporation and response.

1. he North-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission earlier approved the building plans proposal for property no. 5708-5717, Kothi Barwali, Nai Sarak Chandni Chowk at its meeting on September 29, 2018.
3. The revised proposal for additions and alterations for Commercial buildings (proposed alterations and additions of basement + ground + 3 floors) received (online) of property no. 5703 to 5712 and 5722-C, situated at Koti Barwali, Nai Sarak, Chandani Chowk at the formal stage was scrutinised, and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The proposal is for addition/alteration of basement, G+3 floors for commercial building. 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) All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations, etc.

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, 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.

1. The South-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The building plans proposal for Residential building (Basement+stilt+ground+3 floors) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and a discussion was held with the architect (online) on Cisco Webex meetings, during which clarifications were provided to the Commission’s queries. Based on the submission made, including drawings and photographs, and discussion held etc., the following observation is to be complied with:

a) The structural details are missing in the submission. Since the building footprint has a large span and houses a basement along with stilts, structural arrangement is important for stability and user safety. It shall be ensured that a complete structural arrangement is provided for all floors, along with the parking arrangement, to explain the functioning of the basement.

b) The 3D view indicates exterior finishing with stone cladding; however, the submission does not include details regarding its materiality and pattern, rendering the submission incomplete at this formal stage. It shall be ensured that the revised submission provides comprehensive details of the stone cladding, including fixing methodology, pattern, and material specifications.

c) An inconsistency is noted i.e. the exterior finish is described as brick cladding, whereas the 3D views depict stone cladding. This discrepancy shall be rectified in the revised submission, and all relevant drawings shall be updated to correctly indicate stone cladding.

d) The proposed mechanism for air-conditioning is not clearly indicated, particularly with respect to the placement of outdoor units, their screening, and the routing of associated piping. These aspects shall be clearly detailed and clarified in the revised submission.

e) The windows depicted in the 3D views currently appear to be fixed, and their details are unclear in terms of whether the shutters are openable, fixed, or provided with ventilators. The architect shall provide clarity on the window design, including detailed drawings specifying the type, dimensions, material specifications, and the proposed opening mechanism.

f) The statement for parking calculation is missing in the submission. It shall be ensured that all requisite documents and drawings, including the parking calculation statement, are provided in the revised submission to meet the requirements of the formal stage. All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations, etc.

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, 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.

3. Overall, the proposal received at the formal stage lacks clarity 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 South-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2.  The Commission approved the building plans proposal at the formal stage at its meeting held on January 17, 2018 and subsequently accepted the NOC for part completion plans proposal for (Tower-I and Tower-II) at its meeting held on September 19, 2024, specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal for (Tower-III comprising of basement + G + 8 floors, with the basement already constructed with Tower-I &II) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised. The following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the Tower-III proposal is part of a larger campus covering 39845 sqm, featuring multiple planned buildings, excluding Tower-I & II, which have already received NOC. The overall master plan for the site remains ambiguous. A detailed, approved master plan illustrating both existing and proposed structures, accompanied by an area chart, should be clearly marked. This plan should include buildings which have already obtained NOC to enable the Commission to conduct a comprehensive review.

b) The submission is unclear because it does not specify whether it pertains to the formal or the completion stage; this has not been mentioned anywhere in the submission. The proposal should clearly state the stage of submission, i.e., formal or completion, and highlight the approval area on relevant drawings and 3D views for clarity. Additionally, the project report should include the reason for submission, which is missing in the current proposal.

c) The submitted site photographs seem to be identical to those from the 2018 submission and are thus outdated. Updated and clear site photographs of the overall site, clearly showing the constructed areas and proposed works (buildings to be built later), should be provided to improve clarity. Additionally, include aerial photographs of the site to illustrate the surrounding environment and context for the Commission's review.

d) The submission is incomplete as it lacks all side 3D views of the proposal. For review, all 3D perspectives of Tower-III from every side, including bird's-eye views and façade material details, must be included. Since the building is part of an existing campus, its materials should match those of the current structures to ensure visual coherence within the urban and environmental context.

e) Elevations and sections submitted are not sufficiently detailed and illustrated. They must clearly show architectural elements, sun shading systems, plumbing details, and other relevant features. These should also be correlated with appropriate 3D views.

f) Additionally, to submit comprehensive skin sections that provide a detailed understanding of the facade's elevation, including the materials employed. A comprehensive overview of the architectural design and facade can be obtained by providing these detailed elements.

g) The pedestrian and vehicular circulation on the site is not shown. A comprehensive mobility plan demonstrating seamless, conflict-free movement of pedestrians and vehicles from outside to the proposed building should be submitted to clarify the movement patterns within the site. It must clearly indicate and separate pedestrian and vehicular pathways. All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations, etc.

h) Air conditioning of the proposed building is not understood; the same shall be elucidated with necessary details for the review of the Commission.

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. This placement also facilitates easy maintenance, reduces heat load through increased shading, and most importantly, improves aesthetics. 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.

j) 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) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

k) 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.

l) 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.

4. Overall, the proposal received at the formal stage is incomplete, lacks clarity 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 (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. Earlier, the building plans proposal was approved by the Commission at its meeting held on August 10, 2006, and the Commission gave NOC for the Completion stage at its meeting dated January 23, 2015; specific observations were given.
3. The Commission accepted the proposal for regularisation (part) and proposed toilet at its meeting held on June 30, 2022.
4. Now the revised proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The proposal is for the following areas:

i. Extension in the fellow flat

ii. KD block – Kitchen extension

iii. Loung pantry

iv. lift near the library block

b) The Commission noted that the proposed parts mentioned above have already been built on site, as shown by the submitted site photographs.

1. The NDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plans for addition/alteration at its meeting held on May 29, 2025, and specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal for addition/alterations received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no.: OL-27052524011 dated June 6, 2025. The Commission intended to discuss the proposal with the architect (online), but he was not available. Based on the revised submission and the architect's unavailability for discussion, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) As per the report submitted by the architect, two structures exist at the site: the main residential block and a servant block with a garage at ground level. It is proposed that the main building be demolished, while the garage is to be retained.

b) The proposal is for the addition/alteration of the following areas:

i. Main Residential Block: - G+02 floors

ii. Pavilion: - Ground floor

iii. Service Block: - G+02 floors

c) The proposal is in the formal stage, but the submitted 3D views are very sketchy; they lack scale, proportions, and material details. Moreover, the quality of these views is inadequate and needs enhancement with more visually appealing images.

d) Discrepancies have been observed in the submission; the plans (including the landscaping plan) do not match the 3D views, causing inconsistency. All drawings should be coordinated with the 3D visuals to improve clarity. It shall be ensured that coordinated, linked, detailed, self-explanatory, and annotated 3D views from multiple angles, including a bird's-eye view, are provided to clearly convey the design concept. All material details must be clearly labelled on the 3D views to make the design easier to understand.

e) Given the size of the plot, the proposal cannot be reviewed in isolation. Annotated 3D views of the proposed design should be superimposed on the existing superstructure and surroundings, including road networks and nearby structures, to help better understand how the proposal integrates with the actual environment.

f) The details of the glass termination are unclear in the arches, especially those on the lower level. Complete information about the arch, including dimensions, fixing methods, and materiality, should be provided along with skin sections.

g) It is advised that the larger arch be redesigned to ensure proper craftsmanship and a balanced design. Additionally, the middle membrane of the upper part of the arch could be removed to enhance the façade's aesthetics.

h) The canopy appears flat and lacks drainage provisions, which may negatively impact aesthetics due to trail marks.

i) The Commission observed that some areas, like the powder room on the ground floor, lack plumbing shafts. It shall be ensured that plumbing shafts are installed for toilets on all floors, balconies, and terraces to keep the pipes hidden and maintain the façade's aesthetic appeal.

j) The submitted sections are missing details of the pergola and some balconies, which lacks clarity. The revised submission should include complete sections with all the details shown on the plans.

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

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

m) 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.

n) 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.

4. Overall, the proposal received at the formal stage has discrepancies, lacks clarity 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 DDA forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plans at its meeting on May 26, 1995, but did not accept the NOC for completion at its meeting on November 19, 2004. The proposal for revised layout and building plans was referred back to the DDA at its meeting on June 14, 2017, with specific observations. Subsequently, the Commission approved it at its meeting on August 9, 2017.
3. The Commission did not approve the completion plans proposal at its meetings held on April 3, 2025 and July 24, 2025, respectively, specific observations were given.
4. The proposal for NOC for completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no.: OL-29032548056 dated July 30, 2025.  Based on the documentation, drawings, and photographs received, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) It has been noted that the submission was resubmitted without satisfactorily addressing the concerns raised in DUAC letter no. OL-29032548056 dated 11.04.2025, and OL-29032548056 dated July 30, 2025, which is not appreciated. The replies submitted by the architect are unsatisfactory, evasive and do not show sensitivity towards the proposal.

b) The proposal is for completion; however, the submitted documentation is still lacking. The society comprises seven residential blocks. Updated, clear photographs of each block from all sides are required to review the proposal. These uncut photographs should capture all relevant areas from different angles, including the seven residential blocks (from all sides), terraces, entrance gates, boundary walls with railings, and other key structures. This will help ensure a comprehensive and complete submission for the Commission's review. The available photographs show an unfinished basement that is neither completed nor accessible, thereby indicating its non-functionality.

c)  It appears from the submitted site photographs that the work is ongoing on the site, i.e., incomplete construction work. To ensure review of the Commission at the completion stage, it shall be ensured that the work is complete at the site, including doors, windows, roads, landscaping, external paint, balcony railing, etc., while ensuring the safety of users.

d) The submitted site photographs show a lot of temporary coverings of balconies, exposed air-conditioners on the façade, which become an eyesore and thus need to be concealed. It shall be ensured to appropriately screen the outdoor units of air-conditioners with an appropriate mechanism.

e) The Commission emphasised that, to obtain the NOC for completion, the building must properly screen all exposed pipes, designate screened spaces for outdoor air conditioning units, and remove all temporary balcony coverings.

5. Overall, the proposal received at the NOC for the completion stage lacks appropriate documentation, including providing adequate photographs of the areas that require completion. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and furnish a pointwise incorporation and reply.

1. The DDA forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plans proposal at its March 19, 2001, meeting and subsequently accepted the NOC for Completion at its April 12, 2005, meeting. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal for additions and alterations at its meeting on April 03, 2025 and July 17, 2025, respectively; specific observations were made.
3. The revised building plans proposal for additions and alterations (addition of bedrooms, toilet, and balconies) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation letter no: OL-26032522112, F. No. 22(112)/2025-DUAC dated July 23, 2025, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The submission is highly incomplete, as the architect has only responded to the Commission’s previous observations but has not provided the correlated and coordinated detailed drawings, such as the site plan, parking plan, landscape, elevations, sections, and 3D views. To ensure the submission is complete at the formal stage, all drawings, 3D views, and the project report need to be submitted.

b) The submitted replies are not adequate, as they are not properly annotated with the relevant terminology. Furthermore, cropped photographs have been submitted, which do not provide a clear view of individual buildings and open areas. Updated, uncut site photographs shall be provided, supplemented with a key plan indicating the location and orientation of each photograph to ensure clarity regarding the depicted areas.

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

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. This placement also facilitates easy maintenance, reduces heat load through increased shading, and most importantly, improves aesthetics. 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.

e) 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.

f) 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.

4. Overall, the proposal received at the formal stage is incomplete, lacks clarity 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 (online) the proposal for an art installation for the Commission's consideration.
2. The Commission did not approve the proposal at its meeting on December 26, 2024; specific observations were given.
3. The proposal for Artwork Installation, received (online) at the formal stage, was scrutinised along with the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-18122424022 dated January 3, 2025 and the Commission intended to discuss the proposal with the architect (online), but he was not available. Based on the revised submission made, unavailability of the architect for discussion, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The documentation for the submitted proposal is incomplete, as the project proforma, site photographs, site plan, and locations of artworks within the site have not been provided. These documents are required at the formal stage to ensure a complete submission.

b) Since the artwork is located in a public area, its location details in context with the larger site need to be provided to explain the surrounding context and its access through pathways and landscaped areas.

4. Overall, an incomplete submission has been received at the formal stage, lacks clarity and needs improvement. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and provide a point-by-point incorporation and response.

Demolition and reconstruction plan in respect of Residential building at plot no. 1, Southend Lane (Rajesh Pilot Lane), New Delhi – 110001. (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal at its meeting on July 15, 2015 and accepted the NOC for Completion plans proposal at its meeting held on May 1, 2025.
3. The Commission did not accept the building plans proposal for demolition & reconstruction at the conceptual stage at its meeting on August 28, 2025; specific observations were given.
4. The building plans proposal for demolition and reconstruction received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The proposal is for building with G+1 floors.

b) The submission indicates that the building is on a larger plot. However, the plot boundary does not seem to be clearly marked in the drawings. Plot dimensions and an area chart showing existing, permissible, and covered areas, including ground coverage, FAR, and other relevant details, should be provided during the formal stage for a review by the Commission.

c) Materiality details should be annotated in the 3D views during the formal stage to ensure the submission is self-explanatory.

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

e) 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.

f) 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.

g) The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations in the next submission (formal stage) and provide a point-by-point incorporation and response.

Found conceptually suitable (not limited to these observations).

‘The conceptual suitability is only with reference to the mandate of the Commission. However, it would be reassessed at the formal stage based on the 20-point criteria as available on the DUAC website.  It would not be a substitute for formal approval of the proposal referred through the concerned local body in terms of section 12 of the DUAC Act, 1973.

Building plans proposal in respect of Residential Group Housing at plot no. 2A, Khasra no. 247, 248 and 251 at Khata No. 192/538-534, Old Ishwar Nagar, Mathura Road. (Conceptual stage)

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

Building plans proposal in respect of Multi-Level Car Parking Building (Building No. MP-1 /BP-1 and MP-5/BP-5) at IIT Delhi. (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the revised layout plan proposal at its meeting held on September 02, 2015.
3. The building plans proposal for Multi-Level Car Parking at different locations (MP-1 /BP-1 and MP-5/BP-5) in IIT campus. Both multi-level car parking consists (basement 1 & 2 + G + 7 floors) received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised and the following observation is to be complied with:

a) During its meeting on October 17, 2024, the Commission issued specific guidelines through memorandum no. 1(2)/82-DUAC dated October 29, 2024, for the conceptual proposal under review. It was noted that the Council of Architecture (COA) of the architect was missing from the checklist. As the proposal is at the conceptual stage, it is imperative to provide accurate and complete documentation, adhering to the requirements specified in the checklist for conceptual proposals (available on the OPAAS login page under "Steps to Submit Proposals for Conceptual Proposals"). This will ensure that the Commission appropriately considers the proposal.

4. The Commission did not consider the proposal due to a lack of information at the Conceptual stage (as per the checklist available on the DUAC website). Thus, the architect is advised to provide complete and correct information to ensure consideration of the proposal.