Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1831st meeting held on 04.09.2025.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of the 1831st meeting held on 04.09.2025 were 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 Commission's available record.
3. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal for additions and alterations at its meeting held on May 22, 2025, specific observations were given.
4. The building plans proposal for additions/alterations 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 letter no. OL-20052523160. 23(160)/2025-DUAC dated 28.05.2025, the following observations are to be complied with:

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

b) The installation of clear-story solar panels on a well-designed structural frame, integrated with the building design, is suggested to ensure the effective utilisation of the space beneath, subject to feasibility as per building bye-laws. This placement also facilitates easy maintenance, reduces heat load through increased shading, and improves aesthetics. The sustainability features shall be as per Point 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

c) 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 Commission did not approve the building plans proposal at its meeting held of September 4, 2025, specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal for demolition and reconstruction (Basement+stilt+ground+3 floors) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no. OL-02092555016 dated 11-09-2025, 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 replies submitted, the discussion held, and the submission made, including drawings and photographs, etc., the following observation is to be complied with:

a) As per submitted photographs, it was noted that the existing structure on site has already been demolished. It was observed from the stilt parking plan that the GT line is shown to pass through the column. It shall be ensured that all services are designed keeping in mind the proposed structural arrangement.

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

c) 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 Commission did not approve the building plans proposal at its meeting held of September 4, 2025; specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal for (demolition & reconstruction) (Basement+stilt+ground+3 floors) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no. OL-01092555015 dated 11-09-2025, 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 replies submitted, the discussion held, and the submission made, including drawings and photographs, etc., the following observation is to be complied with:

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

b) 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 Commission did not approve the building plans proposal at its meeting held of August 28, 2025; specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal (Demolition & Reconstruction) for (Basement+Stilt+Ground+3 Floors) 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 letter no. OL-21082555131, 55(131)/2025-DUAC dated 02-09-2025, the following observations are to be complied with:    

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

b) 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 Commission did not approve the building plans proposal at its meeting held of August 28, 2025; specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal (Demolition & Reconstruction) for a Residential building (Basement+Stilt+Ground+3 Floors) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no. OL-21082555130, 55(130)/2025-DUAC dated 02-09-2025, the following observations are to be complied with:

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

b) 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 CPWD forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The building plans proposal for Common Central Secretariat 8 & 9 (one basement + G + 7 floors with a height of 36.90 m) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and a detailed presentation was made by the architect who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the presentation made by the architect, submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) Considering the scale of office projects and its context, the Commission pointed out that many small courtyards within the complex lead to the loss of large usable public spaces and long-term maintenance problems. The Commission advises against fragmenting public space into small courtyards and suggests two alternative approaches to ensure a sense of stature, size, volume and openness, while also ensuring ample light in courtyards.

b) Option 1: The number of courtyards should be reduced from four to two for each block. Further, the width of certain wings can be increased appropriately on both sides of corridors to provide a greater footprint, thereby ensuring that floor space remains same. These measures would allow enhanced light and better ventilation at lower levels, while also creating greater scope for landscaped public spaces, thereby facilitating better integration of the built form with the open fabric and enhancing the quality of the spaces at the lower level. The high-priority parking can still be accommodated on the ground floor while the rest of the parking can be accommodated in the basement level, which is well connected to all floors with the possibility of adding a second basement.

c) Option 2: The horizontal arms on the lower two floors on either side of the central corridor should be converted into voids to create expansive double-height colonnaded spaces. This design change would improve natural light penetration and ventilation at the lower levels, while also enhancing the sense of openness and spatial quality. The colonnades would accentuate the character and formality of the building, ensuring the lower floors remain visually more open, and main floors less prone to accumulation of unnecessary objects, functionally efficient, well-connected with public areas and brighter.

d) It is advised to convert the terraces on the upper floors into usable spaces to compensate for the loss of floorspace (if any) caused by the reduced footprint on the lower floors.

e) The offset on both sides of the projecting building block reduces the overall formality of the building. It is recommended to remove unnecessary offsets and maintain the building profile as a simpler rectangle, thereby preserving the façade's symmetry and formality.

f) The current proposal includes one level of basement parking. It is recommended to provide two levels of basement parking to meet existing and future parking needs. All parking arrangements must comply with all applicable norms, guidelines, and regulations.

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

h) The installation of clear-story solar panels on a well-designed structural frame, integrated with the building design, is suggested to ensure the effective utilisation of the space beneath, subject to feasibility as per building bye-laws. This placement also facilitates easy maintenance, reduces heat load through increased shading, and improves aesthetics. The sustainability features shall be as per Point 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

i) 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 needs design 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.  The building plan for the medical college and Hospital (03 Basements + ground + mezzanine + 12 floors) was scrutinised, and a detailed 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 the discussion held, the following observation is to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the proposed site is located on an island surrounded by heavy traffic areas. Its design should therefore take a holistic approach, from an urban design perspective, to ensure functional efficiency while avoiding further traffic congestion on the access roads.

b) The proposal describes two boundary walls, namely an existing wall and a proposed one, while leaving a large portion of land whose immediacy of intended use is unclear. During the online discussion, the architect clarified that the space between the two walls is designated for road widening by the relevant local authority. The same shall be appropriately indicated in the plan and the outer wall be shown as to be demolished by the hospital before NOC for completion/occupancy as spaces between the two walls can get filled with undesirable overgrowth and other unwanted objects and activities.

c) Since the boundary wall is adjacent to the external roads, it plays a significant role in urban design, which can impact the overall look of the complex. Although the submission is at the formal stage, the submission is lacking in necessary details, such as the main gate, boundary wall, grills, gate design, and guard room. These details need to be elaborated, including the design of the gates and grills, the material used, and coordinated with the plans, elevations, sections, and 3D views.

d) Although the proposal mentions an underpass linking the proposed building to the existing hospital campus, it lacks specific details such as size, dimensions, design, intended use (for pedestrians or vehicles), and entry/exit points. These details need to be provided, including its connections with the existing and proposed hospital complex, to clarify the scheme. All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations, etc.

e) As the site needs comprehensive planning from an urban design viewpoint, it's necessary to clearly show existing features like bus stands, foot overbridges, underpasses, and others on the site plan to understand how the site connects to the surrounding areas and its accessibility.

f) According to the submitted site plan, there's no proposed pedestrian crossing along the southern edge, particularly near the exit on Mother Crescent Road. In the discussion, the architect explained that the airport metro line is located beneath the road, which makes an underpass not feasible. As a result, the architect was asked to explore alternative solutions for facilitating safe pedestrian crossing on this busy stretch.

g) As per the submission, the central courtyard/atrium has a roofing system at the upper levels. Details of the roofing system, including construction details, operating mechanisms, materials, and cleaning mechanisms, shall be provided in plans, elevations, sections, and 3D views to give a clearer picture.

h) Complete detailed site sections (XX axis and the YY axis) across the external roads, indicating site edges and their relationship with the surroundings, shall be provided to explain the overall site context.

i) A comprehensive material palette, indicating the proposed materials for the façade, drop-off areas, and key exterior and interior spaces such as the lobby, swimming pool areas, sports areas, etc., shall be provided to review its visual impact on the overall design scheme.

j) Although the site plan shows the locations of the Swachh Bharat toilet, guard room, and other key features, their specifications are missing. The same needs to be submitted with detailed information on these facilities, including plans, elevations, sections, and 3D views, for the Commission's review.

k) According to the terrace plans, there are two levels. The lower level has green rectangular blocks, however its details have not been provided. To clarify, the plans should include detailed sections and 3D views of the roof, solar panel setup, and sports facility features.

l) Details of the proposed swimming pool and its related services are missing from the submitted views and section. Since the swimming pool relies on supporting facilities like shower areas, changing rooms, maintenance spaces, and other related amenities, the revised submission should include comprehensive details of these.

m) Due to its exposed nature, the broad front panel of window sills are likely to get dirty and leave streaks/marks from dust/bird dropping when there is rain, which could impact the façade’s appearance. The architect should revise the window detail to make sure the surfaces are designed to resist dust, bird droppings, and rainwater stains. The details of the revised window sill bottom should be submitted. The material used on the surfaces should also be updated accordingly in all relevant drawings and 3D views.

n) Since the proposed dome is situated in a prominent location, detailed drawings, including sections showing the drainage system, edge details, materiality, and other relevant specifications, should be provided to illustrate the maintenance plan for the areas surrounding the dome.

o) Similarly, detailed drawings of the proposed balcony, including skin sections, should be submitted to illustrate the proposed drainage mechanism. The elevations and sections must be carefully detailed, clearly showing the architectural elements, sun-shading mechanisms, and other relevant features. Comprehensive skin sections that provide a clear understanding of the facade's elevation, including the materials used, should be included.

p) 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.

q) The installation of clear-story solar panels on a well-designed structural frame, integrated with the building design, is suggested to ensure the effective utilisation of the space beneath, subject to feasibility as per building bye-laws. This placement also facilitates easy maintenance, reduces heat load through increased shading, and improves aesthetics. The sustainability features shall be as per Point 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

r) 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 lacked clarity and shall need design improvement. 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 Commission did not approve the building plans proposal at its meeting held on July 3, 2025; specific observations were given.
4. The building plan proposal for (GO’s Mess/Suits in CRPF) 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 letter no. OL-26062562027 dated 10-07-2025, the following observations are to be complied with:

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

b) 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.

c) The installation of clear-story solar panels on a well-designed structural frame, integrated with the building design, is suggested to ensure the effective utilisation of the space beneath, subject to feasibility as per building bye-laws. This placement also facilitates easy maintenance, reduces heat load through increased shading, and improves aesthetics. The sustainability features shall be as per Point 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

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 DIAL forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. Earlier, the Commission approved the layout for the Gateway and Downtown District at IGI Airport at its meeting held on March 16, 2021, and specific observations were given.
3. The Commission approved the building plans proposal (Asset LP-1B-03 Gateway district) at its meeting held on June 23, 2022, and specific observations were given.
4. The proposal for NOC for the completion of the Commercial building (Asset LP-1B-03 Gateway district) received (online) at the completion stage, was scrutinised. Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations, photographs, etc., the proposal for NOC for Completion is accepted.

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. The Commission did not accept the building's proposal for Multi-Level Car Parking at different locations (MP-1 /BP-1 and MP-5/BP-5) in the IIT campus at the conceptual stage at its meeting on September 04, 2025; specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal for Multi-Level Car Parking at different locations (MP-1 /BP-1 and MP-5/BP-5) in the IIT campus received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised, and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The submission shows the provision of solar panels on the vertical facades, i.e., elevations of the proposed MLCP. It shall be ensured that vertical solar panels are provided on a minimum of three facades and not just one as indicated.

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

c) The installation of clear-story solar panels on a well-designed structural frame, integrated with the building design, is suggested to ensure the effective utilisation of the space beneath, subject to feasibility as per building bye-laws. This placement also facilitates easy maintenance, reduces heat load through increased shading, and improves aesthetics. The sustainability features shall be as per Point 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

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.

4. The architect is advised to adhere to the above observation provided by the Commission in the next submission (formal stage) and furnish a point-wise incorporation & reply.

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.

Demolition and reconstruction building plans proposal in respect of Faculty Residence at IIT Delhi Campus, Hauz Khas. (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the revised layout of the Indian Institute of Technology, Hauz Khas, at its meeting held on September 2, 2015. The Commission did not accept the conceptual proposal of Faculty residence at its meeting held on August 21, 2025; specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal for demolition and reconstruction (Faculty Residence comprising of four (04) towers, each of S+12 floors) received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised, along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no. OL-20082527046 dated 26-08-2025, the following observation is to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that the Layout and Building Plans Proposal (Demolition & Reconstruction) for Faculty Residence had been reviewed previously by the Commission at the conceptual stage, and some specific observations were given by the Commission vide letter no. OL-20082527046 dated 26-08-2025. However, it was noted that the proposal had been submitted again at the conceptual stage without satisfactory compliance. It is reiterated that:

..”c) To evaluate possible future developments on the campus. The Commission needs a detailed area statement in a tabular form, showing the allowed and proposed ground coverage and the FAR for both current and future projects. This data will help assess how parking needs for both existing and upcoming projects can be met within the MLCP, helping to preserve surface green spaces and improve groundwater recharge..”

4. In view of the unsatisfactory compliance with its previous observations communicated vide DUAC conceptual letter no. OL-20082527046 dated 26-08-2025, the proposal could not be reviewed judiciously. The architect is advised to adhere to the above observation provided by the Commission and furnish a point-wise incorporation & reply.

1. The South-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal at its meetings held on March 14, 2024, April 18, 2024, July 04, 2024, and July 10, 2025, respectively. It also did not accept the concept of the proposal at its meetings on May 16, 2024, and July 25, 2024, where specific observations were made. However, the Commission accepted the concept at its meeting on August 8, 2024, and provided specific observations.
3. The building plan proposal (for building with a basement+S+G+3 floor) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-05072555011 dated 16.07.2025. Based on the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The vertical and horizontal bands in white on the front and side facades shall be replaced with brick bands featuring an identifiable different course. 

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

c) 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.