Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1832nd meeting held on 11.09.2025.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of the 1832nd meeting held on 11.09.2025 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 building plans proposal 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, etc., and the discussion held, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The submission received at the formal stage is incomprehensible as it lacks a key plan, which makes it lacking to explain the site’s actual location, surrounding context, neighbouring property, site setbacks, and access roads. The architect must include a key plan in the revised submission, clearly showing all relevant details to better explain the site’s location and context.

b) The proposed 3D views are presented in isolation; they do not depict the surrounding environment. It should be ensured that the submitted 3D views are integrated into the site surroundings, clearly showing details such as the architectural character of adjacent buildings, street layout, site access, building heights, and their influence on light and ventilation.

c) The submitted photographs lack clarity about their angles and points of capture. The revised submission shall include a key plan clearly marked with the angle and direction of each photograph.

d) Discrepancies were noted in the submission. Although only one basement is proposed, the staircase has a 'down” arrow indicating descent to a second basement. Also, the area labelled as “open area” is incorrect; the basement requires RCC walls along its entire perimeter. These issues need correction, and the revised submission should include correct drawings of the basement floor.

e) The top detail of the parapet coping shall be designed with an inward slope to prevent rainwater from leaving trail marks on the façade and to avoid potential seepage issues.

f) Provision of rainwater drainage in balconies and 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, as exposed rainwater pipes could mar the urban aesthetics of the façade.

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.

1. 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 NDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the proposal for redevelopment of the GPRA colony, Sarojini Nagar, at its meeting held on January 17, 2020.
3. The revised building plans proposal for (Commercial-D-package-A & B) at the redevelopment of Sarojini Nagar received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no. OL-20121924039 dated 23.01.2020, and a discussion was held with the architect (online) on Cisco Webex meetings, during which a presentation was made by the architect and clarifications were provided to the Commission’s queries. Based on the submission made, including drawings and photographs, etc., the presentation made and the discussion held, the following observation is to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that it had approved the proposal for the commercial development at the redevelopment of Sarojini Nagar during its meeting on January 17, 2020, with specific observations. The current revised design proposal has been completely revised, including plans, elevations, and 3D views. The architect informed the Commission during the discussion that the revised building plan now proposes only commercial buildings, whereas the earlier proposals submitted in January 2020 included provisions for both commercial and retail use. 

b) The Commission observed that the proposed design comprises fragmented towers (eight in number), resulting in smaller floorplates, inefficient office spaces/layout, etc.  Compared to a consolidated footprint, smaller floorplates may be less energy-efficient and could result in higher energy consumption. This approach may therefore be reconsidered to ensure long-term energy efficiency optimisation.

c) Discrepancies have been found in the submission, including nomenclature mentioned to be G+8 floors for tower 8, whereas floor plans for the 9^th floor are also shown in the submission. The architect shall ensure that corrected and updated details are provided in the submission to ensure clarity. ​​​​​​​

d) It was observed that the location of the public toilet and the guard room, etc., are also part of the formal submission, but their detailed drawings (including screening mechanism, elevations, sections, 3D views, etc.) have not been submitted. The Commission observed that these components have a bearing on the complex's overall visual, urban, and aesthetic quality. The same is to be revised appropriately and incorporated for review by the Commission.​​​​​​​

e) Further, details of the boundary wall, gate design, etc., are missing in the submission. The design of the main gate, boundary wall, and other external features has the greatest public interface for the complex and could significantly impact the overall public perception of the complex's aesthetics. The same details need to be provided for gate/grill detail/ material applications, coordinated with plans/elevations/sections/3D views, etc.​​​​​​​

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

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.

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. The NDMC 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 building plans proposal for additions/alterations in respect of 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, etc., and the discussion held, the following observation is to be complied with:

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

b) Discrepancies were observed in the submission received at the formal stage. The proposed 3D views of the façade do not match the elevations submitted for Commission review. Similarly, Section ‘AA’ has been inaccurately depicted and does not correspond with the second-floor plan. The architect should ensure that a corrected, coordinated submission, including plans, elevations, sections, and 3D views, shall be provided for the Commission's review.

c) The entire proposal shall adhere to all the norms/regulations of the prevailing LBZ guidelines. All parking provisions shall comply with all applicable norms/guidelines/regulations, and other relevant requirements.

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. 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 NDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal at its meeting held on September 18, 2019; specific observations were given.
3. The completion plans proposal received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised, and a discussion was held with the architect (online) on Cisco Webex meetings, during which a presentation was made by the architect and clarifications were provided to the Commission’s queries. Based on the submission made, including drawings and photographs, etc., the presentation made, and the discussion held, the following observation is to be complied with:

a) The submitted site photographs are unclear and do not adequately indicate the angle and direction from which they were taken. The architect shall ensure that annotated site photographs are provided, clearly marked on a key plan to indicate the angle and direction. In addition, uncut and updated site photographs, covering all areas including the terrace, shall be submitted for review at the completion stage.

b) The Commission notes that the artwork displayed on the façade, as seen in the site photographs, was not approved at the time of the formal approval stage. The Commission does not appreciate this, as the work was carried out without prior formal approval.

c) Further, approval received from DUAC (at the formal stage) shall be superimposed on the plans/elevations/sections etc., over the actual built structure on the site, existing & proposed changes done in the design from the approval (by DUAC), to understand the extents of deviations made internally as well as external changes made with respect to the sanctioned plan, if any.

d) For a better understanding of the proposal side by side photographs ‘Before (submitted 3d views at the time of DUAC formal approval) and After (current actual built construction)’ of the constructed building blocks to be provided.

4. Overall, an incomplete submission supported by incomplete documentation has been received at the Completion stage for the consideration of the Commission. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations provided by the Commission and furnish a point-wise incorporation & reply.

1. The CPWD forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. Earlier, the Commission approved the Layout/Master Plan in respect of Indian Agriculture Research Institute (IARI) Pusa campus at its meeting held on April 19, 2016.
3. The building plans proposal for New Academic building at IARI Campus, Pusa received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised the following observations are to be complied with:

a) It is suggested to remove the signage titled ‘academic block’ from the façade of the proposed academic block to improve urban aesthetics.

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

c) 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.

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, 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.

e) 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 NDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal at its meeting held on May 30, 2015 and approved the revised building plans proposal at its meeting held on November 13, 2019 and subsequently, the Commission accepted the NOC for completion at its meeting held on December 22, 2022.
3. The building plans proposal for additions/alterations in respect of (Residential building) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised the following observations are to be complied with:

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

b) 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.

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

d) 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.

e) 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 NDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2.  The Commission did not accept the demolition and reconstruction proposal at conceptual stage at its meeting held on August 28, 2025 but accepted the proposal conceptually at its meeting held on September 4, 2025.
3. The building plans proposal for demolition and reconstruction received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no. OL-02092527048 dated 11.09.2025. Based on the compliances, and submission made, 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.

Layout and building plans proposal in respect of Group Housing at Birla Mills Complex, GT Karnal Road, Near Clock Tower, Kamla Nagar. (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The layout and building plans proposal for Group Housing received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised, and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The proposal is for group housing comprising of the following:

i. Block 1 : 6 podiums+47 floors+2 fire floors

ii. Block 2 : 6 podiums+41 floors+2 fire floors

iii. Block 3 : 6 podiums+41 floors+2 fire floors

iv. Overall one basement is also there.

v. Block 4 : EWS Block : 2 podiums+22 floors.

vi. Retail mall : G+3 Floors

vii. Club :2 level club house on the top of retail.

b) The Commission observed that, given the project's location, size, and total height of 185.95m, the proposed 3D views lack clear material details. Consequently, these views do not effectively communicate the design intent. A detailed material palette sheet should be included, showing the materials intended for the façade, drop-off zones, canopy, common areas, and other elements, with proper annotations in the elevations and 3D views.

c) The submission is incomplete because it lacks necessary documentation, such as details of the gate, boundary wall, guard room, and Swachh Bharat toilet. Complete details, including plans, elevations, sections, and 3D views from all angles, including the terrace, must be provided for review.

d) The vertical fins are a key elevational feature, as their repetition across the façade influences both urban and environmental aesthetics. Detailed drawings of the vertical fins should be provided, including skin sections, elevations, material specifications, construction and fixing details, drainage provisions, and maintenance mechanisms. Additionally, reference images showcasing the desired look and feel of the fins should also be submitted.

e) Considering the complex includes a retail mall expected to attract visitors from both nearby and distant areas, it is advisable to plan comprehensively for multiple modes of transport. Besides private vehicles, many users are likely to arrive via intermediate para-transit (IPT) modes such as auto-rickshaws, taxis, e-rickshaws, and app-based cabs. To prevent future traffic congestion, designated and well-integrated pick-up and drop-off points for these modes should be incorporated into the design at this stage. Additionally, provisions should be made for waiting areas and dedicated zones for services like Ola, Uber, and autos, ensuring smooth and conflict-free vehicular movement. These interventions should focus not only on functionality but also on enhancing aesthetics so that the movement corridors, waiting zones, and drop-off points contribute positively to the visual appeal of the complex while avoiding disturbances to the residential towers. The same shall be elucidated with necessary enlarged details, including plans and 3D views, to better understand the overall design strategy.

f) A combined mobility circulation plan showing seamless, conflict-free pedestrian and vehicular movement plans from outside is to be submitted to understand the movement pattern from outside to within the site, including the retail area better. It shall be indicated clearly with clear segregation of pedestrian and vehicular movement. All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations, etc.

g) The 3D views depict the connection bridges over the podium level with landscaped greens, but the design scheme lacks a detailed elucidation. Submission of complete drawings, including connection details, landscaping specifications, and drainage mechanisms, should be provided as plans, elevations, sections, and 3D views to convey the design intent clearly.

h) The swimming pool location has been marked, but detailed information about the pool and related facilities, including comprehensive drawings of the pool, changing rooms, shower areas, and other ancillary spaces, shall be provided. These should include plans, sections, and 3D views.

i) The floor plans of the retail mall show the inclusion of restaurants and a food court; however, the tentative capacity, location, and details of the kitchens are not provided. Complete information on the restaurants, including seating arrangements, capacities, kitchen layouts, and solid waste management provisions (for handling dry/wet waste generated) at both the building and site levels, should be submitted.

j) The roof plan of the clubhouse shows a large multipurpose area; however, details of this space are not included in the submission for understanding. The intended use of the area, along with related facilities, must be clearly elucidated with necessary details.  Comprehensive plans, elevations, sections, and 3D views, including any shading mechanisms, should be submitted for review by the Commission.

k) As the terrace of the clubhouse will be visible from the upper floors of the residential towers, the roof shall be designed and treated to ensure an aesthetically pleasing appearance for occupants on the upper floors, including the provision of appropriate screening mechanisms.

l) 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.

m) 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.

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.

3. Overall, the proposal received at the conceptual stage is incomplete and needs improvement. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations along with a point-by-point incorporation and response.

Building plans proposal in respect of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya at Sector A1 to A4 Narela Sub City. (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meetings held on October 24, 2024 and June 19, 2025; specific observations were given.
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-18102423142, 23(142)/2024-DUAC dated October 30, 2024 and June 24, 2025. Based on the submission made and the previous observations given, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The artwork depicted on the façade in the 3D views shall be removed. Instead, 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.

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.

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

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