Action Taken Reports in respect of Minutes of 1868th meeting held on 14.05.2026.

1. Action Taken Reports in respect of Minutes of the 1868th meeting held on 14.05.2026 were discussed.

1. The North-DMC forwarded (through OPAAS) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The building plans proposal for residential building (for comprising of ground + 3 floors), received (through OPAAS) at the formal stage was scrutinized. Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations and photographs submitted, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) It was observed by the Commission that the details of the owner including phone number was incorrect.

b) Adequate provision for natural light and ventilation in all areas shall be ensured by the concerned local authority, in accordance with the prevailing building bye-laws and regulations.

c) The provisions for road widening shall be addressed by the concerned local body in accordance with prevailing UBBL norms, regulations, and applicable statutory provisions.

d) All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations, etc. (in terms of points no. 18 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval)), as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

e) 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.

1. The North-DMC forwarded (through email) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal for additions and alterations at its meetings held on April 16, 2026 and May 6, 2026; specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal for residential building for additions and alterations (comprising of basement + stilt + ground + 3 floors), received (through email) at the formal stage was scrutinized along with the replies submitted to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-16042623193 dated 13.05.2026. Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations, photographs, and replies submitted, the following observations are to be complied with:

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

b) The provisions for road widening shall be addressed by the concerned local body in accordance with prevailing UBBL norms, regulations, and applicable statutory provisions.

c) All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations, etc. (in terms of points no. 18 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval)), as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

d) 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.

1. The South-DMC forwarded (through email) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal at its meeting held on November 1, 2007 and revised building plans proposal were approved at its meeting held on October 13, 2010. The Commission accepted the NOC for completion plans proposal at its meeting held on February 13, 2015.
3. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal for additions and alterations at its meeting held on April 2, 2026; specific observations were given
4. The building plans proposal (for additions and alterations) received (through email) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no:  OL-25032655148 dated 08.04.2026. Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations, photographs, and replies submitted, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that when evaluating the case for additions or alterations, it did not consider the existing built construction at the site. This relates only to the proposal for additions and alterations. The proposed additions/alterations are as follows:

i) Addition of lift.

ii) Demolition of the slanted roof on the second floor and its replacement with a plain RCC slab for the construction of shops and offices.

iii) Proposal for a connecting corridor/skywalk to interconnect the building.

iv) Proposal for additions and alterations to the existing commercial complex, including partial modifications to the façade.

v) Addition of a partial third floor and camouflage of all services.

b) It was observed from the submission that the solar panels are proposed to be mounted on structural frames installed over the terrace floor. It is suggested that the horizontal members be elevated adequately to facilitate maintenance activities, including regular cleaning of the terrace floor. 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 parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations, etc. (in terms of points no. 18 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval)), as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

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 CPWD forwarded (through OPAAS) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the revised building plans proposal for IMD Complex at its meeting held on August 24, 2011 and accepted the NOC for completion plans proposal for IMD Complex (Ministry of Earth Sciences) at its meeting held on June 23, 2022.
3. The proposal for construction of Radar Model at Mausam Bhawan received (through OPAAS) was scrutinized 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, documentations, and photographs, etc, the discussion held, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) It was observed that the submission indicates the presence of an existing mural artwork on the boundary wall at the location proposed for installation of the radar model. However, the proposal drawings do not depict the existing mural artwork and instead show a plain red-coloured wall, thereby not reflecting the actual site context. It shall be ensured that all relevant existing site features and surroundings are accurately represented in the submission to facilitate a comprehensive appraisal of the proposal. Further, the radar model shall be presented within the actual site context, along with its immediate surroundings, to enable a better understanding of the proposed design scheme and its visual impact.

b) Alternate options for the colour scheme of the cladding shall be provided. Further, details of the materiality and finishes shall be clearly indicated in each colour scheme option in the proposed 3D views to enable proper assessment of the proposal.

c) As apprised by the architect during the Cisco Webex discussion, the steps are proposed to be provided for maintenance purposes. To ensure that the model is protected from damage by passers-by, it is suggested that a railing of suitable height and appropriate material be provided to restrict direct access to the model. Further, detailed drawings and specifications of the proposed railing, including materiality, dimensions, and design details, shall be included in the revised submission.

d) It was observed from the submission that the size of the proposed radar model extends onto the existing footpath (outside the boundary wall). Since the area constitutes a public pedestrian zone, it shall be ensured that the radar model is positioned entirely within the property line and does not project beyond the site boundaries.

e) Provision of appropriate screening/protective covering for the LED screen, as may be required for protection against harsh weather conditions, shall be incorporated and clearly indicated in the revised submission.

f) The landscaping scheme shall be suitably enhanced to improve the visual quality, aesthetics, and overall character of the proposal.

4. Overall, the proposal received at the formal stage lacks clarity, has discrepancies, 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 (through email) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2.  Earlier, the Commission approved the layout and the building plan proposal for plots no. A, C, and D at its meeting held on March 18, 2020, specific observations were given. The Commission accepted the NOC for completion (Part- for plot-A) at its meeting held on February 2, 2023, specific observations were given.
3. The Commission accepted the NOC for completion (Part- for plot C and D - (D1 and D2) at its meeting held on November 14, 2024, specific observations were given. And did not approve the building plans proposal for Warehouse and Commercial development of Plot- D) at its meeting held on May 6, 2026; specific observations were given.
4. The building plans proposal for (proposed warehouse and commercial development plot-D) received (through email) the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-22(124)/2026-DUAC, OL-04052622124 dated 13th May 2026. Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations, photographs, and replies submitted, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) It has been observed that the submission has been resubmitted without satisfactorily addressing previous observations outlined in DUAC observation letter no: OL-22(124)/2026-DUAC, OL-04052622124 dated 13th May 2026 especially related to points no: 4 (b), the same is reiterated as under:

“… b) The Commission observed that the entire parking provision has been accommodated at the surface level, which is not appreciated. Surface parking is generally discouraged due to concerns related to flooding and groundwater recharge. For larger sites, the majority of parking should preferably be accommodated in basements to facilitate groundwater recharge and retain the surface area for open landscaped spaces. Additionally, parking in the front setback is not accepted by the Commission as it adversely affects the urban and environmental aesthetics of the building and thus shall be relocated from the front setback…”

It was observed from the current submission that the entire parking requirement continues to be accommodated at the surface level, including through the provision of stack parking. The Commission does not appreciate surface-level stack parking, as it adversely impacts the urban character and environmental aesthetics of the development.

b) It shall be ensured that the proposed design explores accommodating the majority of the parking requirement, including parking for small loading vehicles, within the basement so as to maximize surface area for landscaped open spaces. Stack parking, if required, may be provided within the basement. The revised submission shall clearly indicate the distribution of parking spaces proposed in the basement and at the surface level.

c) The proposed Swachh Bharat toilet shall be aesthetically improved and enhanced, considering its location along a prominent road corridor, thereby constituting an important urban interface within the city. Further, it shall be ensured that the design of the Jaali proposed for screening is consistent with the Jaali design used in other parts of the building to maintain coherence and uniformity in the overall architectural expression.

5. Overall, the proposal received at the formal stage lacks clarity, has discrepancies, and needs improvement especially in view of the non-compliance and the point-wise replies to its previous observations communicated vide DUAC observation letter no OL-22(124)/2026-DUAC, OL-04052622124 dated 13th May 2026. 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 “Super Speciality Block in Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia (RML) Hospital Complex, New Delhi. (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The proposal forwarded by the architect was scrutinized. In terms of the Gazette notification no. 4/2/2009/UD/l/6565 dated 1st October 2009 issued by the Department of Urban Development, Govt. of NCT of Delhi ‘Dr. RML Hospital and Campus at Wellington Crescent’ listed in the notified list at serial no. 7 are in the Grade-III.
3. The Commission approved the building plans of the proposal at its meeting held on September 23, 2015. Subsequently, the revised building plans proposal for “Super Speciality block along with the proposal for multilevel car parking” was approved by the Commission at its meeting held on July 16, 2021, specific observations were given.
4. The Commission did not accept the proposal at the Completion Stage at its meeting held on 19.03.2026, and specific observations were given. Subsequently, the revised proposal submitted at the Conceptual Stage was also not accepted by the Commission during its meeting held on 29.04.2026, and detailed observations given.
5. The building proposal (Super Speciality Block) received (through online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised along with the documentation submitted, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission reviewed its earlier decision taken in the meeting held on 19.03.2026 and decided not to consider the proposal at the Conceptual Stage. Accordingly, the proposal was returned without consideration by the Commission.

Building plans proposal in respect of “Redevelopment of DTC Headquarter Office Building at IP Bus Depot, I.P. Estate, New 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 in its meeting held on 23.07.2014 and subsequently approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on 29.07.2015.
3. The Commission did not approve the revised proposal for redevelopment received at formal stage at its meeting held on May 6, 2026; specific observations were given.
4.  The proposal for Redevelopment of DTC Headquarter Office Building (2 basements + ground + 11 floors) received (through email) was scrutinised along with compliances made to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-04052655149, 55(149)/2026-DUAC dated 13.05.2026.  Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations, and photographs submitted, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) It was observed from the submitted 3D views that the colour treatment of the west façade differs from that of the other façades. Similarly, variations in the Jaali pattern have been proposed across different parts of the redevelopment. It shall be ensured that a uniform and consistent colour scheme, along with a coherent design language for the Jaali pattern, is maintained across all façades to achieve visual harmony, continuity, and coherence in the overall architectural expression.

b) All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations, etc. (in terms of points no. 18 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval)), as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

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.

d) 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) and Memorandum dated October 07, 2025 available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in. Any deviations in the artwork from the approved design must be submitted to the Commission for prior approval before the commencement of construction, to ensure compliance and facilitate final approval upon project completion.

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, 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.

5. Overall, the Architect is advised to ensure compliance of the above observations as well as those communicated vide DUAC Observation Letter No. OL-04052655149, 55(149)/2026-DUAC dated 13.05.2026 in the next submission i.e., (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.