Action Taken Reports in respect of minutes of the 1869th and 1870th (extraordinary) meeting held on 19.05.2026 and 21.05.2026.

1. Action Taken Reports in respect of minutes of the 1869th and 1870th (extraordinary) meeting held on 19.05.2026 and 21.05.2026 were discussed.

1. The North-DMC forwarded (through OPAAS) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The building plans proposal (for residential building comprising of ground + two floors) received (through OPAAS) at the formal stage 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, documentations, and photographs, etc, the discussion held, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) It was observed that the submitted documentation contains multiple discrepancies. The plot number indicated in the proforma is Plot No. 4, whereas the drawings refer to Plot No. 1, resulting in a mismatch in the submission documents. Further, the contact details of the architect/owner, including the phone number and email address provided in the submission, were found to be incorrect. Since the proposal is submitted at the formal stage, it shall be ensured that all documents are duly updated and submitted with accurate and consistent information to facilitate proper documentation.

b) As per the site plan, the subject plot is a corner property. It is observed that the proposed vehicular entry/exit is located at the corner of the plot, which, owing to the site geometry, may result in difficulties in vehicular movement and potential safety concerns. Considering that the plot abuts a busy road, it is recommended that the entry/exit arrangement be redesigned to ensure safe and efficient vehicular movement and to minimize traffic conflicts at the access point. Further, to facilitate efficient circulation and parking within the site, the provision of a partial stilt level may be explored as part of the design.

c) It was observed that the north-side elevation facing the abutting road lacks adequate architectural articulation. Considering the location and scale of the plot, the façade design shall be enhanced to improve its visual character. Service elements such as plumbing pipes, outdoor AC units, and clothes-drying areas in balconies shall be appropriately screened to avoid adverse visual impact on the building and surrounding urban environment. All such features shall be clearly reflected in the revised drawings to ensure consistency in the submission.

d) It was observed that some of the submitted drawings and visual representations are of inadequate quality and appear blurred, making it difficult to properly assess the proposal and verify the dimensions and design details. It shall be ensured that clear, legible, and high-resolution drawings and 3D views are submitted to facilitate effective scrutiny and appraisal of the proposal.

e) It was observed that the internal layout lacks transitional buffer spaces such as a porch, foyer, or courtyard, with the main entrance opening directly into the drawing room. Considering the size of the plot, the layout may be reviewed to incorporate appropriate buffer spaces to enhance privacy, spatial quality, and overall user experience.

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

g) All plumbing pipes, rainwater pipes, service equipment, water tanks, air-conditioning units, solar panels, etc., should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of points nos. 10, 11, and 12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

3. 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 North-DMC forwarded (through email) 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 additional and alteration (for hospital building comprising of basement + ground + first floor) received (through email) at the formal stage was scrutinised.  Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations, and photographs 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) It was noted from the submitted photographs that the building appears to be either non-operational or only partially utilized. Further, based on the site photographs, drawings, supporting documentation, proposed design, and 3D views, the proposal appears to be more in the nature of demolition and reconstruction rather than additions and alterations.

c) Since the proposal pertains to additions and alterations to an existing building, the submitted site photographs do not adequately depict the existing hospital premises, including the main entrance, boundary wall, basement, terrace, and other internal areas. Consequently, it is difficult to properly appreciate and assess the proposal in its existing context. The Architect shall submit an adequate number of clear, and uncut photographs from all sides of the site, including internal spaces, the terrace, and the basement, to substantiate the existing built-up areas and facilitate a comprehensive appraisal of the proposal.

d) It was observed that the submitted plans, elevations, and sections do not adequately reflect the architectural elements and façade features depicted in the 3D views, resulting in inconsistencies within the submission. The elevations and sections shall be comprehensively detailed, clearly illustrating the architectural elements, sun-shading devices, façade treatments, and other relevant features. Detailed façade/skin sections, including material specifications, shall also be submitted to facilitate a better understanding of the proposed architectural expression.

e) Since the proposal has been submitted at the Formal Stage, it shall be ensured that the revised submission comprises coordinated and consistent drawings accurately representing all architectural features and façade treatments shown in the 3D views.

f) It was observed from the area statement that only about 32% of the permissible FAR (allowable 375%) and 12% of the permissible ground coverage (allowable 40%) have been utilized, leaving substantial development potential available for future expansion. Since the current proposal addresses parking requirements primarily through surface-level parking based on the existing development, it is not clear how the additional parking demand arising from future utilization of the remaining FAR and ground coverage would be accommodated. The revised submission shall clarify the long-term parking strategy in this regard.

g) To provide greater clarity, a comprehensive master plan shall be submitted indicating the ultimate development potential of the site, along with a clear bifurcation of existing and future parking provisions. The submission shall demonstrate how parking requirements arising from full utilization of the permissible FAR will be accommodated, while ensuring that the overall urban design quality, environmental character, and visual appeal of the development are maintained. 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.

h) It shall be ensured that the building is equipped with a lift providing access to the upper floors, in compliance with the principles of universal accessibility.

i) The proposal is for the additions/alterations, a lot of live/dead load is being added to the existing building. Structure shall be designed to withstand weather effects and impacts from calamities such as earthquakes, etc., as it is an additional structure added to the existing superstructure. The local body shall ensure the structural safety of the additions/alterations done on the existing superstructure. 

j) 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.

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 North-DMC forwarded (through OPAAS) 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 Commercial cum residential building (comprising of ground + three floors) received (through OPAAS) at the formal stage was scrutinised.  Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations, and photographs submitted, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted from the site photographs submitted by the Architect that the existing structure on the site has already been demolished and the site is presently vacant. The proposal pertains to the development of a G+3 building, comprising commercial use at the ground floor and residential use on the upper floors.

b) It is observed that the proposed staircase is recessed within the building and does not appear to receive adequate natural light and ventilation, which is not desirable. The staircase shall be redesigned to ensure adequate natural light and ventilation, in compliance with the applicable building bye-Laws and fire norms. The elevations shall be revised accordingly and submitted as part of the revised proposal.

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

4. Overall, the proposal received at the formal stage needs improvement. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and provide a point-by-point incorporation and response.

1. The North-DMC forwarded (through OPAAS) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal (formal stage) at its meeting held on May 14, 2026; specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal (comprising of ground + 1 floor) received (through online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no:  No.: OL-13052623014 dated 22.05.2026. Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations, photographs, and replies submitted, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) 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.

b) 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.

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) 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.

1. The South-DMC forwarded (through OPAAS) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal for residential building at its meetings held on April 9, 2026; specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal (for residential building comprising of basement + stilt+ ground + three floors) received (through OPAAS) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no:  No.: OL-02042655005 dated 15.04.2026. Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations, photographs, and replies submitted, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) It shall be ensured that no pipes are routed through structural beams, and the services shall be planned accordingly so as not to compromise the structural safety and stability of the building. 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.

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.

1. The North-DMC forwarded (through OPAAS) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal for residential building at its meetings held on May 14, 2026; specific observations were given.
3. The building proposal for residential building (comprising of basement + stilt + ground + three floors) received (through OPAAS) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no:  OL-06052623012 dated 19.05.2026. Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations, photographs, and replies submitted, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) It was noted by the Commission that the architect has not complied and appropriately addressed the observations given by the Commission in the DUAC letter no: OL-06052623012 dated May 05, 20256 which states:

“.. (b) The Commission observed during the discussion with the Architect, and as evident from the submitted site photographs, that the proposal forms part of a larger combined property characterized by a distinct and cohesive architectural vocabulary in terms of architectural elements, form, proportions, and materiality. It was further noted that the two properties are interconnected at the first-floor level, while remaining segregated at the ground floor through an 8’-0” wide private lane.

(c) The architect further informed that only a portion of the existing symmetric development is proposed to be demolished; however, the same has not been appropriately reflected in the submitted plans and existing front façade drawings. Accordingly, the drawings shall be revised to include detailed demolition plans of the subject property, along with clear demarcation of the portions proposed to be retained with superimposition of the current design scheme, and demolished on the front façade of the combined property, as visible in the submitted site photographs…”

b) The replies submitted by the architect to the Commission’s observations vide DUAC letter no:  OL-06052623012 dated 19.05.2026 state that –

“…(c) Both the building owners are family friends, and both owners have mutually agreed to demolish the combined portion between the properties. The said portion shall be demolished in the first phase, after which the area will become open-to-sky and will be utilized jointly by the respective building owners. Detailed demolition drawings indicating portions to be demolished. Superimposed drawings and façade details have also been provided for better clarity and understanding…”

The architect’s response has not been found to be satisfactory as the proposed demolition pertains to a portion of an existing building that is connected to the adjoining structure at the first-floor level; thus, due consideration shall be given to safeguarding the structural stability of the existing development.

c) In addition to the above, it is reiterated that:

“……d)   The Commission expressed its intent to review the proposal holistically rather than in isolation, considering that the site forms part of a combined property with potential visual and aesthetic implications on the overall architectural character and design scheme.

e) Further, it was observed that the existing streetscape exhibits a symmetrical character, which should be duly respected and reflected in the proposed design approach. The proposed front façade elevation should derive inspiration from the existing architectural elements, form, and character of the combined property. However, the submitted façade does not appear to integrate harmoniously with the existing setting and overall architectural context. In this regard, it was advised that alternative façade design options be explored and submitted for consideration. The revised façade proposals shall be presented within the existing site context, along with contextual views/renderings, to enable assessment of their visual and urban design implications on the surrounding built environment….”

d) Further, the proposed design shall be reviewed to ensure that its scale, proportion, symmetry, and architectural character remain harmonious with the existing building and the surrounding context, thereby preserving the overall visual and architectural integrity of the development.

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 including provided through DUAC observation letter no: OL-06052623012 dated 19.05.2026 and provide a point-by-point incorporation and response.

1. The CPWD forwarded (through OPAAS) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the construction of Combined building, CRPF Mahavir Nagar at its meetings held on November 20, 2025, January 2, 2026 and February 12, 2026; specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal for the Construction of a combined building received (through OPAAS) at the formal stage was scrutinised, along with the replies submitted to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-11022662002 dated 17.02.2026. Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations, photographs, and replies submitted, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) It shall be ensured that the building is equipped with a lift providing access to the upper floors, in compliance with the principles of universal accessibility.

b) The design proposal incorporates provisions for double stack parking arrangements to meet the necessary parking requirements, which will be examined during the proposal's completion stage. 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.