Action Taken Reports in respect of minutes of the 1885th meeting (Extraordinary) held on 25.08.2026.

1. The North-DMC forwarded (through OPAAS) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approve the building plans proposal (3B+G+11 floors) at its meeting held on January 25, 2024 and specific observations were given.
3. The revised building plan proposal (addition of two floors 12^th and 13^th) received (through OPAAS) at the formal stage was scrutinised and a detailed discussion was held with the architect online on Cisco Web-Ex meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations, photographs, discussion, email dated 03.09.2026 etc., the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the proposal is being reviewed and evaluated with due consideration to its visual quality, urban aesthetics, architectural expression, and compatibility with the surrounding context.

b) The design proposal incorporates provisions for double stack parking arrangements to meet the necessary parking requirements. The architect or proponent to ensure the proper implementation of these arrangements on-site, which shall 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) The proposal is for the additions/alterations to the existing under construction building, resulting in an additional structural load on the existing framework, the local body shall ensure the structural safety and stability of the entire structure and proposed additions/alterations in accordance with the applicable codes and regulations.

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) 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.

f) 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.

g) The architect is also advised to go through the DUAC Memorandums issued vide letter no: 1(2)/82-DUAC dated 07.10.2025 (available on the DUAC website www.duac.org.in) for various issues related to the DUAC approvals.

1. The South-DMC forwarded (through OPAAS) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2.  No previous record of approval (Formal/Completion) taken has been found in the available record of the Commission.
3.  The building proposal for residential building (comprising of basement + stilt + ground to third floors) received (through OPAAS) at the formal stage was scrutinised. Based on the submission made, including drawings and photographs, etc., the following observations are to be complied with:

a) Based on the documentation submitted, the Commission observed that the proposal involves demolition and reconstruction of the existing building, with the proposed residential building comprising basement + stilt + ground to third floors.

b) The elevations of the proposed façade envisaged by the architect was reviewed and evaluated considering the visual, urban aesthetics and the surrounding context of the site set in. It was observed that the façade treatment of earlier existing building was more responsive to the surrounding context than the proposal presented at this stage including material application etc. The architect was therefore advised to further refine the façade design, including its material palette and architectural expression to achieve better visual integration with the surroundings. Two other alternatives of the proposed façade shall be prepared along with the annotated materials for the understanding and review of the Commission in the current context with emphasis on the visual and the aesthetics of the area.

c) The revised alternative elevations shall also be supplemented by the skin sections to clearly illustrate the façade treatment, including material specifications and provisions for weather protection.

d) The revised submission shall also incorporate provisions for clothes-drying facilities, appropriate screening of outdoor air-conditioning units, adequate plumbing shafts, and suitable screening mechanisms, with these elements appropriately integrated into the overall architectural design.

e) It shall be ensured that all projections are contained entirely within the plot boundaries and comply with the applicable Building Bye-Laws and statutory provisions.

f) The Commission observed that the proposed building has access roads on three sides and parking has been provided in the stilt area. However, the structural arrangements proposed in the stilt area appears to obstruct vehicular movement. The structural layout shall accordingly be relooked at and suitably rationalised to ensure smooth and functional vehicular circulation.

g) 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.

4. Overall, due to unsatisfactory façade design for the proposed building, the proposal is being returned to the local body/architect with the request to prepare and resubmit two other alternatives of the proposed façade at the conceptual stage. 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. Earlier, the Commission approved the building plans of the school campus of St. Xaviers School Education Society at Shahabad Daulatpur at its meeting held on September 29, 1995.  Subsequently, NOC for Completion of the St. Xaviers School for Xaviers Education Society was issued on July 29, 2015.
3. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal for additions and alterations (additional school building block with connecting bridge comprising of ground + four floors) at its meeting held on July 16, 2026 and specific observations were given.
4. The building plans proposal for additions and alterations (additional school building block with connecting bridge comprising of ground + four floors) 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: 23(201)/2026-DUAC, OL-09072623201 dated 24-07-2026. Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations, photographs and replies submitted etc, 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 Commission observed that the proposal is being reviewed and evaluated with due consideration to its visual quality, urban aesthetics, architectural expression, and compatibility with the surrounding context.

c) It has been observed that the submission has been re-submitted without satisfactorily addressing previous observations outlined in DUAC letter no: 23(201)/2026-DUAC, OL-09072623201 dated 24-07-2026, which is not appreciated.

d) A very specific observation related to the parking provisions in the proposed building block was given vide DUAC letter no: 23(201)/2026-DUAC, OL-09072623201 dated 24-07-2026, the same is being reiterated as under:

“......f)  It was noted that the requisite parking requirement of 491 ECS has been shown as surface parking within the open areas of the school campus. Considering the nature of the development, where a significant number of parents and visitors are expected during school hours and special occasions, a dedicated visitor parking area shall be explored, preferably in the vicinity of the existing main entrance with access fork outside. Further, the proposal shall clearly indicate the location of bus parking bays, designated pick-up and drop-off areas, and the circulation pattern of school buses within the campus. A comprehensive circulation plan showing clearly demarcated parking areas, segregated pedestrian and vehicular movement, and designated pick-up/drop-off zones shall be submitted to ensure safe, efficient, and conflict-free movement within the campus.

The Commission suggested to explore the feasibility of accommodating the additional parking requirements within a basement beneath the proposed block, so as to minimise surface parking to improve ground water recharge and maximise the availability of open areas for landscaping, thereby improving the environmental quality and visual character of the campus....”

e) The architect in its reply has indicated that:

“.....now we proposed 245 ECS only as per calculation with achieved FAR instead of the permissible FAR...”

The Commission emphasized that the parking requirements derived from the proposed building block, shall be fully accommodated within the basement and stilt areas falling within the building footprint.

f) The submitted ground floor plan does not adequately demonstrate the proposed building within the surrounding site, circulation network, access roads, and entry/exit points. A comprehensive ground floor plan shall be submitted clearly indicating theses aspects and establishing the building integration with overall site.

g) Considering the capacity of the multi-purpose hall with a stage floor to floor height of ground floor shall be revisited, if required, to ensure functional efficiency and user comfort. The capacity and associated provisions including floor height shall be in accordance with the applicable norms, regulations, and prevailing building bye-laws.

5. Overall, due to unsatisfactory compliances to its previous observations, and the observations made above, including provisions of the parking provided, the proposal is being returned to the local body/architect for the compliances. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations including communicated vide DUAC letter no: 23(201)/2026-DUAC, OL-09072623201 dated 24-07-2026, and provide a point-by-point incorporation and response.

1. The DDA forwarded (through email) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission accepted the concept of the building plans proposal at its meeting held on October 26, 2023; specific observations were given. The Commission approved the revised building plans proposal received at formal stage at its meeting held on December 14, 2023; specific observations were given.
3. The Commission did not accept the NOC for Completion plans proposal at its meeting held on August 6, 2026; specific observations were made.
4. The proposal for NOC for Completion plans (Himachal Niketan) received (through email) at the Completion stage was scrutinized along with the replies submitted to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-05082648002 dated 18-08-2026. Based on the submission, including the Completion drawings, supporting drawings/documentation, site photographs and replies submitted, the proposal for NOC for Completion (Himachal Niketan) is accepted.

1. The DDA forwarded (through email) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plans proposal at its February 1, 2001, meeting and subsequently accepted the NOC for Completion at its March 30, 2009, meeting.
3. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal for additions and alterations (addition of bedroom, toilet, and addition/extension of balconies) at its meeting held on July 23, 2026; specific observations were given.
4. The building plans proposal for additions and alterations (addition of bedroom, toilet, and addition/extension of balconies) 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-19072622127 dated 29.07.2026. 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 Commission observed that the proposal is being reviewed and evaluated with due consideration to its visual quality, urban aesthetics, architectural expression, and compatibility with the surrounding context.

c) It has been observed that the submission has been re-submitted without satisfactorily addressing previous observations outlined in DUAC letter no: OL-19072622127 dated 29.07.2026, which is not appreciated.

d) A very specific observation related to the parking provisions in the proposed building block was given vide DUAC letter no: OL-19072622127 dated 29.07.2026, the same is being reiterated as under:

“......c) As the proposal involves additions and alterations to the existing building, the submitted 3D views do not adequately depict the proposed interventions in relation to the existing structure. The revised submission shall include superimposed views of the proposed interventions over the actual existing building to provide a realistic representation of the proposed modifications. The views shall be appropriately annotated, indicating the proposed materials and finishes, with suitable colour coding and legends distinguishing the existing and proposed works, to facilitate a comprehensive assessment of their visual and architectural impact....”

The same is hereby reiterated, including incorporation of the existing development like ESS, guard room, SBM toilet, and other existing structures/elements. The drawings/views shall therefore be suitably revised to accurately depict the existing condition and clearly demonstrate the proposed interventions for the Commission’s review.

e) Further, the Commission observed that, although replies to its previous observations communicated vide DUAC Observation Letter No. OL-19072622127 dated 29.07.2026 have been submitted, the proposal at the formal stage is still incomplete. The submission shall include the project proforma, project report, complete and coordinated set of drawings, revised plans, elevations, sections, 3D views, and other requisite documents duly incorporating compliances of the previous observations.

f) The screening jaali proposed in the schematic design of the front façade, intended to screen the outdoor air-conditioning units, clothes-drying areas, and other such interventions, appear to be inadequate size in present scheme. Its size, width, and design shall be suitably revised to effectively serve its intended purpose. The screening provision shall therefore be suitably enlarged and appropriately designed to ensure effective visual screening and integration with the façade. The revised provisions shall be clearly reflected in the relevant drawings and views.

g) Overall, the Commission suggested that the complete design interventions be revisited, with particular attention to the façade colour scheme, materiality, integration of existing site elements, and the shape, size, and width of the screening jaali, to ensure their appropriate visual integration and functionality. The submission shall be complete in all respect. The revised design shall be submitted for review and consideration by the Commission.

5. Overall, due to incomplete submission and discrepancies in the submission received ta the formal stage it is being returned to the local body for the compliances. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations including communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-19072622127 dated 29.07.2026, and provide a point-by-point incorporation and response.

1. The NDMC forwarded (through OPAAS) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The ‘Regal Rivoli building outer circle CP’ is a listed Grade - II heritage at serial no. 38 in the Gazette Notification no. F.No.4/2/2009/UD/I 6565 dated October 1, 2009, issued by the Department of Urban Development, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
3. The building plans proposal for additions and alterations (exiting building comprising of lower ground + ground + mezzanine + 2 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 observed that the proposal involves interior and renovation works, including modifications to the lift areas, external façade, show windows, and external façade signages.

b) The property falls under the Gazette-notified heritage list as a Grade-II heritage property at Serial No. 38, vide Gazette Notification No. F.No.4/2/2009/UD/I 6565 dated 01.10.2009, issued by the Department of Urban Development, Government of NCT of Delhi. Considering the heritage significance of the property and the modifications proposed to the façade, the Commission opined that the proposal should first be reviewed by the Heritage Conservation Committee (HCC). The proposal may thereafter be considered by the Commission, along with the observations/recommendations of the HCC, from the perspective of visual quality, urban aesthetics, and compatibility with the existing context.

4. In view of the above, the proposal is being returned to the local body. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and get it reviewed by the HCC first before submitting the case to the Commission for its consideration.

1. The NDMC forwarded (through email) the proposal for consideration by the   Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal for additions/alterations at its May 2, 2001, meeting and subsequently accepted the NOC for Completion at its December 18, 2002, meeting.
3. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal for proposal for the Demolition and reconstruction at its meeting held on July 23, 2026, specific observations were given.
4. The building plans proposal for demolition and reconstruction (comprising of existing basement+G+3 floors) received (through email) at the formal stage was scrutinised. Based on the submission made, including drawings and photographs submitted, etc., the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the proposal is being reviewed and evaluated with due consideration to its visual quality, urban aesthetics, architectural expression, and compatibility with the surrounding context.

b) The property falls within the jurisdiction of the prevailing LBZ Guidelines. The Architect shall ensure that the proposal complies with all applicable provisions, norms, and regulations stipulated therein. The ground coverage, total built-up area, and all other applicable development controls shall be verified by the concerned local authority and ensured to be in conformity with the prevailing LBZ Guidelines.

c) It is noted that the present submission pertains to a residential building comprising a basement, ground floor, and three upper floors, wherein the existing basement and the servant quarter (G+2) are proposed to be retained while the upper floors (main block) are proposed to be demolished and reconstructed.

d) The concerned local body shall ensure the appropriate structural stability.

e) 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.

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

g) The 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.

h) The architect is also advised to go through the DUAC Memorandums issued vide letter no: 1(2)/82-DUAC dated 07.10.2025 (available on the DUAC website www.duac.org.in) for various issues related to the DUAC approvals.