1. The proposal was forwarded by the North DMC (online) 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 Commission did not approve the building plans proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on April 13, 2023, specific observations were given.
4. The revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations (alteration at ground, first floor and addition of 2 floors) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation letter no: OL-08042323023 dated 19.04.2023, and the Commission intended to discuss the proposal with the architect but he was not available. Based on the replies submitted, in the absence of discussion held (online), and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the plinth is 450 mm above the road level, but the provisions to access the property have not been shown appropriately in the relevant drawings including 3D views. The same shall be corrected and shown appropriately.

b) In addition to the above, the recessed portion of 460 mm reserved for road widening from the first floor onwards is not understood. The same shall be elucidated appropriately.

c) It was suggested to fix the rolling shutter from inside of the property on the ground floor for better visuals and aesthetic considerations.

d) The sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

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

5. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the North DMC (online) 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 Commission did not approve the building plans proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on April 13, 2023, specific observations were given.
4. The revised building plan proposal for addition/alterations {expansion of the basement, stilt, ground, 1^st and 2^nd floors and addition of two floors over the existing (basement+stilt+ground+2floors) floors received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation letter no: OL-11042323024 dated 19.04.2023 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 replies submitted, the discussion held (online) and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) 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/alterations only.

b) The Commission observed that in terms of the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-11042323024 dated 19.04.2023 unsatisfactory compliances for the same has been made.

c) Since no previous approvals taken (formal & completion) from the Commission have been found in the available record to the Commission, all previous approvals taken for the project shall be shared with the Commission for a better understanding of the proposal, reference, and records.

d) It is again reiterated that the proposal is for additions/alterations to the existing building. The expansion from the ground floor onwards and an addition of a third floor above an existing development, the drawings showing existing & proposed changes should be superimposed on the existing structure to highlight the proposed modifications clearly with proper annotations specifying materials to be used and corresponding to proposal drawings, to be submitted to ensure clarity of the scheme and its judicious considerations.

e) Car parking provisions envisaged for fulfilling requisite parking requirements (current + proposed) are not accepted.  The Commission opines that not addressing the parking requirements would severely impact the overall aesthetic, environmental, and visual quality of the complex/area. The Commission suggests that set-back areas/roads counted towards achieving ECS calculations (for car parking) are not acceptable. These areas are suggested to be kept free from all vehicular parking requirements; they shall be kept free for emergencies. All parking requirements shall be as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines.

f) The Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

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

5. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and a detailed presentation was given by the architect (online) who simultaneously provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission.  Based on the presentation made by the architect (online), and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) Considering the scale of the project, the Commission intended to examine the proposal in the existing context of the site i.e., it needs to be reviewed in conjunction with the surrounding facilities, therefore, 3D views of the site shall be superimposed with the actual existing context of the surroundings including road networks, structures around the site, for better understanding of the proposal in the actual environment to make it clearer.

b) The photographs of the existing context have not been provided clearly to understand the existing situation in the right context.  An appropriate nos. of site photographs shall be provided to get in-depth clarity of the site and surroundings. They need to be resubmitted with proper uncut views from all sides.

c) The site is accessed from all sides of the road. A lot of visitors would be visiting the site from other modes of transport (including OLA, Uber, taxis, autorickshaws, e-rickshaw etc.). The pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the site is not shown properly. A combined mobility plan showing seamless, conflict-free pedestrian and vehicular movement plans from outside shall be elucidated appropriately (including taxi drop-off areas), to understand the movement pattern within the site better. It shall be indicated clearly with clear segregation of pedestrian and vehicular movement.

d) The public toilet under Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM) 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 could have a bearing on the overall visual, urban, and aesthetic quality of the complex. The same is to be revised appropriately and incorporated for review by the Commission.

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

3. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal at its meeting held on September 15, 2022, specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation letter no: OL-05092222044 dated 19.09.2022, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect (online) who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the replies submitted, the discussion held (online), and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that in terms of the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-05092222044 dated 19.09.2022 unsatisfactory compliances for the same have been made.

b) The proposal for the Zonal office for DDA has been carved out from a large plot meant for a local shopping centre (LSC). The leftover area shall be utilised later on for developing LSC.  The Commission observed that the coverage and the FSI for the plot have not been utilised fully.  Moreover, the smaller plot compromises the efficiency of the basement for parking and drastically compromises options and efficiency of parking in the future shopping centre.  The goal in such projects should be to integrate designs in the entire plot rather than fragment them into smaller pieces.  The Commission strongly advises providing a comprehensive and integrated plan including the local shopping centre with sufficient basements across the entire footprint to accommodate all cars at maximum FSI.    If required, the project can be split into two phases.  Also, the DDA office and the LSC can be split horizontally, rather than vertically, i.e., rather than dividing the plot into less usable pieces, have an integrated design and use most of the lower floors for the LSC and the higher floor for the DDA office.

4. Overall, the Commission did not appreciate the design scheme presented, and the architect was again advised, to re-look at the overall design proposal with a fresh approach, utilising the FSI to the maximum extent possible and adhering to the above observations & furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the CPWD (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The proposal was deferred.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on December 26, 2001.
3. The Commission accepted the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on August 24, 2018.
4. The Commission accepted the concept of the building plan proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on July 24, 2020, specific observations were given.
5. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal for addition/alteration (extension of auditorium block B+G+9 floors) at its meeting held on April 06, 2023, specific observations were given.
6. The revised building plan proposal for addition/alteration (extension of auditorium block B+G+9 floors) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation letter no: OL-27032322028 dated 11.04.2023. Based on the replies submitted and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) 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/alterations only.

b) All parking provisions shall be as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc.

c) Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

d) All plumbing pipes, service equipment, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels, DG set, DG exhaust pipes etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of point nos. 10, 11 &12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

1. he proposal was forwarded by the CPWD (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the proposal in respect of the Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan of President Estate at its meeting held on December 11, 2013, specific observations were given.
3. The building plan proposal in respect of the Open-Air Theatre at Schedule-B, Football Ground, Rashtrapati Bhawan (President’s Estate) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and a detailed discussion (online) was held with the architect on Cisco Web Ex meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the discussion held (online), and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) 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/alterations only.

b) The Commission took note of the “The Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan (CCMP) of the President’s Estate (Phase-I)” approved by the Commission at its meeting held on December 11, 2013, specific observations were given. 

c) It was observed from the approved CCMP of the Present’s Estate that the proposal for Open-Air Theatre at Schedule-B, Football Ground has been envisaged in the area which has been marked as:

“No Build Zone- Essential underground facilities permitted in the peripheral areas…

Significance- Historic City-level axis between Presidents House/Estate to India Gate and Yamuna River beyond…..”

Taking into consideration the above observations indicated on the approved CCMP of the President’s Estate (Phase-I), it was accordingly suggested to explore alternative locations and presented them for the consideration of the Commission.

d) In addition to the above, it was also observed that all four-side elevation of the proposed design appears to have not been submitted. All four side elevations along with the screening mechanism for water tanks etc. shall be supplemented.

e) The Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

f) All service equipment, water tanks, DG sets, DG exhaust pipes, air-conditioning units, solar panels etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of point nos. 10, 11 & 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 given by the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

1. he proposal was forwarded by the DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on January 06, 2010, and the revised layout and building plan proposal was approved in the meeting held on November 02, 2011. The layout and building plan proposals were again revised and approved by the Commission at its meeting held on August 03, 2016, and later on September 20, 2017, respectively.
3. The Commission accepted the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on April 08, 2021, specific observations were given.
4. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations (alterations in the ground floor and addition of 5 floors over the existing 3B+G+10 floors in Tower-A) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and a detailed discussion was held (online) with the Commission who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the discussion held (online), and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) 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/alterations only.

b) The architect has provided all the current & proposed parking requirements of the site in the basements, but photographs of the same have not been submitted to understand the existing condition of the basement, an appropriate number of photographs shall be provided for a better understanding of the proposal.

c) All parking provisions shall be as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc. Existing parking and parking from additional FAR (proposed) are to be shown clearly on the layout plan with a bifurcation of two.

d) The added structure shall be designed so that it withstands weather effects, impacts from calamities like earthquakes etc. as it is an additional structure added to the existing superstructure. It shall be ensured that it does not impact the safety of the superstructure.

e) Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

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

5. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the PWD-GNCTD (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the Masterplan layout and the building plan proposal at its meeting held on July 16, 1993, specific observations were given. The layout and building plan proposal (hostels, staff quarters and the part academic complex) was approved in the meeting held on September 24, 1993, specific observations were given.
3. The Commission approved the building plan proposal (Academic block- 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B) at its meeting held on May 18, 2018, and approved the building plan proposal (addition of academic block behind block-6) at its meeting held on November 17, 2022, respectively, and specific observations were given.
4. The Commission did not approve the revised layout/ masterplan and remaining buildings at its meeting held on March 02, 2023, and on January 25, 2023, specific observations were given.
5. The revised layout/ Masterplan and building plan proposal of remaining buildings {Academic (lecture halls, admin, library, auditorium/seminar halls, shopping centre), Residential (hostels and dining block, housing (type 2, 3, 4, & 5), Vice Chancellor’s residence, guest house, play school/creche), Sports (indoor sports arena, Indoor pool & gym block, outdoor pool block, students activity & health care centre)} received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-15022361003 dated 09.03.2023, and a detailed discussion was held (online) with the architect on Cisco Web Ex meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the replies submitted, the discussion held (online), and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The architect has informed that the proposal has been submitted only for the revised master plan approval, and building plans for individual blocks with necessary details (drawings/documentation etc.) shall be submitted separately for the consideration of the Commission.

Layout and Building plans proposal for additions/alterations in respect of Saroj Super Speciality Hospital at Block A, Sector -14, Rohini. (Conceptual Stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The proposal was deferred.

Building plans proposal in respect of Motel on Khasra No. 697/1/2, 697/2/2, 696/1/2, 696/2/2, 696/2/1, etc. situated in Village Ghitorni, Tehsil Vasant Vihar. (Conceptual Stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) at the conceptual stage for consideration by the Commission.
2. The proposal was deferred.

Building plans proposal for additions/alterations in respect of Air India Employee CGHS Ltd. at Plot no. 9, Sector -3, Dwarka. (Conceptual Stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The proposal was deferred.

Revised Building plans proposal in respect of Motel Building at Khasra no. 23/14/2, 23/17, 23/18, 23/19/2, 23/13/2 at Village Samalkha Tehsil Vasant Vihar.(Conceptual Stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on August 03, 2016, specific observations were given.
3. The revised building plan proposal received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised, and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

b) All water tanks, plumbing pipes, service equipment, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels, DG set, DG exhaust pipes etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of point nos. 10, 11 & 12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

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.

Building plan proposal in respect of Redevelopment of Boys’ Hostel at Hindu College, Delhi University. (Conceptual Stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and the building plan proposal at its meeting held on September 30, 2009.
3.  The Commission approved the building plans proposal for additions/alterations in respect of a library, the addition of a canteen, and demolition & reconstruction of the principal bungalow was approved in the meeting held on February 26, 2020.
4. The Commission approved the building plans proposal for the faculty block at its meeting held on April 28, 2022, specific observations were given.
5. The building plan proposal for addition/alterations {demolition and reconstruction of Boy’s hostel (Stilt+Ground+4 floors) and Convention centre (3Basements + stilt+3 floors)} received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised and a detailed discussion (online) was held with the architect on Cisco Web Ex meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the discussion held (online) and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:  

a) The 3D views presented for the Convention centre are not understood, and the vehicular ramp accessing the basement has not been captured appropriately, the same shall be revised and the corrected 3D views shall be submitted for the review of the Commission.

b) The Commission observed that the overall design scheme presented for the Convention Centre is not self-explanatory to the extent that entry/exit to the building, plans, and parking provisions made in the basement are not at all understood. The same shall be corrected and revised accordingly and resubmitted for the consideration of the Commission.

c) The provisions made in the basement shall be detailed along with other parking details including the location of no. of cars, car movement pattern, etc. for a better understanding of the proposal. All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations etc.

d) The features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

e) All service equipment, water tanks, outdoor air-conditioning units, DG set, DG exhaust pipes, plumbing pipes etc. should be camouflaged appropriately in terms of point nos. 10, 11 & 12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

6. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

Not accepted, observations given.