1.  The proposal was forwarded by the South DMC ( online ) for consideration of the Commission.

2.  The Commission accepted the concept of the building plan proposal at its meeting held on November 13, 2020 specific observations were given.

3.  The building plan proposal received ( online ) at formal stage was scrutinised and following observations were given:

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

b. Sustainability 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.

c.  All service equipment at the terrace should be properly camouflaged (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 &12 of the CPAA ( Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval ) available on DUAC website at www.duac.org.

1.  The proposal was forwarded by the South DMC ( online ) for consideration of the Commission.

2.  The Commission approved the extension ( Block-B ) to the existing building ( Block-A ) proposal at its meeting held on October 27, 2010 and specific observations were given.

3.  The Commission did not approve the NOC for the completion plan proposal for both the buildings ( Block-A & Block-B ) at its meeting held on August 21, 2020 specific observations were given 

4.  The Completion plan proposal received again ( online ) for both the buildings ( Block-A & Block-B ) was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect, on the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-14082058008 dated 26.08.2020 and following observations were given

a.  It was clearly evident from the replies submitted by the architect and the record available with the Commission that no previous formal approval for Block A had been taken from the Commission and it had already been constructed at site without the necessary approvals of the Commission.

b.  However, required formal approvals for Block B had been taken from the Commission. It was, accordingly, decided to give NOC for completion to Block B only.

c.   So far as the NOC for completion to Block A is concerned, the Commission observed that since the Block A had been constructed without the necessary formal approvals from the Commission, therefore, it has no comments to offer on Block A, at this stage and decided that the matter may be seen by the concerned local body i.e. South DMC as per applicable rules/laws for such matters.

1.  The proposal was forwarded by the South DMC ( online ) for consideration of the Commission.

2.  The Commission approved the additions to the existing building on an adjoining vacant land area at its meeting held on February 05, 2020 specific observations were given. However, no information on the previous approvals taken, if any, for the existing building was provided.

3.  The completion plan proposal for the existing building received ( online ) was scrutinised and following observations were given:

a.   From the record available with the Commission it was evident that no previous formal approval seems to have been taken from the Commission and the building had already been constructed at site.

b.   Also, the Work of Public art is missing in the submission. Since the project is at completion stage, the work of art suitable scale to the context to be installed at site in terms of the point nos. 14 of the CPAA ( Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval ) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.

c.   The Commission observed that since the building had already been constructed at site without the necessary formal approvals from the Commission, and no documents have been furnished to substantiate the approvals taken from the concerned local body. The Commission decided that it has no comments to offer at this stage and decided that the matter may be seen by the concerned local body i.e. South DMC as per applicable rules/laws for such matters.

1.   The proposal was forwarded by the North DMC ( online ) for consideration of the Commission.

2.   The building plan proposal received ( online ) at formal stage was scrutinised and following observations were given:

a.  The stilt plan shows that the circulation is not workable i.e. the turning radius is not enough to make the entry/exit functional effectively.

b.  The parking plan of the basement is incomplete. The vehicles shall be clearly marked in the plan including their movement in the parking area.

c.   The drawing shall be complete in all aspects to make the design scheme self-explanatory.

d.  Air-conditioning shafts shall be such designed that they conceal all the services. Also, they shall be appropriately screened to ensure the services are not visible on the façade.

e.   Landscape details in the proposal are missing. The landscape plan should indicate the details of the trees planted, existing trees, levels, types of species on an appropriate scale, ( in terms of the point nos. Six of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval ) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org to be ensured.

f.    Work of Art is missing in the submitted design scheme. Public art of suitable scale to the context to be installed in terms of the point nos. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org need to be made.

g.   All service equipment at the terrace should be properly camouflaged (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 &12 of the CPAA ( Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval ) available on DUAC website at www.duac.org.

1.  The proposal was forwarded by the South DMC (online) for consideration of the Commission.

2.  The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on July 07, 2006 and the NOC for Completion plan proposal was accepted on July 29, 2009. The concept of the additions/alterations was accepted at the meeting of the Commission held on November 06, 2020 specific observations were given.

3.  The building plan proposal for additions/alterations received ( online ) at formal stage was scrutinised and following observation was given:

a.   All service equipment at the terrace should be properly camouflaged (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 &12 of the CPAA ( Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval ) available on DUAC website at www.duac.org.

1.   The proposal was forwarded by the DDA (online) for consideration of the Commission.

2.   Earlier, the Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on January 10, 1997 and the proposal for additions/alterations was approved at the meeting held on December 12, 2018.

3. The addition/alteration proposal ( for addition of society office only)  received ( online ) at formal stage was scrutinised and found acceptable.

1.   The proposal was forwarded by the DDA ( online ) for consideration of the Commission.

2.   The formal proposal for installing bust received ( online ) was scrutinised and following observations were given:

a.  It was observed that the bust is placed in the centre of the park, and thus a lot of space is wasted. Also the location is such that it does not get good sunlight. Thus, it was suggested to move it further 4 to 5 meters closer to the tree line for better location, viewing angles and better aesthetics. The bust should be South facing so that sunlight falls on the statue.

b.  Also the plantation around the bust should be reduced as it is distracting from the main figure. 

1.  The proposal was forwarded by the NDMC ( online ) for consideration of the Commission.

2.  The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on August 31, 2016 and the revised plan proposal was approved on February 15, 2017.

3.  Now, the revised building plan proposal received ( online ) was scrutinised and following observations were given:

a.   Location of existing trees, as shown on the building plans, shall be retained.

b.   All service equipment at the terrace should be properly camouflaged (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 &12 of the CPAA ( Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval ) available on DUAC website at www.duac.org.

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

2.  The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on November 06, 2020 specific observations were given.

3.  The revised building plan proposal received ( online ) at formal stage was scrutinised and following observations were given:

a.  The parking shown as P2 shall be suitably relocated behind the area available in P1 parking lot so as the space is freed for consolidated greens. The space shall then be appropriately landscaped.

b.  All service equipment at the terrace should be properly camouflaged (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 & 12 of the CPAA ( Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval ) available on DUAC website at www.duac.org.