Action Taken Report with respect to the minutes of the 1805th meeting held on 06.03.2025.

1. Action Taken Report regarding Minutes of 1805th meeting held on 06.03.2025 were discussed.

1. The South-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. At its meeting on February 17, 2022, the Commission approved the Redevelopment of the Residential Colony for AIIMS at Ayurvigyan Nagar; specific observations were made.
3. The Commission did not accept the NOC for Completion at its meeting on January 09, 2025; specific observations were made.
4. The proposal for NOC for completion in respect of the Local Shopping Complex received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted in response to the DUAC observations communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-02012558001, 58(1)/2025-DUAC dated 14.01.2025. Based on the submission, including documentation, drawings, photographs, and compliance, the proposal for completion of NOC is accepted.

1. The North-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission previously approved the layout plan of Hindu College at Delhi University at its meeting on September 30, 2009. However, the Commission did not accept the building plans proposal for the Centre for Advanced Studies, Hindu College, at its meeting held on January 09, 2025, January 16, 2025, and February 06, 2025; specific observations were made.
3. The building plans proposal for the Centre for Advanced Studies at Hindu College received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-27012527004 dated 12.02.2025. Based on the replies submitted and the submission made, a discussion was held with the architect (online) at Cisco WebEx meetings, who clarified the Commission's queries. Based on the replies to previous observations, drawings, documentation, photographs submitted, and the discussion held online, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission took note of the one of its previous observations that:

“…..The drawings titled "layout plan" and "site plan" indicate the proposed conference centre as comprising (3 basements + S + 8 floors) with a total height of 27.0 m. However, the proposal is for the Centre for Advanced Studies (basement + S + 8 floors) with a total height of 36.60 m….”

The architect, in its compliance, has submitted that:

“….The proposed conference centre in the Layout plan sanctioned by Town Planning department MCD comprised of (3 basements + S + 8 floors) with a total height of 27.0 m. The same proposal has been changed to Centre for Advanced Studies (basement + S + 8 floors) with a total height of 36.60 m. 

The building profile in the layout is not exactly same as the proposed building plans. The proposal has slightly different outline than the sanctioned Layout plan…..

……As per norms of ULBs the Changes from Layout plan are acceptable within the ambit of  Unified building bye laws. As per Annexure XII Clause A- 3-viii of the UBBL -2016 “the approval of layout in such cases under Section 313/313 of the DMC Act, shall be required only when new streets within the site are created for connecting with an existing public or private street.” Since no new street is proposed in revised proposal the Changes in Layout plan may be accepted. 

Hence it is requested that the Proposal may be examined on the basis of its compliance to Unified Building byelaws. The digression from Layout plan may be accepted…..”

b) The architect has stated that some 3D views featuring pergolas from the previous submission were uploaded along with the revised 3D views. They have requested that these older views not be considered during the review of the revised submission.

c) 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 will be thoroughly examined during the proposal's completion stage. It is important that all parking arrangements adhere to the relevant rules, regulations, guidelines, and other applicable requirements.

d) The Work of public art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at an appropriate level which is also visible from outside, shall ensure to be installed in terms of point nos. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

e) The Sustainability features shall be as per point 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, service equipment, DG set, DG exhaust pipes, water tanks, air-conditioning units, solar panels, etc., should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of points 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 (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission accepted the concept of building plans proposal at its meeting on August 25, 2021. The Commission approved the building plan proposal (Formal) at its January 13, 2022 meeting. The Commission approved the revised building plans proposal at its February 15, 2024 meeting.
3. The proposal for NOC for completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised, and a discussion was held with the architect (online) on Cisco WebEx meetings, who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the drawings, documentation, photographs submitted, and online discussion, the proposal for NOC for completion is accepted.

1. The DDA forwarded (electronically) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal at its September 20, 2017 meeting. However, due to the lack of documentation, the Commission did not consider and returned the revised proposal at its meeting on February 13, 2025. The Commission did not approve the revised building plans proposal at its meeting held on February 20, 2025, observations were given.
3. The revised building plans proposal (four basements, Ground + Mezzanine + 25 floors) received (electronically) at the formal stage was scrutinised. Based on the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that the revised proposal includes a building with four basement levels, a ground floor, a mezzanine, and 25 upper floors. In contrast, the previously approved proposal, as per the Commission’s 2018 meeting, was sanctioned only up to the 15th floor. It was further observed that construction work has already commenced on-site based on the previous formal approval. The current submission seeks revisions on the proposed height, elevations, 3D views, and other aspects.

b) The Commission noted that Plot No. 1 and Plot No. 2 are distinct individual plots with different plot areas, each subject to separate applicable norms under the relevant provisions of the Unified Building Bye-Laws (UBBL) 2016 for Delhi. The concerned local body, i.e., DDA, has forwarded the revised proposal for Plot No. 2 as an individual plot for the Commission’s review. While the overall design scheme has been conceived as part of a larger complex encompassing both plots and the submitted drawings indicate shared features such as common circulation areas, roads, entry/exit points, and connecting bridges, highlighting inherent interdependence between the plots, the proposal has not given due consideration to establishing that the building/s on each plot adhere to bye laws for the plot independently. Each submission must be reviewed independently, ensuring full compliance with Unified Building Bye-Laws, 2016.

c) The architect shall present the proposal as an independent entity, clearly specifying all relevant details for each individual plot. This should encompass exact plot dimensions, setback lines and widths, basement extents, boundary wall and gate details, ramp width, entry and exit points, fire tender movement paths, pedestrian and vehicular circulation, and the location and specifications of essential services. All these elements must be accurately depicted in the municipal layout drawings.

d) All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations.

e) The solar panels shall be integrated into the design at an appropriate clear height, ensuring that the space beneath can be effectively utilised for shading purposes.

f) The Work of public art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at an appropriate level which is also visible from outside, shall ensure to be installed in terms of point nos. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

g) The Sustainability features shall be as per point 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

h) All plumbing pipes, service equipment, water tanks, air-conditioning units, DG set, DG exhaust pipes, 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.

4. Overall, the submission received at the formal stage is incomprehensible and unclear. The architect is advised to address all the abovementioned observations and provide a pointwise incorporation and response.

Revised Building plans proposal regarding Plot no. 1, Wazirpur District Centre, NSP, New Delhi.

1. The DDA forwarded (electronically) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal at its September 20, 2017, meeting but did not approve the revised building plans proposal at its meeting held on February 20, 2025; observations were given.
3. The revised building plans proposal (four basements + Ground +Mezzanine + 27 floors) received (electronically) at the formal stage was scrutinised. Based on the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that the revised proposal includes a building with four basement levels, a ground floor, a mezzanine, and 2 upper floors. In contrast, the previously approved proposal, as per the Commission’s 2018 meeting, was sanctioned only up to the 14th floor. It was further observed that construction work has already commenced on-site based on the previous formal approval. The current submission seeks revisions on the proposed height, elevations, 3D views, and other aspects.

b) The Commission noted that Plot No. 1 and Plot No. 2 are distinct individual plots with different plot areas, each subject to separate applicable norms under the relevant provisions of the Unified Building Bye-Laws (UBBL) 2016 for Delhi. The concerned local body, i.e., DDA, has forwarded the revised proposal for Plot No. 1 as an individual plot for the Commission’s review. While the overall design scheme has been conceived as part of a larger complex encompassing both plots and the submitted drawings indicate shared features such as common circulation areas, roads, entry/exit points, and connecting bridges, highlighting inherent interdependence between the plots, the proposal has not given due consideration to establishing that the building/s on each plot adhere to bye laws for the plot independently. Each submission must be reviewed independently, ensuring full compliance with Unified Building Bye-Laws, 2016.

c) The architect shall present the proposal as an independent entity, clearly specifying all relevant details for each individual plot. This should encompass exact plot dimensions, setback lines and widths, basement extents, boundary wall and gate details, ramp width, entry and exit points, fire tender movement paths, pedestrian and vehicular circulation, and the location and specifications of essential services. All these elements must be accurately depicted in the municipal layout drawings.

d) All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations.

e) The solar panels shall be integrated into the design at an appropriate clear height, ensuring that the space beneath can be effectively utilised for shading purposes.

f) The Work of public art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at an appropriate level which is also visible from outside, shall ensure to be installed in terms of point nos. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

g) The Sustainability features shall be as per point 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

h) All plumbing pipes, service equipment, water tanks, air-conditioning units, DG set, DG exhaust pipes, 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.

4. Overall, the submission received at the formal stage is incomprehensible and unclear. The architect is advised to address all the abovementioned observations and provide a pointwise incorporation and response.

Layout and Building plan proposal regarding the Expansion of the Supreme Court Building at the Supreme Court of India, Tilak Marg.

1. The CPWD forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. Earlier, the Commission approved the proposal for enclosing the Southern Corridor in front of Court no. 1 to 5 with structural glazing at the Supreme Court of India at its meeting held on May 30, 2024, observations were made. The Commission did not approve the layout and Building plan proposal in respect of the Expansion of the Supreme Court Building for creating Additional courtrooms, including a Constitutional Court, Chambers for the Judges and facilities for Lawyers & Litigants at the Supreme Court of India at its meeting held on December 12, 2024, and January 23, 2025; specific observations were given.
3. The layout and building plan proposal for the Expansion of the Supreme Court of India (for creating Additional Court Rooms, including a Constitutional Court, Chambers for the Judges and facilities for Lawyers & Litigants) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation letter no: OL-15012562003 dated 29.01.2025. Based on the replies submitted and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The proposal is for demolition (including the museum, annexe, main circular building, and main east-west) and reconstruction of parts of the complex in a phased manner (phase-I & phase-II). The proposed building includes two basements (with double stack parking) and G + 5 floors.

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 will be examined during the proposal's completion stage. It is important that all parking arrangements adhere to the relevant rules, regulations, guidelines, and other applicable requirements. 

c) Work of public art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at an appropriate level which is also visible from outside, ensure 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.in.

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 service equipment, plumbing pipes, rainwater pipes, 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.
 

Building plan proposal regarding Construction of New Girls Hostel at IARI Pusa Campus.

1. The CPWD forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. Earlier, the Commission approved the Layout/Master plan proposal for the Indian Agriculture Research Institute (IARI) Campus, Pusa, at its meeting held on April 19, 2016.
3. The building plans proposal for the New Girls’ Hostel received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and a discussion was held with the architect (online) on Cisco Web Ex meetings, who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the drawings, documentation, photographs submitted, and the discussion held online, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The proposal has been received for a new building with G+6 floors after demolishing the old structure.

b) It has been observed that the proposed parking is currently planned on the surface only. Since the building is new, parking should be accommodated in the basement beneath the building footprint. The surface area thus freed should be utilised for open green spaces to enhance groundwater recharge and mitigate urban flooding. Additionally, all parking provisions must comply with the applicable norms, guidelines, and regulations.

c) As the building serves as hostel accommodation, it is suggested that common areas on each floor be included with provisions for a pantry.  Furthermore, facilities for washing, and drying of clothes for user convenience should be provided either in the basement or on residential floors. If drying clothes is proposed on the balcony, appropriate screening mechanisms should be incorporated and clearly depicted in the respective drawings to provide a comprehensive understanding of the design scheme.

d) The Commission understands that the proposal has been designed without considering the hostel building's air-conditioning requirements. However, future additions may necessitate air-conditioning installations, which could negatively impact the building’s façade. To prevent this, provisions should be incorporated at this stage to accommodate outdoor units without compromising aesthetics. A detailed scheme illustrating their placement, screening, and materials should be submitted through plans, elevations, and 3D views.

e) The circular structure at the entry porch should be finished with exposed bricks/brick tiles instead of the proposed yellow finish. This modification is suggested to ensure harmony with the complex's existing architectural character, as observed in the site photographs of the building. Exposed bricks/brick tiles will help maintain visual continuity and integrate the new addition seamlessly with the overall design language of the existing structures. The revised submission should include updated material specifications and visual representations to reflect this change.

f) The solar panels shall be integrated into the design at an appropriate clear height, ensuring that the space beneath can be effectively utilised for shading purposes.

g) Work of public art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at an appropriate level which is also visible from outside, ensure 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.in.

h) 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.

i) All service equipment, plumbing pipes, rainwater pipes, 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. Overall, the submission received at the formal stage requires material revisions/reconsiderations/futureproofing. The architect is advised to address all the abovementioned observations and provide a pointwise incorporation and response.

Layout and building plans proposal in respect of the Creation of New Infrastructure at Surajmal Vihar Campus for Delhi University.

1. The CPWD forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not accept the concept of the layout, and building plan proposal at its meeting held on January 09, 2025, observations were given. 
3. The building plans proposal for the received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The proposal includes constructing blocks A and B, each consisting of Ground + 8 floors, while provisions for two additional blocks, Block C and D, have been reserved for future expansion. As per the project report, the entire basement will be constructed in the first phase, covering Blocks A, B, C, and D. However, to meet the parking requirements for Phase 2, the basement can be converted into double-stack parking to accommodate additional vehicles.

b) As the proposal is planned to be constructed in phases, the layout plan should indicate the demarcation of areas for Phase 1, outlining their functionality and how they integrate with the areas proposed for Phase 2.

c) The submitted 3D views depict cars entering the central plaza between the four blocks via a 6-meter-wide road, showing vehicular movement. However, the plans indicate that vehicular circulation occurs at the periphery of the complex, creating a mismatch. Redesigning the central road as a pedestrian-only zone is strongly recommended to ensure smooth and conflict-free pedestrian movement. The revised modifications should be incorporated into the 3D views and appropriate drawings and resubmitted.

d) A detailed mobility circulation plan is required to illustrate clear, conflict-free pedestrian and vehicular pathways from the site entrance to the various buildings, ensuring a better understanding of the movement patterns within the site. This plan should distinctly separate pedestrian and vehicular circulation paths. It is recommended to designate drop-off zones for each block at the outer periphery, thereby restricting vehicular movement inside all the blocks' pedestrian plaza areas. This approach will promote a safer and more efficient circulation system while enhancing the site's overall functionality.

e) The drawings depict an open-to-sky courtyard at the centre of each tower, but the necessary details are missing from the submission. The layout plans should include appropriate details, such as floor pattern, materiality, landscaping information, specifying plant species, their quantities, locations, and their integration with the built structure.

f) The submission indicates that the existing boundary wall will be retained and refurbished; however, details regarding this, including plans, elevations, sections, and 3D views of the refurbished boundary wall and gate details, are missing. These details should be included in the revised submission for the Commission's review.

g) Upon reviewing the submission, it has been observed that the main entrance to the building appears to be relatively small and may not be sufficient to accommodate large gatherings. It is recommended that options for enlarging the entrance be explored to better accommodate a larger number of users and ensure smooth and efficient entry.

h) Each block includes a cafeteria; however, the submission does not provide the capacity and functional furniture arrangement. A detailed plan should be submitted, indicating the kitchen servicing layout including chimney exhaust and a solid waste management plan to ensure effective disposal of both dry and wet waste.

i) All floor plans should include a comprehensive furniture layout, provided at an appropriate scale, to enhance the understanding and functionality of the entire complex.

j) A three-dimensional view of the site's future blocks shows a two-story structure adjacent to the STP block and the DG set areas' locations, but the submission does not include details. An appropriate number of plans, elevations, sections, and detailed 3D views should be submitted for the block, along with an explanation of its function.

k) Open ramps have been provided to access the basement. If the entry to basement ramps needs to be covered in the future, it is suggested that their design and related details be provided at this stage to ensure they are duly incorporated into the design scheme. 

l) Work of public art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at an appropriate level which is also visible from outside, ensure 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.in.

m) 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.

n) All service equipment, plumbing pipes, rainwater pipes, 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. Overall, the submission received at the formal stage requires material revisions/reconsiderations/futureproofing. The architect is advised to address all the abovementioned observations and provide a pointwise incorporation and response.
    

Building plan proposal for additions and alterations to Gyan Bharati School (Additions of New Block-4), Malviya Nagar Road, Saket. (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. Earlier, the NOC for completion plans proposal was accepted by the Commission at its meeting held on August 31, 2016. The Commission approved the proposal for additions and alterations (addition of two floors in Block 2 (G+1 floor) and addition of Block 5 (B+G+4 floors)) at its meeting held on September 08, 2018. Subsequently, the Commission did not accept the concept of the proposal for additions and alterations (extension of Block-4 -B+G+3 floors) at its meeting held on June 20, 2024, and August 29, 2024, September 26, 2024; observations were given.
3. The revised building plan proposal for additions and alterations (Extension of Block 4 -B+G+3 Floors) received at the Conceptual stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Conceptually Unsuitable letter no: OL-16092427063 dated 03.10.2024. 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 it did not consider and cover the existing construction at the site. This concerns the proposal for additions/alterations only.

b) The submission lacks clarity on rainwater discharge provisions, including screening of the rainwater pipes. Detailed plans illustrating the placement of rainwater pipes and their screening mechanisms should be provided to ensure they remain concealed and do not adversely affect the overall aesthetics.

c) The solar panels shall be integrated into the design at an appropriate clear height, ensuring that the space beneath can be effectively utilised for shading purposes.

d) Work of public art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at an appropriate level which is also visible from outside, ensure to be installed in terms of the point nos. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

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 plumbing pipes, service equipment, water tanks, air-conditioning 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 plans proposal in respect of Nursing home at Plot no. 19, PSP Area, Sector A-7, Narela (for M/S Sanjeevani Health Care). (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not accept the concept of the proposal at its meeting held on February 13, 2025; observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised, along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC conceptually observation letter no: OL-11022527008 dated 18.02.2025. Based on the replies submitted, and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The submission lacks clarity on water storage tanks, rainwater discharge provisions, including screening of the rainwater pipes. Detailed plans illustrating the placement of rainwater pipes and their screening mechanisms should be provided to ensure they remain concealed and do not adversely affect the overall aesthetics.

b) All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations.

c) The Work of public art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at an appropriate level which is also visible from outside, shall ensure to be installed in terms of point nos. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

d) The Sustainability features shall be as per point 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

e) All plumbing pipes, service equipment, water tanks, DG set, DG exhaust pipes, 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.

ound 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