Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1828th meeting held on 14.08.2025.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of the 1828th meeting held on 14.08.2025 were discussed.

1. The South-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. No previous record of approvals(formal/completion) taken from the Commission has been found in the available record of the Commission.
3. The building plans proposal (Demolition & Reconstruction) for (Basement+Stilt+Ground+3 Floors) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and a 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 and discussion held, including drawings and photographs, etc., the following observation is to be complied with:

a) From the submission, it was evident that the proposal is for (Demolition & Reconstruction), but no demolition plans have been submitted.

b) The structural details, columns are missing in the submission. Since the building footprint has a large span and houses a basement along with stilts, structural arrangement is important as it impacts functionality and façade design. It shall be ensured that a complete structural arrangement is provided for all floors, along with the parking arrangement, to explain the façade design.

c) The stilt floor shows a staircase leading to the basement without a provision for a landing. This can lead to flooding in the basement, as water can flow in due to the same levels as the road, making it unsafe for users.

d) The dimensions of the plot are to be shown clearly to ensure the design is self-explanatory. Detailed dimensions to be provided for the plot and the inner dimensions, including setback, open areas, shafts, etc., in all drawings.

e) Provision of rainwater in balconies and the terrace level is not shown in the submitted drawings. It shall be ensured to provide details of drainage, wherein the provision of screening mechanisms for concealment of the rainwater pipes shall also be provided so as not to mar the urban aesthetics of the façade.

f) Detailed design of the entry gate to be submitted, including its dimensions, materiality and fixing details.

g) All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations, etc.

h) 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.

i) 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.

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 and provide a point-by-point incorporation and response.

1. The South-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. No previous record of approvals(formal/completion) taken from the Commission has been found in the available record of the Commission.
3. The building plans proposal (Demolition & Reconstruction) for a Residential building (Basement+Stilt+Ground+3 Floors) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and the Commission intended to discuss with the architect (online), but he was not available for discussion. Based on the submission made and the unavailability of the architect for discussion, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) From the submission, it was evident that the proposal is for (Demolition & Reconstruction), but no demolition plans have been submitted.

b) The structural details, columns are missing in the submission. Since the building footprint has a large span and houses a basement along with stilts, structural arrangement is important as it impacts functionality and façade design. It shall be ensured that a complete structural arrangement is provided for all floors, along with the parking arrangement, to explain the façade design.

c) The dimensions of the plot are to be shown clearly to ensure the design is self-explanatory. Detailed dimensions to be provided for the plot and the inner dimensions, including setback, open areas, shafts, etc., in all drawings.

d) Discrepancies observed in the formal submission; the front elevation does not match the proposed 3D view. The architect shall ensure that coordinated and revised drawings are submitted for all floor plans, elevations and sections to provide a cohesive submission.

e) All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations, etc.

f) 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.

g) 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.

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 and provide a point-by-point incorporation and response.

1. The South-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. No previous record of approvals(formal/completion) taken from the Commission has been found in the available record of the Commission.
3. The building plans proposal (Demolition & Reconstruction) for a Residential building (basement+stilt+ground+2 floors) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and the Commission intended to discuss with the architect (online), but he was not available for discussion. Based on the submission made and the unavailability of the architect for discussion, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) From the submission, it was evident that the proposal is for (Demolition & Reconstruction) but no demolition plans have been submitted.

b) The structural details, columns are missing in the submission. Since the building footprint has a large span and houses a basement along with stilts, structural arrangement is important as it impacts functionality and façade design. It shall be ensured that a complete structural arrangement is provided for all floors, along with the parking arrangement, to explain the façade design.

c) Ventilation for areas including kitchen and bedrooms are suggested to be improved by provision of window opening directly on the outer wall to ensure provision of natural light and ventilation. The drawings shall be updated after incorporating the changes in the design layout and resubmitted in the next submission.

d) All RWP and the waste pipe from the kitchen have been embedded in the walls. To prevent leakage issues and ensure proper maintenance, they should be accommodated in a plumbing shaft.

e) The furniture arrangement to be overlapped on all floor plans with provision of openings to ensure that the layout is functional.

f) All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations, etc.

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. This placement also facilitates easy maintenance, reduces heat load through increased shading, and most importantly, improves aesthetics.

h) 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.

i) 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.

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 and provide a point-by-point incorporation and response.

1. The North-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. No previous record of approvals(formal/completion) taken from the Commission has been found in the available record of the Commission.
3. The building plans proposal (Demolition & Reconstruction) for a Residential building (Basement + Stilt + G + 3 floors) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and the Commission intended to discuss with the architect (online), but he was not available for discussion (online). Based on the submission made, and the unavailability of the architect for discussion, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) From the submission, it was evident that the proposal is for (Demolition & Reconstruction) but no demolition plans have been submitted.

b) The structural details, columns are missing in the submission. Since the building footprint has a large span and houses a basement along with stilts, structural arrangement is important as it impacts functionality and façade design. It shall be ensured that a complete structural arrangement is provided for all floors, along with the parking arrangement, to explain the façade design.

c) Parking arrangements are not understood in the submission, the same shall be elucidated with necessary details including numbers, locations, vehicular movement pattern etc., to explain functioning of the stilt better. All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations, etc.

d) Functional furniture arrangements shall also be submitted to understand the functioning better.

e) The architectural element marked ‘architrave and cornice’ at the top of the front façade looks incomplete as it is only shown in some part in the proposed 3d view. It is suggested to complete the element across the parapet to make it look coherent. Also, the element can be simplified by keeping only one band as horizontal elements gather dust and become dirty post rainfall due to water streak marks, thus they shall be minimised to ensure a low-maintenance façade.

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. This placement also facilitates easy maintenance, reduces heat load through increased shading, and most importantly, improves aesthetics.

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, 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.

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 and provide a point-by-point incorporation and response.

1. The North-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The building at ‘528, Kucha Pati Ram’ is a listed Grade III heritage building at serial no. 369 in the Gazette Notification no. F. No. 13(43) MB/UD/2014/1602 dated July 29, 2016, issued by the Department of Urban Development, Government of NCT of Delhi.
3. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal at its meetings on January 30, 2025, March 6, 2025 and August 8, 2025, respectively; specific observations were given.
4. The building plans proposal for residential building received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-05032523005 No. 23(5)/2025-DUAC dated August 13, 2025, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission reiterated its earlier observation communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-05032523005 No. 23(5)/2025-DUAC dated August 13, 2025 which states:

“…b) Based on the project report and the photographs submitted, it is evident that the building has already been constructed on site.  The proposal was presented at the formal stage as a “proposed building,”.

5. Since construction has already been undertaken at the site, the matter is hereby referred back to the concerned local authority i.e., MCD for necessary action in accordance with the applicable norms, regulations, and guidelines stipulated in the Unified Building Bye-Laws (UBBL) for Delhi, 2016.

1. The NDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plans proposal at its meeting held on February 1, 1991 and subsequently accepted the NOC for completion at its meeting held on September 16, 1994.
3. The Commission did not approve the proposal for demolition and reconstruction at its meeting held on August 8, 2025; specific observations were given.
4.  The building plan proposal for Bihar Niwas (02 Basements + ground + 6 floors) was scrutinised, along with the replies submitted in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-05082524015 dated August 13, 2025 and a discussion was held with the architect, who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the submission, replies submitted, and the discussion held, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The site is located in a highly prominent part of the city, making it essential to understand the surrounding context for evaluating the design’s impact. To improve clarity, the architect should present a broader contextual plan that highlights road networks, adjacent buildings, and significant landmarks. Since Tenzing Norgay Marg provides a direct approach to the site, it must be depicted in both the key plan and site plan, including access details. Additionally, the 3D views should be contextualised to reflect the surrounding environment, showcasing nearby building styles, street patterns, access routes, building design.

b) The proposed Toran gate should be suitably integrated as a gateway with the main axis and external roads and/or suitably relocated from the boundary wall to create a clear gap, enhancing its visual prominence. To improve external visibility, the section of the boundary wall in front of the Toran gate could be designed as a grill, providing views from outside. The design of the gate and boundary wall should also complement the overall aesthetics of the complex.  Gate members could be vertical for durability and low maintenance. Detailed drawings, including gate and grill details, material specifications, and coordinated plans, elevations, sections, and 3D views, should be submitted for thorough review.

c) The overall quality and detail of the submission needs significant improvement. The drawings currently leave out key architectural features like the Toran gate, columns, and pergola in the plans, which must be accurately depicted to ensure completeness. Additionally, details of windows, doors, and other openings should be clearly shown. The architect must ensure all drawings are properly aligned with the 3D views to provide a coherent and thorough submission.

d) Materiality of some architectural details, including the arch, is not specified. It must be ensured that materiality is provided for all proposed façade elements. Additionally, it is recommended to use Bansi Paharpur sandstone for a better finish in places where sandstone has been specified. The stone is bevelled by 2mm to prevent chipping at the edges and to preserve the urban aesthetics of the façade. All edges and corners should be clearly detailed in the 3D views.

e) The Jaali should be provided only on the western façade and removed from the eastern façade. Detailed drawings, including the Jaali’s design, construction, and fixing methods, should be submitted separately in sectional views for better clarity.

f) Drawings, including elevations & sections, do not correlate with the floor plans; thus, the depiction is incorrect. It shall be ensured that all elevations are revised and resubmitted, both with and without the boundary wall, better to appreciate the lower parts of the building façade.

g) A large area in the site appears to be hard-paved surfaces, which are discouraged as they lead to urban environmental issues, including urban flooding. More landscaped green areas to be carved out within the site to ensure the site has more porous surfaces.

h) A detailed site section should illustrate areas beyond the boundary wall, such as across access roads, to explain how the site relates to its surroundings. The sections should also include architectural elements like solar panels on the terrace and a Toran gate, showing their proportions relative to the site. Include comprehensive skin sections, with and without Jaali, of different façade portions to offer a detailed view of the elevations and materials used. These detailed elements will provide a thorough understanding of the architectural design and façade. Additionally, a detailed section showing where the shaft terminates on the lower floors should be included to clarify its concealment mechanism.

i) The submission shows a discrepancy: the solar panels marked on the terrace plan and 3D views do not align with the later details, which indicate a provision for a solar panel with a clearstory. A detailed drawing of the clearstory solar panel, including its sections, should be added. Moreover, the floor plan should also depict other terrace-level services.

j) Installing clear-story solar panels on a well-designed structural frame that is integrated with the building enhances space utilization beneath. This placement also allows for easy maintenance, reduces heat load through increased shading, and, most importantly, improves aesthetics.

k) The ventilation shafts shown in the 3d view should have appropriate skirting height to ensure the basement does not get flooded by rainwater, i.e., a solid base to be provided beneath the vents for ventilation.

l) Details of the Swachh Bharat toilet are incomplete, missing 3D views, parapet details, and water tank information, along with rainwater drainage mechanisms in the submission. As part of the formal submission, all drawings, 3D views, and relevant details must be provided for the Swachh Bharat toilet, including the surrounding context, to show its placement within the building complex.

m) The building's plumbing system needs clarification. The locations of plumbing shafts should be marked on all floor plans. Exposed pipes could detract from the façade's appearance. The plumbing layout and screening methods for pipes on the façade must be clearly shown on the relevant plans, including DG exhaust pipes, which should be properly screened to hide them and maintain the complex's aesthetics.

n) Details of drainage at the upper levels, that is, the upper parts of the slab where columns terminate, should be provided while ensuring rainwater does not damage the façade by leaving trail marks.

o) 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) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

p) 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.

q) 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.

5. Overall, the proposal received at the formal stage lacks clarity 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 DDA forwarded the proposal (electronically) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on January 3, 2008; the revised building plan proposal was approved in the Commission’s meeting on April 28, 2010. The NOC for the completion plan proposal was approved in the meeting held on November 24, 2010.
3. The building plan proposal for additions and alterations (specifically the addition of lifts and covering of terraces) was approved in the meeting held on October 26, 2016. A subsequent proposal for additions and alterations was approved by the Commission on June 25, 2021, with specific observations. However, the Commission did not accept the completion plans proposal in its meetings held on May 1, 2025 and June 5, 2025, and specific observations were given.
4. The proposal for NOC for part completion received (electronically) at the completion stage was scrutinised, along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-29042548060 No. 48(60)/2025-DUAC dated June 10, 2025 and a discussion was held with the architect (online) on Cisco Webex meetings, during which clarifications were provided to the Commission’s queries. Based on the discussion held and the submission made, including drawings and photographs, email received from architect dated 28.08.2025 etc., the proposal for NOC for completion (Part- for the addition/alterations portions approved by the Commission on June 25, 2021) is accepted.

Demolition and reconstruction plan in respect of Residential building at plot no. 1, Southend Lane (Rajesh Pilot Lane), New Delhi – 110001 (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal at its meeting on July 15, 2015 and accepted the NOC for Completion plans proposal at its meeting held on May 1, 2025.
3. The building plans proposal for demolition and reconstruction received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised. The following observation is to be complied with:

a) During its meeting on October 17, 2024, the Commission issued specific guidelines through memorandum no. 1(2)/82-DUAC dated October 29, 2024, for the conceptual proposal under review. It was noted that the Authorisation from the owner appointing the architect for the project was missing from the checklist. As the proposal is at the conceptual stage, it is imperative to provide accurate and complete documentation, adhering to the requirements specified in the checklist for conceptual proposals (available on the OPAAS login page under "Steps to Submit Proposals for Conceptual Proposals"). This will ensure that the Commission appropriately considers the proposal.

4. The Commission did not consider the proposal due to a lack of information at the Conceptual stage (as per the checklist available on the DUAC website). Thus, the architect is advised to provide complete and correct information to ensure consideration of the proposal.

1. The North-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. No previous record of approvals(formal/completion) taken from the Commission has been found in the available record of the Commission.
3. The building plans proposal for (Ground+3 Floors) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations, etc.

b) 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.

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.

1. The South-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal for additions and alterations at its meeting on July 24, 2025, specific observations were made.
3. The building plans proposal for (Ground+3 Floors) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-23072555125, 55(125)/2025-DUAC dated 30.07.2025, and a discussion was held with the architect (online) on Cisco Webex meetings, during which clarifications were provided to the Commission’s queries. Based on the replies submitted, the discussion held, and the submission made, including drawings and photographs, etc., the following observation is 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 and alterations only.

b) The Commission noted that during its meeting held on July 24, 2025, a comprehensive list of observations was provided. However, it has been observed that the proposal has been resubmitted without satisfactorily addressing the previous observations communicated vide DUAC Observation Letter No. OL-23072555125, 55(125)/2025-DUAC dated 30.07.2025. The Commission reiterated its earlier observations, as communicated in DUAC Observation Letter No. OL-23072555125, 55(125)/2025-DUAC dated 30.07.2025 with the request to submit a point-wise incorporation and response in its entirety.

4. Overall, the proposal received at the formal stage lacks clarity, is incomprehensible and was resubmitted without satisfactorily addressing its previous observations. The architect is advised to adhere to all the observations communicated vide DUAC Observation Letter No. OL-23072555125, 55(125)/2025-DUAC dated 30.07.2025 and provide a point-by-point incorporation and response.