Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1834th meeting held on 25.09.2025.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of the 1834th meeting held on 25.09.2025 were discussed.

1. The CPWD forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The ‘building within the President Estate’ is a listed Grade - I heritage building at serial no. 05 in the Gazette Notification no. F.No.4/2/2009/UD/I 6565 dated October 1, 2009, issued by the Department of Urban Development, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
3. Earlier, the proposal of the Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan (CCMP) of the President's Estate was approved by the Commission at its meeting held on November 21, 2013.
4. The proposal for shifting services (proposed New Service Block and Tunnel) at South Lawns, President Estate (near Gate no. 04), received (online) at the formal stage, was scrutinized, 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, including drawings and photographs, and the discussion held, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The submitted proposal includes the development of a new service block designed to accommodate the electrical and mechanical equipment of the complex within two basement levels. The chiller plants are proposed to be installed at the ground level and are proposed to be screened by a wall measuring 5.0 metres in height.

b) Since the service block is part of a Grade I heritage complex, the Commission suggested that the structure's height be kept at eye level to preserve the site's sanctity and visual harmony. The chiller plants are relatively tall and need higher screening. It was suggested that they be relocated to a position where they can be partially underground, out of direct view, and also allow for better circulation space. The architect was advised to explore alternative options in relation to the surrounding context for the Commission's review.

c) It was further recommended that the design of the screen wall be made lighter in appearance, ensuring that it does not appear opaque or visually heavy, but instead functions as a permeable element that harmoniously blends with the surrounding landscape.

d) The design of the mumty should be refined to ensure it integrates harmoniously with the building's architectural character, rather than seeming like a box-like structure.

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. he CPWD forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal at its meetings held on August 08, 2025, and September 11, 2025, respectively, and specific observations were given.
3. The revised building plans proposal (2 basements + G+6 floors) 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-09092562035 dated 17.09.2025. Based on the submission and replies submitted, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The submitted 3D views indicate the use of both WPC Jali and GRC Jali on the façade. To maintain visual uniformity, it shall be ensured that only one material is used for the Jali treatment across the façade.

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

c) 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.

d) Work of public art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at an appropriate level, 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 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.

f) 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.

Building plans proposal for the Addition/alteration of a Residential building on plot no- 99, Block 171 at Sunder Nagar. (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. No previous record of approvals(formal/completion) taken from the Commission has been found in the Commission's available record.
3. The building plans proposal for (addition and alteration) for a Residential building (Basement + ground + 3 floors) received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that while considering the case for additions/alterations, it did not consider or cover the existing built construction at the site. This concerns the proposal for additions and alterations only.

b) Discrepancies have been observed in the submission. While the documents indicate that the existing building includes a basement, ground floor, and three upper floors, the site photographs suggest that the structure has a basement, ground floor, and two upper floors. Updated, uncut site photographs shall be provided, showing the actual height of the building, along with a key plan indicating the location and orientation of each photograph to ensure clarity about the depicted areas.

c) The submitted drawings, including plans, elevations, and sections, contain discrepancies. The elevations display colour coding that suggests the entire building façade is proposed, whereas the site photographs show that it is already built. Additionally, the proposed modifications are not reflected in the sections. As a result, the submission lacks clarity because it does not clearly distinguish between existing and proposed elements through appropriate colour coding, in line with the relevant building bye-laws, which confuses the overall presentation. To improve clarity, superimposed drawings, including plans, elevations, and sections, should be submitted to clearly illustrate the extent of the proposed changes, with the existing building overlaid with the proposed modifications.

d) The proposal has been shown in isolation without any existing context and the   development on the site, to ensure a cohesive review, the Commission advises that 3D views of the site be superimposed with the existing context of the surroundings. This should include the incorporation of road networks and nearby structures to provide a comprehensive understanding of the proposal within its actual environment.

e) The entire proposal shall adhere to all the applicable statutory provisions and norms/regulations of the prevailing Lutyens Bungalow Zone (LBZ) guidelines. As the property falls within the LBZ area, it shall be forwarded through the concerned local body, ensuring all necessary compliances are met.

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

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

h) 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 conceptual stage is incomplete, has discrepancies 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 CPWD forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal for Common Central Secretariat (8 & 9) at its meeting held on September 18, 2025, specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal for Common Central Secretariat 8 & 9 (one basement + G + 7 floors with a height of 36.90 m) 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-09092562036 dated 25.09.2025. Based on the submission and replies submitted, including security requirements, the following observations are to be complied with:

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

b) 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. 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) 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.

d) 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.