Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1838th meeting held on 24.10.2025.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of the 1838th meeting held on 24.10.2025 were discussed.

1. The North-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal (Demolition & Reconstruction for a residential building) at its meeting held on August 28, 2025; specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal for Demolition & Reconstruction (B + S + G + 3 floors) in respect to the Residential building 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-25082523013 dated 02.09.2025. Based on the replies submitted and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that although the new building has been proposed after demolishing the existing development of the site, the design scheme has been presented without demolition plans. It is reiterated that:

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

Since the proposal involves demolition and reconstruction, the architect shall be required to submit a superimposed plan that clearly illustrates the existing structure overlaid with the proposed structure, depicting the proposed modifications. 

b) The North symbol in the drawings has been marked incorrectly; it should be re-examined, and the orientation should be corrected.

c) The direction of the solar panels should be aligned with the solar orientation. The 3D view of the terrace shows outdoor air-conditioning units placed too close to each other, facing each other. This arrangement is not recommended because the exhaust air may collide and hinder functionality. Their placement needs to be revised for better effectiveness.

d) In several parts of the drawing, pipes are depicted within the columns, which should be avoided for safety and maintenance reasons.

e) Drawings show that the columns are not aligned at several points. The structural setup should be coordinated across all floors to maintain uniformity and stability. Additionally, the terrace plan shows columns that are missing from the proposed 3D view, creating a discrepancy that needs to be addressed.

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, 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 has discrepancies, lacks clarity and was resubmitted without satisfactorily addressing its previous observations. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and those communicated vide DUAC Observation Letter No. OL-25082523013 dated 02.09.2025 and provide a point-by-point response incorporating the details.

1. The South-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal 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 building plans proposal for a residential building (two blocks proposed on the site, one for residential and the other for servants) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised; the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The site photographs provided show an existing building; however, it is unclear whether the structure has been proposed to be completely demolished or if the proposal includes only additions and modifications. If demolition and reconstruction are involved, the architect must submit a superimposed plan that clearly overlays the existing structure with the proposed changes.

b) The entire proposal must comply with all relevant statutory provisions and norms/regulations of the prevailing Lutyens Bungalow Zone (LBZ) guidelines. Details, along with a comparative statement showing the existing and proposed built-up areas, shall be provided to demonstrate conformity with the applicable LBZ norms.​​​​​​​

c) The submitted 3D views lack sufficient details about materiality, making them incomplete and incomprehensible. Since the submission is at the formal stage, it must include high-quality, detailed 3D views that are clearly annotated to show the proposed façade materiality.​​​​​​​

d) The site is situated at a prominent junction, adjacent to both a main road and a side road; therefore, its architectural features, including the boundary wall, could directly influence the overall aesthetics of the city. The proposed 3D view shows a simple, solid boundary wall with no detailing, including materiality. It is important that the revised submission provides comprehensive details of the gate, guard room, and boundary wall, along with annotated 3D views, plans, elevations, and sections.​​​​​​​

e) The side elevation of the building, as shown in the proposed 3D view, has not been found aesthetically satisfactory by the Commission. The window placements appear irregular, with mismatched sill and lintel levels, resulting in a visually uncoordinated façade. Additionally, the design of the window chajjas lacks aesthetic coherence. Overall, the façade design appears to lack careful consideration and does not present a pleasing architectural composition.​​​​​​​

f) There is a discrepancy in the submission because the windows shown in the drawings and 3D views do not match. All drawings, including plans, elevations, sections, and 3D views, should be consistent and coherent. Additionally, some windows, like those in the bedroom, are missing from the elevation, making the submission incomplete. These issues should be corrected and the submission resubmitted.​​​​​​​

g) The lift seems to open onto the mid-landing, which is not a safe location for users. It is recommended to reconsider the lift's position and move it to a more appropriate location in line with the relevant building bye-laws.​​​​​​​

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

i) All plumbing pipes, rainwater pipes, service equipment, 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 has discrepancies, lacks clarity and is incomplete. 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 the Common Central Secretariat (4 & 5) at its meeting held on October 16, 2025, and specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal for Common Central Secretariat 4 & 5 (one basement + G + 7 floors with a height of 36.90 m) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, along with replies submitted in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no. OL-15102562044 dated 24-10-2025. Based on the replies submitted, drawings, documentations, and project reports, etc., 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, subject to feasibility as per building bye-laws. This placement also facilitates easy maintenance, reduces heat load through increased shading, and improves aesthetics. 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.

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.

1. The NDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal at its meeting held on October 09, 1980 and subsequently accepted the NOC for completion at its meeting held on September 16, 1987.
3. The Commission approved the proposal for demolition and reconstruction at its meeting held on July 13, 2023; specific observations were given. The Commission did not approve the revised proposal for demolition and reconstruction at its meetings held on September 11, 2025 and October 1, 2025; specific observations were given.
4. The revised building plan proposal for demolition and reconstruction (03 Basements + ground + 6 floors) was scrutinised along with replies submitted in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no. OL-25092524026 dated 07-10-2025, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The design proposal incorporates provisions for double-stack parking arrangements to meet the necessary parking requirements. The architect and proponent must ensure the proper implementation of these arrangements on-site, which shall be examined during the proposal's completion stage. 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, subject to feasibility as per building bye-laws. This placement also facilitates easy maintenance, reduces heat load through increased shading, and improves aesthetics. 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.

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.

1. The NDMC 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 South African High Commission Chancery & Office Block (B+G+3) floors and High Commissioners official residence (B+G+01 floors) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and a detailed discussion was held along with a presentation made to the Commission by the architect (online) on Cisco Webex meetings, during which clarifications were provided to the Commission’s queries. Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations, and photographs, etc, the discussion held, and the presentation made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The site is situated in a highly visible part of the city, requiring an understanding of the surrounding context to evaluate the project's impact. To enhance clarity, the architect should submit a broader contextual plan that includes the site surroundings, highlighting roads, nearby buildings, and key landmarks.

b) The proposed 3D views showcase a prominent circular design element that would greatly impact the overall aesthetics of the complex and its surroundings. Since the structure is curved and made of metal, detailed structural information, including construction methods, fixing details, lighting arrangements, and material choices, should be submitted as drawings and 3D views to fully explain its design and function.

c) Similarly, details of jaali, including materiality, construction, fixing details, and other relevant information, should be submitted in the form of drawings and 3D views in the revised submission.

d) During the online presentation and discussion, the architect referred to a podium level, which is not reflected in the submitted sections. It shall be ensured that details of the podium level are incorporated in all drawings, including plans, elevations, sections, and 3D views, along with appropriate annotations to clearly explain its functionality.

e) All submitted 3D views shall be supplemented with detailed information of façade materiality to ensure that the overall design scheme is clear and self-explanatory.

f) The submitted 3D views depict landscaped areas located outside the site boundary, forming part of the public realm. It shall be ensured that appropriate details, including plant species, their location, height, and arrangement, are provided to comprehensively explain the landscaping scheme, as it would have a direct impact on the aesthetics of the site and its surroundings.

g) The staircase within the circular feature seems visually incompatible, as it is juxtaposed with the circular form incongruently and also exceeds its height, impacting the overall resolution of the design. It is recommended to revise this element to create a cohesive and proportionate composition that aligns with the broader urban and environmental aesthetics.

h) Details pertaining to parking, including overall capacity, vehicular and pedestrian circulation patterns, as well as entry and exit points, are not clearly illustrated in the current submission. It shall be ensured that comprehensive details of the same are provided, including the manner in which visitor parking is accommodated within and around the site. All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations, etc.

i) From the submission, it appears that the site comprises a substantial extent of hard surface coverage, which may contribute to issues such as urban flooding. It shall be ensured that the importance of soft landscaping is maximised, while maintaining adequate pathways for fire tender movement around the site.

j) During the presentation, the architect explained that the terrace design is integrated with a raised structure supporting the solar panels, forming an integral part of the overall design. Detailed 3D views at the terrace level shall be submitted to better illustrate the solar panel arrangement, along with fixing and structural details for clarity and completeness.

k) 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, subject to feasibility as per building bye-laws. This placement also facilitates easy maintenance, reduces heat load through increased shading, and improves aesthetics. 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.

l) 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.

m) 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. Overall, the proposal received at the formal stage lacks clarity. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and provide a point-by-point incorporation and response.

1. The NDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The building plans proposal for Karnataka Sangeetha Sabha was approved by the Commission at its meeting held on June 23, 2010, specific observations were given.
3. The proposal for NOC for the completion (Karnataka Sangeetha Sabha) received (online) at the completion stage, was scrutinised. Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations, photographs, etc., the proposal for NOC for Completion in respect of (Karnataka Sangeetha Sabha) is found to be accepted. 

Building plan proposal for additions and alterations in respect of Bal Bharti School, Sector 12, Dwarka.

1. The DDA forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on August 10, 2000, and the NOC for completion plan approval was given in the meeting of the Commission held on February 12, 2008. The revised layout and building plan proposal was approved in the meeting of the Commission held on May 07, 2014. The NOC for completion (third floor only) was accepted by the Commission at its June 25, 2021, meeting. The Commission accepted the proposal for additions/alterations (addition of classrooms from first to third floor) at conceptual stage at its meeting held on August 22, 2024 specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal for additions and alteration (addition of classrooms from first to third floor) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) It shall be ensured that all classrooms and other areas on all floors are accessible for the differently abled persons as per the prevalent building bye-laws.

b) Inconsistencies observed in the submission at the formal stage include differences between the windows depicted in the architectural drawings and those shown in the 3D views. For example, the floor plans feature windows with chajjas, while the proposed 3D views display plain windows. However, the existing windows are shown differently. To ensure coherence in the submission, it shall be ensured that the proposed additions match the existing architectural vocabulary, form, and elements. Additionally, all drawings and 3D views must be coordinated appropriately to maintain consistency and coherence throughout the submission.

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

d) 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.

e) 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.

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, subject to feasibility as per building bye-laws. This placement also facilitates easy maintenance, reduces heat load through increased shading, and improves aesthetics. 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.

4. Overall, the proposal received at the formal stage has discrepancies, lacks clarity and is incomplete. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and provide a point-by-point incorporation and response.

Building plans proposal for addition and alterations with respect to plot no. 3 (D-Mart), CBD Shahdara

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

Revised building plans proposal for additions/alterations in respect of Commercial Building at Plot Nos. 4, 5, 6 at District Centre, Wazirpur

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

Proposal in respect of additions and alterations at premises no.  P-7/90, Connaught Circus, Connaught Place (Conceptual Stage)

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

Layout and building plans proposal in respect of Group Housing at Birla Mills Complex, GT Karnal Road, Near Clock Tower, Kamla Nagar. (Conceptual Stage)

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