Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1840th meeting held on 06.11.2025.

1. The North-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 received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised; 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), available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

c) 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.

1. The South-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the revised layout plan in respect of South Asian University at Maidan Garhi at its meeting held on June 18, 2014.
3. The Commission approved the building plans in respect of Art & Design, Convention Centre, Art Galleries & Museum Building no. 6 and 7 at its meeting on March 01, 2017.
4. The proposal for NOC for completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised. Based on the submission, including documentation, drawings, photographs, and letter no. SAU/9A-157/2024/Vol-II/519 dated 28.03.2025, along with its annexures from the Registrar, South Asian University, the proposal for the completion of NOC (Faculty of Art & Design, building no. 6) is accepted.

1. The CPWD 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. The Commission did not approve the proposal at its meeting held on September 05, 2024 and November 21, 2024, respectively; observations were given.
3. The proposal received online at the formal stage was scrutinised, along with the replies submitted in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-13112462020 dated 27.11.2024 and a detailed 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, documentations, and photographs and the discussion held, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) It has been observed that the submission has been resubmitted without satisfactorily addressing previous observations outlined in DUAC letter no: OL-13112462020 dated 27.11.2024, which is not appreciated.

b) It is again reiterated that:

“…The drawings mention renovation of the existing toilet, whereas it is observed that the proposal is for demolition and reconstruction of toilet blocks. Also, the submission does not mention the reasons for the renovation/reconstruction…

…The details of column termination, including the base and its fixing in the ground, materiality, size of the column, and their construction detail, are missing and shall be provided in the submission….”

c) Several inconsistencies have been noted in the submission due to differences between the submitted drawings and the 3D views, particularly in areas such as the gate, the maintenance office, and the renovation of the existing café. Since the submission is at the formal stage, it is essential to ensure that all details in the drawings and the 3D views are consistent to maintain coherence and accuracy across the entire submission.

d) Since the proposal involves a large complex with multiple areas or blocks, detailed information for each area or block, including all side 3D views, needs to be elucidated in the proposed interventions.

A.  Toilet design:

i. The submitted drawings and 3D views do not clearly illustrate the structural detailing of the bamboo structure, such as how it is tied and fixed to the base. Moreover, the 3D views depict bamboo columns supporting on concrete pedestals, which is not appreciated as they do not explain drainage or future maintenance. A detailed sectional drawing showing the correct fixing method should be provided to clearly illustrate the structural and construction details, including the base.

ii. The drainage system for the overhead water storage tank through the shaft has not been clearly explained. It is necessary to ensure that suitable drainage mechanisms are installed within the shafts and that the shafts are properly screened to maintain the structure's aesthetics.

iii. The chajja above the shaft screening in the proposed 3D views appears disproportionate and serves no functional purpose. Its inclusion is visually inappropriate and may accumulate dust or be affected by water streaks, reducing the structure's visual appeal. Therefore, it is recommended to remove the chajjas or workout aesthetic appealing solutions.

B.  Gate:

i. The gate has been shown in isolation without its surrounding features, such as the boundary wall, sidewalks, and signage, which do not present a complete picture. Since the gate exists and is only being renovated in its current setting, it should be shown superimposed within the surrounding context of the site.

ii. Additionally, since the gate is being renovated, it is recommended to consider alternative design options using timber instead of metal to ensure the gate harmonises with the overall aesthetic, which is mostly wood or finished to look like wood.

C.  Maintenance office:

i. The roof profile of the maintenance office shown in the plan seems different from that in the 3D views, indicating a discrepancy between the drawings. It was also noticed that, in some areas, the bamboo frustum columns are depicted as freestanding without supporting any roof element, which appears to be inaccurate.

ii. The typical section illustrating the frustum column detail is unclear, as it does not sufficiently explain the drainage and fixing details at the base level. Additionally, the structural bracing, specifically how the ring ties with the bamboo members, is not clearly depicted. A detailed section that includes all relevant details should be submitted to ensure a functional and structurally safe design.

D.  Renovation of existing Café:

i. The 3d views appear to be sketchy and not properly illustrated, as they show incorrect information like freestanding column structures that do not hold any roof structure. Also, the roof profile in the elevation does not match that in the 3D view, indicating a mismatch.

E.  Redevelopment of waterbody:

i. The submitted drawings do not clearly show which parts of the waterbody are proposed for redevelopment or specify the exact location of the section. As a result, the proposed design scheme for the waterbody redevelopment is unclear. It needs more details, including the location of the section cut, information about the redeveloped ghats, and other essential details.

F.  Solar car ports:

i. The structural details shown in the sections and drawings do not correspond with those depicted in the proposed 3D views, resulting in inconsistencies within the submission. As the proposal is at the formal stage, it must be ensured that all drawings and 3D views present coherent, aligned details so that the proposed design scheme reflects correct, complete information.

G.  Elevated wooden walkway:

i. The 3D view of the elevated walkway shows a railing with wide spacing, which could pose safety risks for users, especially small children, due to the height of the walkway. It must be confirmed that the railing design adheres to safety standards, and the revised submission should include a detailed section clearly illustrating the proposed railing configuration.

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

f) 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) and Memorandum dated October 07, 2025 available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in. Any deviations in the artwork from the approved design must be submitted to the Commission for prior approval before the commencement of construction, to ensure compliance and facilitate final approval upon project completion.

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, 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.

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 has discrepancies, is incoherent, 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-13112462020 dated 27.11.2024 and provide a point-by-point response incorporating the details.

1. The CPWD forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the redevelopment of GPRA Srinivaspuri at its meeting held on May 29, 2019.  The Commission did not approve the revised proposal in respect of GPRA Srinivaspuri at its meeting held on October 16, 2025; specific observations were made.
3. The revised layout and building plan proposal for (construction of 3112 nos. Type III Residential Units, Multilevel car parking block, community centre and CGHS dispensary) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-08102562042 dated 24.10.2025. Based on the submission made, including drawings, photographs and the replies submitted, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the site layout plan has been revised from the layout previously approved by DUAC at its meeting on May 29, 2019. As per information furnished in the project report, the revisions include:

“……a)   As required by CPWD, type-II quarters were abolished & new type- III quarters are proposed in placed of Type-II.

b)  All Existing schools are retained at their original location.

c) A parking block and community hall +dispensary is proposed.

d) Type- III units & Cluster layout updated due to change in the unit area as per revised GPRA Norms. (Ministry letter dated 23rd Jan.2024).

e) Type-III towers increased & relocated 10 to 16 numbers, number of floors also changed earlier it was B+S+2Podium+14-16, now its B+S+3Podium+25 and S+3F+24.

f) Number of type-III units are increased 1500 to 3112, and type-II 1554 units are removed.

g) Two towers of type-IV are removed. Therefore, Total number of units are reduced from 1350 to 1176 nos.

h) Total number of units are reduced 4994 to 4878 nos…….”

b) Further, in addition to the revised layout plan, the proposal also includes the building plan proposal for the construction of 3112 nos. Type III Residential Units, Multilevel car parking block, community centre and CGHS dispensary.

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) and Memorandum dated October 07, 2025 available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in. Any deviations in the artwork from the approved design must be submitted to the Commission for prior approval before the commencement of construction, to ensure compliance and facilitate final approval upon project completion.

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, 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.

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.

1. The CPWD forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans in respect of Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri Rastriya Sanskrit Vidyapeeth at Katwaria Sarai at its meeting held on March 01, 2001.
3. The building plan proposal for the Construction of Boys’ and Girls’ Hostel 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) The proposal includes girls’ and boys’ hostel buildings (basement + G+9 floors) within an existing large campus. Since these buildings are part of an established campus, their surrounding context and character shall help in reviewing the proposal more effectively. To provide a clearer understanding of the site, 3D views shall be superimposed with the surroundings, showing the existing environment, neighbouring building types, street layouts, access routes, and the overall built character.

b) The Commission noted that the proposed boys' and girls' hostel blocks are about 11 meters apart, and their windows face each other and may compromise privacy. Alternative designs should be considered to prevent windows from directly overlooking the opposite block, ensuring sufficient natural light and ventilation, and these options should be resubmitted for the Commission's review. 

c) Typical functional furniture arrangement for the rooms (both boys’ and girls’ hostel) to be provided in the floor plans, to understand its functioning and efficiency better. 

d) Appropriate provisions for drying clothes, accommodating outdoor air conditioners, and their screening mechanisms shall be included so as not to spoil the aesthetics of the façade.

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

f) The rear 3D view depicts the ramp covering situated directly in front of the ground-floor windows, which obstructs natural light and ventilation. It shall be ensured that the ramp design does not block light or airflow, and that the windows remain accessible for maintenance. The same shall be revised and resubmitted for review.

g) The elevation shows full-height panels intended for artwork or murals, finished with textured paint and mosaic or mural tiles. It is advisable to reduce the size of these panels to prevent them from dominating or overpowering the building's overall architectural character.

h) Further, the proposed artwork shall be submitted to the Commission for prior approval. Any deviations from the approved design in the artwork must be submitted to the Commission for prior approval before commencement of construction, to ensure compliance and facilitate final approval upon project completion. 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) and Memorandum dated October 07, 2025 available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

i) 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.

j) 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 has discrepancies and lacks clarity. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and provide a point-by-point response incorporating the details.

1. The CPWD forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The building plans proposal for the Construction of a combined building received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) It was observed that the proposed 3D views show the addition of chajjas over the windows on both the ground and first floors. Since the windows are set within a boxed projection, chajjas are unnecessary for weather protection, especially on the first floor, where the box projection provides sufficient coverage. 

b) The proposed 3d views show artwork on the façade in two adjacent panels. The design of the proposed art work to be pre-approved by the Commission.  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) and Memorandum dated October 07, 2025 available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in. Any deviations in the artwork from the approved design must be submitted to the Commission for prior approval before the commencement of construction, to ensure compliance and facilitate final approval upon project completion.

c) The site plan indicates provision for surface parking, which is discouraged by the Commission as it contributes to issues such as urban flooding due to extensive hard-paved areas. Alternative locations should be explored to accommodate the required parking in the basement or at the stilt level. All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations, etc.

d) 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.

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.

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

Building plans proposal in respect of the Construction of the Medical College and Hospital by Atal Bihari Vajpayee Institute of Medical Sciences and Dr Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi

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

Revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations in respect of the Residential building on plot no. 149, Golf Links

1. The NDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal for additions and alterations at its meeting on February 22, 2024. 
3. The revised building plans proposal for additions/alterations (position of lift, provision of cupboards, proposed pergola along with retractable roof proposed on the second floor) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, 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) 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.
 

Layout and Building plans proposal for additions and alteration in respect of Krishnan CGHS Ltd. on plot no. 19, Pocket no. 6, Dwarka

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

Revised Layout and Building plans proposal for in respect of Commercial Complex at Sector-22, Rohini.

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

Part completion plans proposal in respect of 15 nos. of Residential towers (T-II-9 Nos. & T-III-6 Nos.) under Redevelopment of GPRA Colony, Phase-I, Kasturba Nagar.

1. The CPWD forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the proposal for the redevelopment of General Pool Residential Accommodation at Kasturba Nagar in its meeting held on January 28, 2020, along with specific observations. However, the revised Master Plan proposal was not accepted by the Commission in its meeting held on January 16, 2025. Subsequently, the proposal was also not approved at the formal stage in the meetings held on March 6, 2025, April 24, 2025, and June 5, 2025, with detailed observations.
3. The revised master plan, with a division of the site into two zones, Zone 1 and Zone 2, was approved at its meeting held on June 26, 2025, with specific observations.
4. The Commission did not approve the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on October 16, 2025; specific observations were given.
5. The revised building plans proposal for NOC for the Completion (Part- for 15 nos. of Residential towers T-II-9 nos. T-III-6 nos.) received online at the completion stage, was scrutinized along previous observations of the communicated vide DUAC letter no. OL-11102564009 dated 24.10.2025. Based on the revised submission made, including drawings, documentations, and photographs, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) It has been noted that the submission was resubmitted without adequately addressing the earlier observations and concerns outlined in DUAC letter no: OL-11102564009 dated 24.10.2025. Especially relevant to the completed Public Art on the building façades, which was not pre-approved by the Commission.

b) It was also observed that while outlining the detailed observations on the proposal at its meeting held on 16.10.2025, it was concluded that:

“……. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and furnish a pointwise incorporation and reply…”

But the pointwise incorporation and replies have not been submitted, and these issues still remain noncompliant in the current submission, thereby rendering the submission unsuitable for proper review.

6. Overall, the proposal received at the completion stage is incomprehensible and lacks clarity, especially in view of the non-compliance and the point-wise replies to its previous observations communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-11102564009 dated 24.10.2025. The architect is again advised to adhere to all the above observations and furnish a pointwise incorporation and reply.

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.