Action Taken Reports in respect of Minutes of 1846th meeting held on 11.12.2025.

1. Action Taken Reports in respect of Minutes of the 1846th meeting held on 11.12.2025 were discussed.

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 Commission's available record.
3. The building plans proposal for addition and alterations in a residential building (proposed two additional floors i.e. second and third floors) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and the following observations are 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) It is observed that the address mentioned in the proforma and the project report are not the same, resulting in a discrepancy in the submission. It shall be ensured that all details, including the address, project location, and architect’s details (contact number and email ID), are consistent across all submitted documents to ensure accurate and consistent documentation.

c) The submission pertains to the addition/alteration of the second and third floors; however, it is observed that the overall scheme, particularly the façade, appears to have been substantially altered. It shall be ensured that the proposed scheme is clearly superimposed on the existing scheme to indicate the scope of the proposed modifications clearly. The superimposed elevations shall distinctly differentiate between the existing and proposed elements to provide clarity.

d) It was observed that the submitted existing ground-floor plan does not align with the site photographs, as the locations of doors, windows, and architectural elements shown in the photographs do not match those indicated in the plans, resulting in a discrepancy. Additionally, the existing ground-floor and first-floor plans show a lift provision, which shall be substantiated by providing the uncut photographs. It shall be ensured that the submitted plans, elevations, and sections accurately reflect both the existing and the proposed design, ensuring coherence and consistency in the submission.

e) Provision of rainwater drainage pipes on balconies and the terrace level, along with plumbing shafts for the toilet and kitchen area, is not shown in the submitted drawings. It shall be ensured that drainage details are provided, including screening mechanisms to conceal the rainwater pipes and plumbing shafts, so as not to mar the urban aesthetics of the façade.

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

g) 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 lacks clarity, 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 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 meetings held on July 24, 2025 and August 28, 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 dated 30.07.2025 and 02.09.2025. Based on the replies submitted 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) It has been observed that the submission has been resubmitted without satisfactorily addressing previous observations outlined in DUAC letter no: OL-23072555125 dated 30.07.2025, and dated 02.09.2025 which is not appreciated.

c) An earlier observation of the Commission vide letter no: OL-23072555125 dated 30.07.2025 has not been complied with which stated that –

“(c )…The submitted 3D views show the existing structure as G+2 with an added lift, keeping the lower G+2 floors as it is and only proposing the third floor. However, the proposed 3D views indicate a complete renovation of the external façade, which conflicts with the proposal's intent and the submitted report, creating ambiguity in the formal submission. The architect must ensure that the proposed elevation of the third floor in the 3D views matches the existing elevation, as it is an extension of the current building. If the proposal also involves fully renovating the external façade, the submission must be revised accordingly and resubmitted…”

It shall be ensured that the architect adheres to all the observations made by the Commission to ensure consideration of the proposal.

d) The submission refers to an existing basement; however, the corresponding site photographs have not been provided. It shall be ensured that existing photographs of all floors, including the basement and terrace, are submitted to clearly indicate the current status and condition of the spaces to understand the existing situation better.

e) Provision of rainwater drainage pipes in balconies and the terrace level along with provision of plumbing shafts for toilet and kitchen area 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, plumbing shafts shall also be provided so as not to mar the urban aesthetics of the façade.

f) 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 lacks clarity, has discrepancies, and needs improvement. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and those furnished vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-23072555125 dated 30.07.2025, and 02.09.2025 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 Commission's available record.
3. The building plans proposal for a residential building for additions and alterations (comprising of existing ground floor and additions to the first to third floors) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and the following observations are 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) Since the building involves an addition to an existing superstructure, a significant amount of live and dead load is also being added; the concerned local authority must ensure structural safety.

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

d) 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 North-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on November 27, 2025; specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal for a residential building (comprising of basement + Ground + 3 floors) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no. OL-20112523020 dated 03.12.2025. Based on the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) It has been observed that the submission has been resubmitted without satisfactorily addressing the earlier observations outlined in DUAC letter no: OL-20112523020 dated 03.12.2025, which is not appreciated. The architect shall ensure that point-wise responses to the earlier observations of the Commission comply with.

b) It was observed that the same credentials have been used for the owner and the architect, with the mobile number and email remaining the same. The correct credentials shall be submitted.

c) It shall be ensured that the horizontal band running around the windows/doors is discontinued at the base where it meets the ground perpendicularly and is provided only at the top, in conjunction with the vertical elements, to enhance the aesthetic quality of the façade.

d) The depiction of the windows being openable is not appropriate in the 3d views, as cited before in the previous observations of the Commission, which stated that –

“… (c) The windows on the façade all seem fixed, lacking realistic provisions for appropriate openings.”

It is understood that the architect misinterpreted the observation, i.e. it should be a window that can be opened for light and ventilation.

e) Provision of rainwater drainage pipes 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, etc., so as not to mar the aesthetics of the façade.

f) It is observed that the mumty as depicted in the submitted 3D views differs from that shown in the drawings, resulting in a mismatch. It shall be ensured that all drawings, including plans, elevations, and sections, are duly coordinated with the submitted 3D views to ensure consistency in the proposal.

g) Part sections have been provided. It was suggested that complete end-to-end sections (including XX and YY) be provided to understand better the design scheme, including the façade, elevational features, and material applications. 

h) Elevations shall be enhanced by incorporating architectural elements, forms, and materials that reflect the traditional heritage of Shahjahanabad, thereby augmenting their aesthetic appeal.

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

j) 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 lacks clarity, has discrepancies, needs improvement and is incomplete. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and those furnished in the DUAC observation letter no. OL-20112523020, dated 03.12.2025, and provide a point-by-point incorporation and response.

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 October 17, 2018, and the revised building plan proposal was approved at the meeting of the Commission held on December 12, 2024; specific observations were given.
3. The Commission did not accept the proposal for NOC for completion at its meeting held on December 3, 2025; specific observations were given.
4. The proposal for NOC for completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised, along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no. OL-25112548064 dated 08.12.2025.  Based on the submission, replies made including documentation, drawings, and photographs, the architect shall remove the louvres provided on the outdoor units and, and instead install appropriate screening, as indicated in the earlier observations of the Commission; the proposal for the completion of NOC for completion is found to be accepted.

1. The NDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. Earlier, the Commission approved the building plans proposal for demolition and reconstruction at its meeting held on November 25, 2021; specific observations were given.
3. The proposal for NOC for completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised 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, photographs, and the discussion held, the proposal for the completion of NOC for is found to be accepted.

1. The DDA forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission had earlier approved the proposal at its meeting held on 02.02.1996 and the Completion plans were returned to the DDA by the Sub-Committee at its meeting held on 21.10.2003.
3. The Commission at its meeting held on November 22, 2005 had accepted the recommendations of the meeting of the sub-Committee held on November 11, 2005.
4. The building plans proposal for additions and alterations (proposed extension of bedroom, toilet, balcony & kitchen) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised 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, photographs, and the discussion held, the following observations are 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 submission is incomplete at the formal stage, as it lacks photographs of the terrace, basement and the open, green areas. It shall be ensured that site photographs of all blocks and all areas, including the terrace, basement area etc. are submitted so as to explain the proposal complete at the formal stage.

c) The areas where additions/alterations have been envisaged, these areas shall be presented with actual photographs and design superimposition so as to understand the interventions better.

d) It has been observed from the submitted site photographs that triangular-shaped arches provided between the two buildings have been removed in the proposal. It shall be ensured that, in the revised submission, details of how the inner courtyard is proposed to be treated after the proposed modifications are clearly illustrated in the 3D views, so as to explain the functioning and spatial character of the spaces.

e) The proposed design scheme does not include provisions for screening outdoor air-conditioning units, drying clothes on balconies, or concealing plumbing pipes and service shafts. A comprehensive screening strategy should be developed for all these service elements within each block to preserve façade aesthetics and prevent adverse impacts. To enhance understanding, detailed large-scale drawings, such as plans, elevations, sections, and 3D views, of a typical block should be provided.

f) The location of the Swachh Bharat toilet is indicated in the submission; however, the requisite details are missing. It shall be ensured that complete drawings, including plans, elevations, sections, and 3D views, are provided in the revised submission to elaborate the design scheme and demonstrate its integration with the overall complex.

g) The Commission emphasised that the building must properly screen all exposed pipes, designate screened spaces for outdoor air conditioning units, and remove all temporary balcony coverings.

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

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

j) 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.

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.

5. Overall, the proposal received at the formal stage lacks clarity, 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.