Action Taken Reports in respect of Minutes of 1862nd meeting held on 02.04.2026.

1. Action Taken Reports in respect of Minutes of the 1862nd meeting held on 02.04.2026 were discussed.

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

1. The DDA forwarded (through email) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal received at formal stage at its meeting held on December 12, 2018. The Commission accepted the revised concept of the proposal at its meetings held on 25.06.2021 and approved the formal submission at its meeting on 08.09.2022; specific observations were given. The Commission did not accept the NOC for completion plans proposal at completion stage at its meeting held on November 27, 2025; specific observations were made.
3. Subsuquenlty, the Commission accepted the revised landscape layout plan proposal received at conceptual stage (through online) at its meeting held on March 5, 2026.
4. The proposal for NOC for completion (Sant Nirankari Mandal Hospital) received (through email) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no:  OL-19112548063 dated 03.12.2025. Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations, photographs submitted, and the replies submitted, the proposal for NOC for Completion is accepted.

Building plans proposal in respect of “Commercial Centre at Diwan Hall Road, Chandni Chowk, New Delhi – 110006”. (Conceptual Stage)

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

Building plans proposal in respect of “Residential building at plot no. 2038, 2058-59 and new numbers - 4069 to 4073, 4117 to 4121, Gali Sate Wali, Chawri Bazar, Nai Sarak, Ward no.VI”. (Conceptual Stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The building proposal for residential building (ground + three floors) received (through online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised. Based on the submission made, including documentation, drawings, and photographs; 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 authorization from the owner appointing the architect for the project and proof of valid registration of the architect with the Council of Architecture (COA) and registration with the local body (license issued for non-architects) 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.

3. 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.

Building plans proposal in respect of “Proposed building plans of Add./Alts in Existing Motel Building on New Khasra no. 98, Village Chandan Hola, Chhatarpur, New Delhi”.  (Conceptual Stage)

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

1. The North-DMC forwarded (through email) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal for additions and alterations at its meeting held on February 26, 2026; specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal of a commercial building for additions and alterations (alteration to ground floor and proposed basement, first to third floor), received (through email) at the formal stage was scrutinized along with the compliances made to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-24022623188 dated 10.03.2026, 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, project report, photographs, replies submitted etc, and the discussion held, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that when evaluating the case for additions or alterations, it did not take into account the existing built construction at the site. This relates only to the proposal for additions and alterations.

b) It has been observed that the submission has been resubmitted without satisfactorily addressing of previous observations of the Commission outlined in DUAC letter no. OL-OL-24022623188 dated 10.03.2026 especially related to the observation no 2(b).

c) To meet the parking requirements of the site, the architect has proposed double-stack parking arrangements in the basement, both perpendicular and parallel to the basement walls. The Commission observed that parking vehicles in double-stack systems arranged parallel to the basement wall may not be feasible. However, the architect insisted that the arrangement is workable. The Commission, therefore, advised the architect to submit relevant case studies and product catalogues from established vendors to substantiate the feasibility for better understanding. The parking arrangements shall be in terms of points no. 18 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval)), as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

d) Detailed skin sections shall also be submitted to clearly illustrate the façade treatment, including material specifications and provisions for weather protection.

e) The Commission observed that the proposal needs to be considered holistically and not in isolation. The ground floor plan has been submitted without indicating details such as the front and rear roads, road levels, plinth levels, and the location of entry/exit openings on both sides, rendering the submission inadequate and non-comprehensible. A comprehensive submission, complete in all respects, shall be provided to enable a judicious review by the Commission.

f) During the discussion, the architect informed that ‘exterior emulsion’ is proposed to be used for the work of art on the front façade. The Commission suggested that, in place of a painted finish, mosaic tiles may be considered for the artwork to ensure greater durability, reduced maintenance, and long-term preservation of the façade treatment.

4. Overall, the proposal submitted at the formal stage lacks clarity, particularly inadequate compliance to its earlier observations communicated vide DUAC Observation Letter No. OL-24022623188 dated 10.03.2026. The architect is again advised to adhere to all the above observations and furnish a pointwise incorporation and reply.

1. The North-DMC forwarded (through email) 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 residential building for additions and alterations (comprising of basement + stilt + ground + 3 floors), received (through email) at the formal stage was scrutinized, 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, project report, photographs submitted etc, and the discussion held, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that when evaluating the case for additions or alterations, it did not take into account the existing built construction at the site. This relates only to the proposal for additions and alterations.

b) The architect in its project report has indicated that:

“……the building plan has already been sanctioned by mcd vide approval file no. 10085494 dated: 05/04/2021 for basement + stilt + ground + first + second + third floor (residential). now, we intend to carry out modification, addition, and alteration works on all floors…”

c) Discrepancies have been observed in the submission. While the proposal indicates extensive alterations to the existing superstructure, a comparison of the basement and stilt floor plans shows no corresponding modifications. Additionally, a large area is denoted as ‘open area’ on the stilt floor; however, extensive demolition is indicated in this same area at the ground floor level, which appears inconsistent and not feasible. Similarly, substantial modifications are proposed from the ground floor to the third floor. These inconsistencies need to be clarified and rectified in the revised submission.

d) The Commission observed that the existing building has not been adequately documented through photographs, including the existing front façade, basement, stilt areas, ground floor, and areas indicated as ‘open area’ on the stilt floor. The same shall be properly substantiated with photographic documentation, duly marked on the plans, for better correlation and understanding by the Commission.

e) It was further observed that the existing superstructure comprising a basement, stilt floor, ground floor, first floor, second floor, and third floors has been constructed without indicated structural provisions. Moreover, the current submission does not include any structural scheme. The structural system shall be clearly incorporated in the proposal, particularly as it may impact the parking layout in the stilt area. A revised, corrected, and coordinated submission shall be provided for review by the Commission.

f) All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations, etc. (in terms of points no. 18 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval)), as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

g) The proposal is for the additions/alterations, a lot of live/dead load is being added to the existing building. Structure shall be designed to withstand weather effects and impacts from calamities such as earthquakes, etc.

h) Large balconies have been proposed without adequate provision for rainwater discharge outlets and their screening mechanisms. It shall be ensured that rainwater pipes are properly integrated and suitably screened so as not to adversely impact the aesthetics of the façade. 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.

i) 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 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.