Action Taken Reports in respect of Minutes of 1865th meeting held on 23.04.2026.

1. Action Taken Reports in respect of Minutes of the 1865th meeting held on 23.04.2026 were discussed.

1. The CPWD forwarded (through online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The proposal forwarded by the CPWD was scrutinized. In terms of the Gazette notification no. 4/2/2009/UD/l/6565 dated 1st October 2009 issued by the Department of Urban Development, Govt. of NCT of Delhi ‘North Block and South Block’ listed in the notified list at serial no. 7 are in the Grade-I.
3. The Heritage Conservation Committee (HCC) accepted the proposal for Restoration and Comprehensive repairs of South Block at its meeting on February 17, 2026, specific observations were given.
4. The proposal for the (restoration and comprehensive repairs of South Block) was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that the architect has provided in its report the “Principles of Conservation” indicating the following:

i. Conservation based on Documentary Evidence: Based on historic documentation and understanding developed through physical evidence,

ii. Building’s History The decision to demolish or dismantle shall take into consideration the building’s history.

iii. Conserving the original fabric: The original fabric unless required shall be preserved. All repairs undertaken shall be using similar material. Repairs done shall have the primary goal to return the building to its original condition without altering its integrity and authenticity.

iv. Minimum intervention: Repair/ retrofitting shall be done in such a way that historic material shall be replaced where absolutely necessary. Minimum intervention is necessary to preserve the integrity authenticity historicity and values of the North Block.

v. Reversibility: New interventions shall be such that at any given time they should allow the structure to return back to its original fabric.

vi. Techniques and skills: All interventions planned should be sympathetic and compatible.

vii. Maintenance: New interventions planned should be manageable with regular maintenance and should be cost effective.

b) Taking into consideration all the facts including discussion (online), Principles of Conservation, the Commission opined that the concerned local body, i.e., CPWD, shall ensure that the repair and restoration works are carried out in a manner that preserves the originality of the existing heritage building in terms of its character, construction, colour, form, materials, and other defining attributes. No external interventions shall be undertaken.

c) CPWD shall ensure the structural stability and safety of the building. Originality of the structure shall be preserved during the repair & restoration process, with the use of matching specifications, materials, and traditional techniques to maintain originality.

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 meetings held on February 26, 2026 and April 16, 2026; specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal for additions and alterations (additions and alteration at ground floor and proposed basement, first to third floor), received (through email) at the formal stage was scrutinized along with the replies submitted to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-24022623188 dated 24.04.2026. Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations, photographs, and replies submitted, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The proposed 3D views depict signage displaying the text “Azad Market – India’s Crockery Hub.” Since the proposed signage may be misleading and has the potential to create confusion among users, it is recommended that the same be removed. In its place, appropriate signage in material like mosaic tiles, indicating the address and identity of the building may be provided to ensure better wayfinding, clarity, and user guidance.

b) Further, the submitted 3D views depict the use of two different brick textures, which is not appreciated by the Commission. It is therefore recommended that a single and uniform brick texture be adopted across the entire development to maintain visual consistency and architectural coherence.

c) The proposed basement parking plan indicates parallel parking along the right side of the parking layout, which appears to hinder the smooth and seamless movement of vehicles within the parking area. In view of the same, the proposed parallel parking arrangement shall be removed to ensure efficient circulation and the proper functioning of the double-stack parking system.

d) The design proposal incorporates provisions for double stack parking arrangements to meet the necessary parking requirements. The architect/proponent to ensure the proper implementation of these arrangements on-site, which will be thoroughly examined during the proposal's completion stage. 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.

e) The provisions for road widening shall be addressed by the concerned local body in accordance with prevailing UBBL norms, regulations, and applicable statutory provisions.

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.

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.

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 April 16, 2026; specific observations were given.
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 along with the replies submitted to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-16042623193 dated 24.04.2026. Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations, photographs, and replies submitted, 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-16042623193 dated 24.04.2026 especially related to the observation no 3(b), 3(c), and 3(d).

c) Further, the submitted site photographs indicate that construction activities have already commenced at the site. However, it is not clear whether the ongoing construction is being carried out in accordance with the sanctioned plan approved by the concerned local body, particularly since no prior approval from DUAC appears to have been obtained before the commencement of construction activities.

Accordingly, the present submission shall be prepared and submitted in a comparative format, incorporating the stamped sanctioned drawings approved by the MCD vis-à-vis the revised proposal submitted to DUAC, so as to facilitate a clear understanding the extent of proposed revisions, and assessment of the overall design scheme including existing provisions of a basement.

4. Overall, the proposal received at the formal stage lacks clarity, especially in view of the unsatisfactory compliance to its previous observations communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-16042623193 dated 24.04.2026. 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 online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. No previous reference of approval taken at formal/completion stage has been traced in DUAC records.
3. The building plans proposal for residential building for additions and alterations (comprising Stilt + Ground + 3 upper floors), received (through online) at the formal stage was scrutinized.  Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations, and photographs submitted, 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) Discrepancy observed in the proposed material palette, wherein the proforma specifies use of ‘Apex Ultima paint’ while the submitted 3D views indicate the use of Dholpur stone on the facade. The material specifications shall be made consistent throughout the submission to ensure coherence in the proposed design scheme. Further, the proposed materiality shall be appropriately detailed, including the groove pattern and treatment proposed for the stone finish (in terms of points nos. 8 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

c) The staircase window has been shown aligned with the other windows; however, the same should appropriately correspond with the level of the mid-landing of the staircase. Accordingly, the window placement shall be revised to reflect the actual staircase configuration. Further, the drawings indicate an “open area” at the staircase landing, which appears to be erroneous and shall be corrected in the revised submission. Additionally, all window projections shall be contained within the property line.

d) It shall be ensured that all drawings, including plans, sections, and elevations, are properly co-related with the 3D views to maintain coherence and consistency in the submission.

e) The provisions for road widening shall be addressed by the concerned local body in accordance with prevailing UBBL norms, regulations, and applicable statutory provisions.

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) Appropriate provisions for rainwater drainage at balconies and terraces shall be incorporated, along with suitable screening mechanisms, to ensure proper integration with the overall façade design. 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.

h) 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 inconsistencies, 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 (through email) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the revised layout plan in its meeting held on 23.07.2014 and subsequently approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on 29.07.2015.
3. The proposal for Redevelopment of DTC Headquarter Office Building (2 basements + ground + 11 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, and photographs, etc, the discussion held, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the proposal pertains to the redevelopment of the DTC Headquarters Office Building Complex, which is located along a prominent Ring Road corridor and in close proximity to a metro line, thereby constituting an important urban interface within the city. The site is envisaged to be utilized with approximately 50% of the area designated for operational use and the remaining 50% for administrative office use.

b) Since the building is located at a prominent location, the 3D views shall be superimposed with the site surroundings, reflecting the existing context and showcasing neighbouring building typologies, street patterns, access routes, and the overall built character. Further, the overall design shall be developed in response to the significance of the site location, with due emphasis on creating a distinctive and visually strong architectural identity (in terms of points nos. 4 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

c) The 3D views submitted as part of the proposal depict certain existing structures within the front setback area. The architect clarified that these are existing buildings presently in use and proposed to be demolished during the final phase of development. However, since these structures do not form part of the proposed development, it was advised that they be removed from the submitted 3D views, as their depiction is creating ambiguity and confusion in the visual representation of the proposal. Also, the removal of above-mentioned buildings shall be verified at the time of issuance of NOC for completion; therefore, it shall be ensured that these are removed as mentioned by the architect.

d) The ground floor of the proposed office building is intended to accommodate commercial shops, including food outlets. However, it remains unclear whether these establishments are proposed to be accessible to the general public and, if so, where the provision for visitor parking has been made, particularly since the architect has indicated parking within the basement. Also, the proposed design for the shops does not indicate any shading mechanism. Appropriate shading provisions shall be incorporated into the design to ensure protection from harsh weather conditions and improve user comfort.

e) Additionally, the signage design scheme shall form an integral part of the overall architectural proposal and be submitted for review. Since the access to the basement has been proposed from the rear side, appropriate and well-integrated wayfinding signage shall be provided throughout the site to ensure clear guidance and ease of navigation for users (in terms of points nos. 15 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

f) Since the complex will cater to multiple users, including pedestrians, vehicles, and buses, a comprehensive combined mobility plan clearly indicating seamless and conflict-free pedestrian and vehicular movement within the complex shall be provided in the revised submission. The plan shall include movement patterns from the site entry to all major areas within the development, with clear segregation of pedestrian and vehicular circulation, along with appropriate access, parking, and drop-off arrangements integrated with the overall building design. The same shall be illustrated comprehensively in the revised submission to ensure efficient circulation and functional clarity within the development, in terms of Points Nos. 16, 17, and 18 of the CPAA (Criteria for Project Assessment and Approval), as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

g) The Commission observed that the proposal has been visually segregated into operational and administrative office components, with four (4) entry/exit points proposed from the service lane abutting the plot boundary. Considering the site’s location along a busy arterial road and the operational requirements of buses within the complex. Accordingly, the access strategy shall be carefully examined to ensure smooth traffic management, reduced congestion, and safe vehicular movement within and around the site.

h) The proposed façade of the proposed office building is a combination of Terra Cota louvers, structural glass glazing, and GRC screen Jaali mechanism on top. The Commission opines that in view of its visibility and contextual significance, the façade treatment shall be designed in a manner that is low-maintenance, ensuring that exposure to dust, rainwater, and similar environmental factors does not adversely affect the overall appearance of the development. 

i) Although skin sections have been provided considering the peculiarity nature of the façade design, the proposal shall further elucidate the façade treatment with comprehensive details, including design details, material specifications, junction details, and provisions for weather protection, so as to clearly understand the overall design intent.

j) Further, the west-side elevation appears significantly different from the other elevations, resulting in a lack of visual harmony within the overall design scheme. It shall therefore be ensured that all elevations adopt a cohesive architectural language with consistent design elements, material treatment, and façade articulation so as to maintain visual uniformity and overall coherence across the development (in terms of points nos. 8, and 9 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

k) Details of gate/boundary wall, toilet facilities under Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM), guard rooms, check post etc., are missing in the submission. As these spaces constitute an important interface with the public realm, their design shall be further refined to ensure better visual quality, and integration with the overall architectural character of the complex.

l) The large terrace area proposed at the 9th floor of the office building is suggested to be suitably landscaped, considering its overlooking view towards the metro line, and may also be developed as a recreational space for staff members. Accordingly, detailed design proposals for the same, including landscape plans, detailed drawings, and 3D views/renderings with material specifications, shall be submitted for the review.

m) Since the operational area is expected to be utilized by drivers, adequate provisions and essential amenities shall be ensured for their convenience, including designated sitting areas, toilet facilities, drinking water arrangements, and other necessary support facilities.

n) Since a covering has been proposed over the ramp leading to the basement, but without elucidating with other necessary details including its structural mechanism, materiality etc.  It could impact the overall aesthetics of the complex. Detailed specifications and design details of the same shall be provided in the revised submission, including aspects related to materiality, structural fixing mechanisms, water drainage arrangements, maintenance access, and cleaning provisions for review while ensuring that the proposed structure is cohesively integrated with the overall architectural character and design language of the complex.

o) The buses have been shown parked in open areas without any shading provision. It was suggested that covered shading structures integrated with solar panels may be explored, thereby enabling dual utility in terms of providing weather protection for buses under extreme climatic conditions while also promoting sustainability through the generation of solar energy. The generated energy may further be utilized for illuminating common public areas during nighttime. Accordingly, the design shall be suitably revised with necessary details and resubmitted for review.

p) It shall be ensured that the building is equipped with a lift providing access to the upper floors, in compliance with the principles of universal accessibility.

q) The 3D views submitted as part of the proposal depict the provision of solar panels above the screened terrace area, which is not appreciated by the Commission. The same may therefore be reconsidered and instead, 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.

r) The proposal does not clearly indicate the provision of rooftop utilities on the terrace areas. The revised submission shall include detailed drawings showing all rooftop utilities, including solar panels, water tanks, mechanical equipment, and other service infrastructure, along with appropriate screening mechanisms to ensure visual integration as per Point 10 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in. 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.

s) 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.

4. Overall, the proposal lacks clarity and coherence and requires improvement, it is suggested that the revised proposal be resubmitted at the conceptual stage in order to achieve greater clarity with respect to the overall planning approach, urban design and urban planning. While resubmitting, it shall be ensured that all drawings, including plans, elevations, sections, and 3D views, are properly integrated and co-related with each other to maintain coherence and consistency in the submission. 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 (through online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. No previous reference of approval taken at formal/completion stage has been traced in DUAC records.
3. The building plans proposal for service apartments (3 basements + ground + 9 floors) received (through online) at the formal stage was scrutinized. Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations, project report and photographs submitted, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the proposal for the service apartments is spread over a plot area of 28,551.025 sqm. It was further noted that the area statement of the design scheme has not been sufficiently detailed, as the permissible and proposed calculations for ground coverage, FAR, parking, etc., are not self-explanatory. Although the parking provision has been indicated as 1562 ECS, the overall calculations lack clarity. The architect is advised to revisit the design scheme and submit a comprehensive area statement clearly indicating all relevant details.

b) It was noted that the overall building design, including its architectural elements, presents a distinctive and interesting scheme, particularly the façade treatment and the large landscaped central court, water body with a road above designated as a fire tender lane. However, these design features have not been adequately elucidated through enlarged details, including the landscaping strategy; annotated sections explaining the fire tender lane, its edge detailing and safety mechanisms; façade skin sections with material specifications; provisions for Jacuzzis in balconies and landscaped terraces on the opposite side; weather protection measures; and other relevant design aspects necessary to appropriately convey the overall design intent. Enlarged detailed longitudinal and cross-sections encompassing the entire site shall also be submitted to enable a comprehensive review by the Commission.

c) The balconies have been designed with exposed intermediate levels; therefore, the weather protection measures, provisions and screening mechanisms for drying clothes, and screening of rainwater pipes shall be clearly elucidated with necessary details.

d) Combined mobility circulation plan showing seamless, conflict-free pedestrian and vehicular movement plans from outside to the building is to be submitted, to understand the movement pattern within the site better. It shall be indicated clearly with clear segregation of pedestrian and vehicular movement.

e) The details of materiality are not clearly indicated in the submission. A detailed colour palette and material specification sheet shall be provided to ensure that the submission is comprehensive and self-explanatory.

f) Similarly, a proposal of such magnitude would involve various service components, which shall be properly elucidated with necessary details, including their locations and integration within the overall scheme. The same shall be comprehensively incorporated in a separate sheet for review.

g) Since a lot of waste (dry and wet, food items, etc.) supposed to be generated, a detailed solid waste management plan proposal along with its location on the site plan be submitted.

h) 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.

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.

1. The North-DMC forwarded (through email) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not accept the concept of building plans at its meeting held on January 2, 2025; specific observations were made.  The Commission accepted the concept at its meeting held on February 6, 2025; specific observations were given.
3. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal received at formal stage at its meeting held on April 2, 2026; specific observations were given.
4.  The building plans proposal (for hospital building and MLCP block) received (through email) at the formal stage was scrutinized along with the replies submitted to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no:  OL-01042623191 dated 08.04.2026. Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations, photographs, and replies submitted, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that its specific observations under Para 3(b) and 3(c), communicated vide DUAC Observation Letter No. OL-01042623191 dated 08.04.2026, have not been adequately addressed. As these spaces constitute an important interface with the public realm, their design shall be further refined to ensure better accessibility, visual quality, and integration with the overall architectural character of the complex.

b) Detailed drawings of the Swachh Bharat toilet, guard room, main gate, and boundary wall, including plans, elevations, and sections, shall be provided to explain their design, functionality, and accessibility to the hospital. Appropriate shading devices for all fenestrations, along with suitable screening provisions for rooftop and service utilities including water tanks, solar panels, and related services shall also be incorporated. Further, the proposed green mesh screening system shall be replaced with an appropriate low-maintenance solution harmonious with the overall architectural design language of the project.

c) 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.

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.

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) 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.

1. The South-DMC forwarded (through email) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not accept the building plans (conceptually) at its meeting held on February 08, 2024, May 02, 2024 and September 19, 2024.   The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal (formal) at its meetings held on December 11, 2025 and March 5, 2026; specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal for Group housing received (through email) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter No. OL-03122555138 dated March 12, 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, and photographs, etc, the discussion held and replies submitted, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) 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-03122555138 dated March 12, 2026 especially related to the observation no 4A (b).

b) Considering that the overall height of the EWS block is approximately 38.0 m, it is suggested that an adequate number of lifts be provided in accordance with the principles of universal accessibility, particularly to ensure convenience and ease of movement for the elderly, children, and persons with disabilities.

c) It was observed that the provisions for drying clothes and outdoor AC units shown in the plans of both the Main Block and EWS Block are not adequately reflected in the 3D views. Appropriate screening mechanisms, particularly for the EWS Block considering future AC installations, shall be integrated into the overall design scheme and suitably reflected in the plans, elevations, sections, and 3D views to maintain façade aesthetics. Compliance shall be verified at the stage of NOC for Completion.

d) 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.

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 lacks clarity for the EWS block. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations.

1. The North-DMC forwarded (through email) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal (Office building-2B+S+G+4 floors) at its meeting held on December 28, 2018 and approved the revised building plans proposal for additions and alterations (addition of a 5^th floor over existing building 2B+S+G+4 floors) proposal at its meeting held on October 19, 2023.
3. The proposal for NOC for completion (Office Building comprising of 2B+S+G+5 floors) received (through email) at the completion stage was scrutinised and a detailed discussion was held with the architect telephonically, during which clarifications were provided to the Commission’s queries. Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations, photographs, discussion held, and email from architect, the proposal for NOC for Completion (Office Building) is accepted.

1. The North-DMC forwarded (through email) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. No previous reference of approval taken at formal/completion stage has been traced in DUAC records.
3. The building plans proposal for residential building (for addition/alterations on ground floor & proposed basement, first, second and third floor) received (through email) at the formal stage was scrutinized.  Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations, and photographs submitted, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) 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.

b) The provisions for road widening, if any, shall be addressed by the concerned local body in accordance with prevailing UBBL norms, regulations, and applicable statutory provisions.

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 DDA forwarded (through email) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. Earlier, the Commission approved the layout and the building plan proposal for plots no. A, C, and D at its meeting held on March 18, 2020, specific observations were given. The Commission accepted the NOC for completion (Part- for plot -A) at its meeting held on February 2, 2023, specific observations were given.
3. The Commission accepted the NOC for completion (Part- for plot C and D - (D1 and D2) at its meeting held on November 14, 2024, specific observations were given.
4. The building plans proposal for (proposed warehouse and commercial development plot-D) received (online) the formal stage was scrutinised.  Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations, and photographs, etc., the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The proposal pertains to warehouse and commercial development with building of G + 2 floors.

b) The Commission observed that the entire parking provision has been accommodated at the surface level, which is not appreciated. Surface parking is generally discouraged due to concerns related to flooding and groundwater recharge. For larger sites, the majority of parking should preferably be accommodated in basements to facilitate groundwater recharge and retain the surface area for open landscaped spaces. Additionally, parking in the front setback is not accepted by the Commission as it adversely affects the urban and environmental aesthetics of the building and thus shall be relocated from the front setback.

c) A discrepancy has been observed in the submission, wherein the site plan indicates the provision of stack parking; however, the same has not been reflected in the 3D views, resulting in inconsistency within the proposal drawings. The revised submission shall ensure coherence and consistency across all plans, drawings, and 3D representations. Further, all relevant elements, including the stack parking system, shall be appropriately depicted in the 3D views, as such components have a direct bearing on the urban and environmental aesthetics of the building.

d) Further, dedicated loading and unloading provisions for the warehouse shall be appropriately integrated into the parking scheme and clearly reflected in the revised submission. Parking areas designated for trucks shall also be clearly indicated in the submission. 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.

e) The site plan indicates an HT line passing through the front setback. Adequate buffer provisions, as per the applicable building bye-laws, shall be clearly demarcated on the site plan.

f) Similarly, the submitted plans indicate the provision of a guard room and Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM) toilet; however, the same have not been reflected in the 3D views, resulting in inconsistency within the submission. Further, from the proposal it appears that the provisions of the main gate and boundary wall have not been considered in the submitted design scheme. However, in case the same are intended to be provided at a later stage, these elements, along with the guard room and SBM toilet, shall be appropriately integrated into the overall architectural design so as to present a cohesive and unified development scheme. It shall also be ensured that all plans, drawings, and corresponding 3D views are properly co-related to maintain coherence, consistency, and accuracy in the submission.

g) Furthermore, appropriate screening mechanisms shall be incorporated and clearly reflected in the 3D views to suitably conceal service elements such as overhead water tanks and solar panels proposed above the SBM toilet.

h) The signage design scheme shall form an integral part of the overall architectural proposal and be submitted for review.

i) Services and utilities such as the DG set and transformer have been reflected in the 3D views; however, the same are not indicated in the layout plan. Similarly, the locations of the transformer, meter room, etc., are shown in the layout plan but have not been reflected in the overall 3D views of the design scheme. Conversely, utilities including water tanks and the STP are indicated in the layout plan but are absent in the 3D representations, the location of the solar panels is varying in the terrace plan and the 3D views, resulting in a lack of coherence and consistency within the submission. It shall be ensured that all plans, drawings, and 3D views are properly co-related and uniformly represented in the revised submission.

j) The air-conditioning scheme is not clearly indicated in the submission, particularly regarding the location of outdoor units and the proposed screening mechanism. A detailed air-conditioning layout, including appropriate screening provisions, shall be submitted in the revised proposal.

k) 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 shall also be provided so as not to mar the urban aesthetics of the façade.

l) 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.

m) 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.

n) 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.

1. The CPWD forwarded (through online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission had earlier approved the building plans of the GPOA Building at Africa Avenue in its meeting held on 29.05.2020, and subsequently accepted the NOC for Completion in its meeting dated 09.09.2021.
3. The Commission approved the revised building plans proposal for additions/alterations (addition of Multilevel Car Parking (MLCP Phase 2 of GPOA Building at Africa Avenue near Sarojini Nagar Depot)) at its meeting held on January 18, 2024; specific observations were given.
4. The proposal for NOC for completion (MLCP at Africa Avenue (Phase 2), received (through online) at the completion stage was scrutinised, including drawings, documentations, and photographs etc., the proposal for NOC for Completion ((MLCP at Africa Avenue (Phase 2),  is accepted.