Action Taken Reports in respect of Minutes of 1867th meeting held on 06.05.2026.

1. Action Taken Reports in respect of Minutes of the 1867th meeting held on 06.05.2026 were discussed.

1. The South-DMC forwarded (through online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission had approved the revised layout of the Indian Institute of Technology, Hauz Khas, in its meeting held on September 2, 2015. Subsequently, the Commission considered and accepted the building plans proposal (conceptual stage) in its meeting held on November 13, 2025, wherein specific observations were conveyed.
3. The building plans proposal for ‘Faculty Residence’ received (through online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-20082527046 dated 26-08-2025, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on cisco web Ex meeting who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations, project report, photographs, replies submitted, discussion held, and email dated 19.05.2026, 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) It shall be ensured that the orientation of the Solar panel shall be aligned with solar path analysis to ensure optimal performance and efficiency. 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, 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.

Building plans proposal for additions and alterations in respect of Residential building at plot no. 1233, mahal Sarai, Kashmere gate.

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 Commission did not approve (formal) the proposal for additions and alterations at its meeting held on December 24, 2025 specific observations were given.
4. The building plans proposal for addition and alterations (addition of proposed two additional floors i.e. second and third 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-18122523181, 23(181)/2025-DUAC dated 30.12.2025.  Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations, project report, photographs, and replies submitted, 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 has been observed that the submission has been resubmitted without satisfactorily addressing previous observations outlined in DUAC observation letter no: OL-18122523181, 23(181)/2025-DUAC dated 30.12.2025 especially related to points no: 3 (c), 3(d) which is not appreciated.

c) The architect in its reply has indicated that:

“……2. We have decided to completely remove/remodel the existing elevation and replace it with an entirely new design. Since the existing façade is being fully replaced, the focus of this submission is on the proposed new elevation, which ensures a cohesive and improved urban aesthetic.

3. As the existing elevation is being completely dismantled, any previous discrepancies regarding doors and windows are no longer relevant to the new scheme. The new plans accurately reflect the proposed layout in its entirety….”

From the replies/statements furnished by the architect, the proposal appears to be a case of complete demolition and reconstruction. However, the current submission bearing the title as ‘proposal for additions/alterations’ does not appear to be in consonance with the statements furnished. Since the proposal is at the formal stage, the submission shall be consistent, coherent, and coordinated across all plans, elevations, sections, 3D views, and proposal title.

d) Further, the previous observations communicated vide 18122523181, 23(181)/2025-DUAC dated 30.12.2025 related to points no: 3 (c), 3(d) are being reproduced as under for the convenience:

a) “…..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.

b) 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) It is reiterated that the Architect shall submit uncut photographs of the property, including internal areas, to enable a clearer understanding and proper assessment of the existing site conditions.

5. Overall, the submission 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.