Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1844th meeting held on 03.12.2025.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of the 1844th meeting held on 03.12.2025 were discussed.

1. The South DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout plan of the proposal at its meeting held on April 23, 2013, and approved the building plan proposal (in respect of the Hospital building) on July 31, 2013. The revised layout of the proposal was approved at the Commission meeting held on February 13, 2015, and the revised building plan proposal (in respect of the Hospital building) was approved on April 19, 2016, with specific observations.
3. The building plans proposal for the Ambulatory Block at Shanti Memorial Hospital Society (comprising 03B+G+03 floors) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The submitted plot scheme is unclear. The site photographs show two separate plots marked as the project site, while the submission concerns only a single block (the Ambulatory Block). Additionally, a 200-foot road is depicted running between the two plots; however, whether it’s part of the hospital design scheme is not clear. The architect must ensure complete clarity regarding the plot boundaries and their extent, as well as details of the road, including whether it is a municipal road or owned by the hospital. Relevant local body/DDA-approved layout plans should be provided to substantiate this.

b) The overall submission is sketchy and lacks adequate detail to make it self-explanatory. The 3D views do not reflect materiality and therefore render the proposal incomplete. The architect shall ensure that annotated 3D views are provided from all sides, limited to the blocks requiring approval, with the contextual surroundings appropriately superimposed on the proposed 3D views.

c) The revised submission must include clear and detailed drawings that show the site boundary and setbacks, as well as internal and external road networks, and pedestrian and vehicular movement routes.

d) The proposed 3D views do not match the submitted elevations; important features like the canopy, glazing, and other architectural details are missing from the 3D views, causing inconsistencies in the submission. The architect must ensure that coordinated plans, elevations, sections, and 3D views are provided to create a clear and accurate proposal.

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 submission received at the formal stage was found to be very sketchy and incomprehensible. The Commission could not review the proposal judiciously, and thus, the architect is advised to address all the Commission's observations. The Architect is requested to submit a detailed response, incorporating each point raised by the Commission in a clear, point-by-point manner.

1. The South DMC forwarded (online) 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.
3. Now the building plans proposal for Group housing (G+12 floors) and EWS block received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter No. OL-11092427061 dated September 29, 2024, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) It was also observed that while outlining the detailed observations on the proposal at its meeting held on 19.09.2024, it was concluded that:

“……. Overall, the design scheme submitted at the conceptual stage remains very sketchy, lacking clarity, detail, and comprehensiveness. The architect is advised to address all the observations mentioned above, including those previously communicated in letters nos. OL-30012427004 dated February 13, 2024, and OL-26042427018 dated May 7, 2024, issued by the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply. ……”

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

b) The submission shows several inconsistencies between the drawings and the 3D views. Specifically, the 3D representations of the boundary wall and the Swachh Bharat toilet do not match the detailed drawings. All component drawings, including the gate, boundary wall, Swachh Bharat toilet, and other areas, must be fully coordinated with the 3D views to ensure coherence and accuracy in the submission.

c) The submitted 3D views are sketchy and lack enough material detail for a formal proposal, making the submission incomplete. Materiality information should be annotated in the 3D views during the formal stage to ensure they are self-explanatory. Additionally, high-resolution 3D views from all sides, including the terrace level, must be provided to enhance clarity.​​​​​​​

d) The 3d views show landscaped areas at the terrace level, which have not been detailed, thus do not provide clarity on their intended use, materiality, screening, etc. The architect is to provide detailed drawings, including plans, elevations, and sections of the terrace landscaped area to explain its design and functioning. ​​​​​​​

e) A detailed design scheme, including a blow-up of a typical floor, shall be provided to illustrate the screening of outdoor air-conditioning units, plumbing shafts, and provisions for drying clothes. These details, along with specifications of materiality, must be clearly depicted to ensure uniformity and to enable a better understanding of the overall design scheme.​​​​​​​

f) The observations of the Commission furnished in its meeting dated 19.09.2024 are being reiterated due to non-compliance in the current submission:

“(f )….The proposed EWS block is not adequately represented in the submitted design scheme. Detailed and annotated 3D views, clearly identifying each block with corresponding material specifications, should be provided for better understanding...”​​​​​​​

g) The submission indicates a separate block for EWS housing; however, the detailed plans, elevations, sections, and annotated 3D views for this block are missing. As the EWS block forms an integral part of the proposed design, its complete set of drawings and details must be submitted to enable approval at the formal stage.​​​​​​​

h) The submission shows a large extent of the complex is hard-paved, which is discouraged by the Commission. The architect to ensure to reduce the hard paving and instead provide more open green spaces to mitigate issues of urban flooding. ​​​​​​​

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

j) 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.​​​​​​​

k) Provision of solar panels on the terrace is missing in the 3d views. 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.​​​​​​​

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.

4. Overall, the proposal received at the formal stage lacks clarity, is in non-compliance with Commission’s previous observations and needs improvement. The architect is again advised to adhere to all the above observations including those provided including those previously communicated in letters nos. OL-30012427004 dated February 13, 2024, and OL-26042427018 dated May 7, 2024, and OL-11092427061 dated September 29, 2024 issued by the Commission and provide a point-by-point incorporation and response.

1. The South 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 Service Station cum CNG Online filling station (demolishing an old building (only a small portion of the old building) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The proposed 3D views do not match the scale of the submitted drawings. The open spaces in the 3D visuals seem larger and out of proportion compared to the drawings.  The 3D views should represent the actual scale and proportions to give an accurate and consistent view of the proposal.

b) The drawings depict spaces and equipment like the compressor enclosure and CNG DUS, which are not visible in the 3D views, causing inconsistencies in the submission. To ensure coherence and consistency throughout the proposal, the 3D views should incorporate all elements, equipment, and spaces from the submitted drawings.

c) The 3D views must incorporate all key details, including signage, fire extinguishers, the EV charging shed, and the air/PUC kiosk, since these elements are crucial for a comprehensive depiction of the complex. Furthermore, the views should be annotated to highlight material details on the façade.

d) Details of work of art are missing in the submission. 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) 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 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. 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 (comprising of B+ S + 3 floors) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The key plan does not show the site's location. A clearly marked plan should be provided, showing the site’s position relative to the surrounding area and road network.

b) The submission has incomplete documentation, i.e. all four side elevations are missing. Since the submission is at a formal stage, it shall be ensured that all sides' detailed elevations are provided in the revised submission.

c) The structural details, including columns, are missing in the submission since the building footprint has a large span and houses a basement and stilts, a structural arrangement is required, as it impacts functionality and façade design.

d) The representation of the roads and surrounding areas in the 3D views is incorrect. The 3D views depict a wider road in front of the building, whereas the site plan indicates a narrower road, resulting in a mismatch within the submission. To provide a broader site context, the 3D views shall be superimposed with the site’s surroundings, reflecting the existing environment and showcasing neighbouring building typologies, street patterns, access routes, and overall built character.

e) 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.

f) Provision of rainwater drainage pipes in balconies and the terrace level and plumbing shafts for toilets and kitchen is not shown in the submitted drawings. It shall be ensured to provide details of drainage, plumbing etc.  wherein the provision of screening mechanisms for concealment of the pipes shall also be provided so as not to mar the urban aesthetics of the façade.

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

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.

i) 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 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 (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 residential building (comprising of G + 3 floors) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and 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 CPWD forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal for New Academic Block at Law College in University at its meeting held on July 11, 2024; specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinized along with the replies submitted in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-04072462012 dated 16.07.2025, 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-04072462012 dated 16.07.2025 which is not appreciated.

b) The proposed 3D views show a significant, circular, curved, and floating beam-like feature on the front facade. This element extends over a wide area and appears to end in a glazed surface; however, details of its construction, structural support, and how the curved part connects to the glazing, including fixing and support methods, are unclear. It is recommended that detailed drawings, including section views, be submitted to clearly illustrate the structural system, fixing techniques, bracing, materials, and other construction specifics of the curved element. Additionally, since the glazing is only a facade feature with no functional role and given the long-term maintenance costs, it is advised to remove the glazed component.

c) A discrepancy exists between the submitted 3D views and the drawings, as elements like the curved structure and canopy shown in the 3D views are missing from the corresponding plans and sections. Similarly, differences are noted in the design for the main gate and boundary wall; the 3D representations do not align with the details provided in plans, elevations, etc. The Commission emphasizes that the gate and boundary wall design could impact the overall aesthetics of the complex. Therefore, these details must be clarified, including material specifications for the gate and grill, and should be coordinated across plans, elevations, sections, and 3D views. It is to ensure all drawings are well-coordinated, maintaining consistency between plans, sections, elevations, and 3D views to ensure coherence and clarity in the submission.​​​​​​​

d) The elevations and sections must be meticulously detailed, clearly showcasing the architectural elements, sun-shading mechanisms, and other pertinent features. Additionally, comprehensive skin sections shall be provided to elucidate the facade's elevation, including the materials employed. A comprehensive overview of the architectural design and facade can be obtained by providing these detailed elements.​​​​​​​

e) The gap between the circular element and the main building seems small and off-colour. Since this feature is at the entrance and lacks a cover, it currently functions as an unresolved, undesirable space. It is recommended to propose a space frame at the upper level to enhance the cut-out, making it functional and architecturally integrated.​​​​​​​

f) The ground floor plan shows an acute angle at the right-side entrance, which could create underused or unwanted space, especially in a public building. It is advised that this area be redesigned and optimised to remove such inefficient spaces, ensuring better functionality and space use.​​​​​​​

g) The ramp proposed along the right-side building arm appears to obstruct natural light and ventilation at the ground floor level. It shall be ensured that the ramp is designed and detailed in a manner that does not compromise daylight penetration and natural ventilation at the lower floors, thereby maintaining visual and environmental aesthetics. In case the ramp covering is proposed, its details are to be submitted in the revised submission. ​​​​​​​

h) Details of the terrace level, including the provision and placement of solar panels, air-conditioning units, water tanks, and other rooftop services, are not indicated in the submission. It shall be ensured that comprehensive details of all elements proposed to be installed at the roof level are clearly shown and submitted in the revised submission. ​​​​​​​

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

j) A lot of waste (dry and wet, food items, etc.) is supposed to be generated on the campus; a detailed solid waste management plan proposal, along with its location on the site plan, is to be submitted.​​​​​​​

k) 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.​​​​​​​

l) 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​​​​​​​

m) The architect is also advised to go through the DUAC Memorandums issued vide letter no: 1(2)/82-DUAC dated 07.10.2025 (available on the DUAC website www.duac.org.in) for various issues related to the DUAC approvals.

4. Overall, the proposal received at the formal stage lacks clarity, has discrepancies, and is not coherent 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 DDA forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal at its meeting held on March 16, 1998; specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal for addition/alteration (addition of bedroom, toilet, balcony, and extension of living and dining room in all units) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The proposal is for addition/alteration with the addition of a bedroom, toilet, balcony, and extension of the living and dining room in all units. 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 proposal at the formal stage lacks clarity, with insufficiently presented additions. To better explain the proposed design scheme, the modifications should be overlaid on the existing building blocks. This will clarify how the new design integrates with the current structure, ensuring visual coherence and considering environmental and aesthetic factors.

c) 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.  ​​​​​​​

d) It is observed that parking has been proposed along the entire periphery of the complex, resulting in a cramped layout and leaving limited space for fire tender movement. It is therefore suggested that an alternative provision be explored to meet the parking requirements while preserving the complex's visual and environmental aesthetics. All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations, etc.​​​​​​​

e) Details of materiality are missing in the submission. Materiality details should be annotated in the 3D views during the formal stage to ensure the submission is self-explanatory.​​​​​​​

f) 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.​​​​​​

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

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 lacks clarity, has discrepancies, and is not coherent 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 DDA forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal at its meeting held on April 03, 2007, and subsequently accepted the NOC for Completion plans at its meeting held on January 05, 2011. The Commission further approved the addition of three floors (16th, 17th & 18th) at its meeting held on June 03, 2021.
3. The Commission did not accept the proposal for NOC for the completion plan (Part- 16th, 17th & 18^th) proposal at its meeting held on October 16, 2025; specific observations were given.
4. The proposal for NOC for the completion (Part- 16th, 17th & 18th Floors) received (online) at the completion stage, was scrutinised, along with replies submitted in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no OL-13102548063 dated 24-10-2025. Based on the replies submitted, submission made, including drawings, documentations and photographs, 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-13102548063 dated   24-10-2025, which is not appreciated.

b) The submission is incomplete, as it does not include superimposed drawings comparing the as-built condition with the approved submission. Approval received from DUAC (at the formal stage) shall be superimposed on the plans/elevations/sections etc., over actual built structure on the site, existing & proposed changes done in the design from the approval (by DUAC), to understand the extents of deviations made internally as well as external changes made with respect to the sanctioned plan, if any.

c) For a better understanding of the proposal, all sides photographs i.e. ‘Before (submitted 3d views at the time of DUAC formal approval) and After (current actual built construction)’ of the constructed building blocks to be provided.

d) Further, the prescribed proforma for the completion stage has not been submitted, rendering the proposal incomplete. To obtain the NOC for Completion, ensure that complete documentation, including the duly filled and updated proforma, is provided.

5. Overall, the proposal received at the completion stage is incomplete. The architect is advised to address all the Commission's observations and submit a detailed response incorporating each point raised by the Commission in a clear and point-by-point manner.

1. The NDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal at its meeting held on September 18, 2019; specific observations were given.
3. The Commission did not approve the completion plans proposal at its meeting held on September 25, 2025; specific observations were given.
4. The completion plans proposal received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised, along with replies submitted in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no OL-19092550018 dated 03-10-2025. Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations and photographs the proposal for NOC for Completion in respect of State Guest House (Uttrakhand Niwas) is accepted.

Building plans proposal for additions and alterations (addition of mini auditorium cum library block) in respect of Delhi Public School, Sector-24, Rohini (Conceptual Stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission had approved the layout and building plans at its meeting held on March 16, 1998, and issued NOC for Completion plans proposal at its meeting held on August 16, 2001.
3. The Commission did not accept the additions and alterations (addition of mini auditorium cum library block) plans received for conceptual stage at its meeting held on December 3, 2025; specific observations were given.
4. The proposal for additions/alterations received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised, along with replies submitted in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no. OL-27112527060 dated 08-12-2025, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) It is noted that the proposed 3D views do not depict the provision of double-stacked parking. It shall be ensured that all proposed elements, including double-stacked parking, are clearly shown and detailed in the 3D views and drawings at the formal submission stage, so as to ensure a complete proposal for consideration by the Commission. All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations, etc.

b) 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.​​​​​​​

c) 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. The architect is advised to address all the Commission's observations and submit a detailed response incorporating each point raised by the Commission in the next submission (formal stage) in a clear and point-by-point manner.

Found conceptually suitable (not limited to these observations).
‘The conceptual suitability is only with reference to the mandate of the Commission. However, it would be reassessed at the formal stage based on the 20-point criteria as available on the DUAC website.  It would not be a substitute for formal approval of the proposal referred through the concerned local body in terms of section 12 of the DUAC Act, 1973.

Building plans proposal for additions and alterations in respect of Dhanpothwar CGHS Ltd. on plot no. 17, Sector-12, Dwarka Phase II (Conceptual Stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plans at its meeting held August 20,2002, and issued NOC for Completion plans proposal at its meeting held on August 26, 2008.
3. The Commission did not accept the additions and alterations plans received for conceptual stage at its meeting held on December 3, 2025; specific observations were given.
4. The proposal for additions/alterations (extension of living rooms, study room along with the extension of balconies) received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised, along with replies submitted in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no.  OL-01122527061 dated 08-12-2025, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The proposal is for addition/alteration (extension of living rooms, study room along with the extension of balconies). 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) All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations, etc.

c) 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.

5. The architect is advised to address all the Commission's observations and submit a detailed response incorporating each point raised by the Commission in the next submission (formal stage) in a clear and point-by-point manner.

Found conceptually suitable (not limited to these observations).
‘The conceptual suitability is only with reference to the mandate of the Commission. However, it would be reassessed at the formal stage based on the 20-point criteria as available on the DUAC website.  It would not be a substitute for formal approval of the proposal referred through the concerned local body in terms of section 12 of the DUAC Act, 1973.

Proposal for additions and alterations/modifications in respect of Commercial Complex at Plot No- CSC / OCF -1, Sector-25, Rohini (Conceptual Stage)

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

Deferred

1. The North DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans at its meeting held July 15, 2015 and approved the revised layout and building plans proposal at its meeting held on July 11, 2018.
3. The Commission accepted the NOC for completion (Part – Tower 1 and 2) at its meeting held on August 29, 2024.
4. The completion plans proposal received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised. Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations and photographs the proposal for Completion for NOC of (Tower 3) is accepted. 

1. The CPWD forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission had earlier approved the building plans for the Common Central Secretariat (Buildings 1, 2 and 3) at its meeting held on 06.05.2021. The Commission also accepted the NOC for Completion (part for CCS-3 and part for CCS-1) at its meetings held on 10.07.2025 and 27.11.2025, respectively.
3. Now, the proposal for NOC for completion (Part-CCS-02) received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised. Based on the submission, including documentation, drawings, and photographs, the proposal for Completion for NOC of (CCS-02) is found to be accepted.