Action Taken Reports in respect of Minutes of 1853rd meeting held on 29.01.2026.

1. Action Taken Reports in respect of Minutes of the 1853rd meeting held on 29.01.2026 were discussed.

1. The North-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the demolition & reconstruction of the building plans proposal at its meeting held on January 9, 2013.
3. The building plans proposal for additions and alterations (additions/alterations on existing ground floor, a proposed basement, first, second, and a third floor above) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect (online) on Cisco Webex meetings, during which clarifications were provided to the Commission’s queries. Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations, photographs, and the discussion held, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission 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 proposal is situated within the Special Area of Shajanabad, which is characterized by a distinct architectural and urban character. The options currently proposed may not be appropriate in view of the site’s location and its surrounding context. During the online discussion, the architect was advised to explore alternative and more contextually responsive façade design options, including innovative architectural elements shared during the meeting, to ensure that the proposed façade is suitably aligned with the character and setting of the area.

c) As the property is located within a densely built and congested neighbourhood, it is essential to comprehensively understand the surrounding context to appropriately assess the site setting and its implications on the proposal. 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.

d) The site photographs submitted do not adequately depict the actual site conditions, including the existing structure. The architect is required to submit clear and recent site photographs that accurately reflect the existing conditions, particularly the ground floor structure proposed to be retained, along with the surrounding site context. This will ensure clarity and facilitate proper assessment of the submission.

e) The structural details, columns are missing in the submission. Since additions/alterations are made to an existing structure and the building footprint has a large span while proposing a basement, structural arrangement is important as it impacts functionality and façade design. It shall be ensured that a complete structural arrangement is provided for all floors, along with the parking arrangement including vehicular circulation.

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

g) The Sustainability features shall be as per point 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

h) All plumbing pipes, rainwater pipes, service equipment, water tanks, air-conditioning units, solar panels, etc., should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of points nos. 10, 11, and 12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval)), as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

4. Overall, the proposal received at the formal stage lacks clarity, has discrepancies, and needs improvement. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and provide a point-by-point incorporation and response.

1. The DDA forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission had earlier approved the layout and building plans proposal at its meeting held on February 2, 1996, and the Completion plans were returned to DDA by the sub-committee at its meeting held on October 21, 2003. The Commission approved the revised layout and building plans proposal at its meeting held on November 22, 2005.
3. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal for additions and alterations at its meetings held on December 24, 2025 and January 22, 2026, specific observations were given. 
4. The proposal for additions and alterations (proposed extension of bedrooms, toilets, balconies and kitchen) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with replies submitted in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-22122522120 dated 29.01.2026. Based on the replies submitted, and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that when evaluating the case for additions or alterations, it did not consider 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 with partial addressing of previous observations outlined in DUAC letter no: OL-22122522120 dated 30.12.2025. The previous observations of the Commission are being reiterated i.e. 

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

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

Since the proposal pertains to additions and alterations, it shall be ensured that all existing and proposed service shafts including plumbing and rainwater shafts are appropriately screened. The screening design shall be cohesive and consistent across the entire complex, to maintain visual uniformity and architectural harmony.

c) It has been observed that the submission has been resubmitted with partial addressing of previous observations outlined in DUAC letter no: OL-22122522120 dated January 29, 2026. The previous observations of the Commission are being reiterated i.e. 

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

f) The details of the Swachh Bharat toilet have not been presented adequately. It shall be ensured that complete and coordinated details are provided integrated to the complex, including plans, elevations, sections, and three-dimensional views, for clarity and proper assessment…”

To ensure that the proposal is complete at the formal stage, comprehensive details of the Swachh Bharat toilet shall be submitted with the revised proposal. This shall include detailed plans, elevations, sections, and annotated 3D views along with location of the proposed toilet.

d) An inconsistency has been observed in the submission, wherein the railing design depicted in the submitted 3D views differs from that shown in the elevations, resulting in a discrepancy between the drawings. It shall be ensured that all submitted drawings are fully consistent and aligned with the proposed 3D views, to maintain coherence and accuracy in the overall submission.

e) The surface parking shall be organised in a rational and structured manner to optimise the utilisation of ground-level areas for consolidated landscaped greens, while also addressing and mitigating concerns related to urban flooding through appropriate site planning and drainage measures. All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations, etc.

f) The Sustainability features shall be as per point 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

g) 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.

5. Overall, the proposal received at the formal stage has discrepancies, lacks clarity, especially in view of the non-compliance and the point-wise replies to its previous observations communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL- 22122522120 dated December 30, 2025 and January 29,2026. The architect is again advised to adhere to all the above observations and furnish a pointwise incorporation and reply.

1.  The DDA forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. Earlier, the Commission approved the layout and building plans proposal at its meeting held on October 17, 1997 and subsequently accepted the NOC for completion plans proposal at its meeting held on December 11, 2013.  
3. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal for additions and alterations at its meeting held on December 18, 2025; specific observations were given.
4. The building plans proposal for additions and alterations (extension of living room, bedroom and balcony to each flat) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no. OL-12122522119  dated December 23, 2025 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, replies submitted, and the discussion held telephonically, the following observations are to be complied with:

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

b) The quality of the submitted 3D views is inadequate and lacks sufficient clarity. The architect is required to submit high-resolution 3D views (from all sides), clearly illustrating the materiality, to ensure a comprehensive and self-explanatory submission.

c) An inconsistency has been noted in the submission. Although the project report indicates provision of 78 ECS through stack parking, the exact location and related details of the same have not been clearly shown in the drawings. Furthermore, it has been observed that a portion of the proposed parking is being accommodated beneath the mandatory green area, with the balance provided at surface level. In order to maximise the mandatory green and keep the surface free from vehicular parking, it is recommended that the parking be consolidated and relocated in the form of a parking tower within the space between Block 2 and Block 3, by exploring appropriate alternative parking solutions. All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations, etc.

d) This arrangement would facilitate the optimal utilisation of surface areas for consolidated landscaped greens, while also mitigating concerns related to urban flooding.

e) An inconsistency has been observed in the submission, wherein the railing design depicted in the submitted 3D views differs from that shown in the elevations, resulting in a discrepancy between the drawings. It shall be ensured that all submitted drawings are fully consistent and aligned with the proposed 3D views, to maintain coherence and accuracy in the overall submission.

f) To enhance understanding, detailed large-scale drawings, such as plans, elevations, sections, and 3D views, of a typical block should be provided.

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

h) It shall be ensured that the nomenclature of the buildings, such as Block 1, Block 2, Block 3, etc., is not displayed at the top of the structures in the actual construction, as it tends to overpower the façade and adversely affect the overall architectural aesthetics of the complex.

i) The Sustainability features shall be as per point 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

j) 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.

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 (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the construction of Combined building, CRPF Mahavir Nagar at its meetings held on November 20, 2025 and January 2, 2026; specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal for the Construction of a combined building received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no. OL-29122562051 dated 06.01.2026, 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, photographs, replies submitted, and the discussion held, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) In its previous observations vide DUAC letter no. 29122562051 dated 06.01.2026 the Commission stated that:

“…The Commission, during the online discussion, suggested that the architect utilise the area currently shown as a parking shed (behind the proposed block) by converting it into a puzzle parking system to accommodate the entire parking requirement of the building. This approach would enable the release of surface-level areas for landscaping purposes, to address urban concerns such as surface runoff and urban flooding. All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations, etc…”

b) To address the above observation, the current submission indicates the provision of double-stack hydraulic parking at the rear of the site, which has been discouraged by the Commission. Considering that the permissible FAR has not been fully utilised and there remains potential for future expansion, it is recommended that basement parking be provided below the building footprint, to adequately accommodate both current and future parking demand.

Alternatively, the architect may propose a common multi-level car parking facility within the complex to effectively address the present and future parking requirements in a comprehensive manner. Location of the same need to be marked on site layout plan. Additionally, the owner/proponent shall submit a written undertaking confirming that the proposed Multi-Level Car Parking (MLCP) facility shall be constructed in the future to adequately address the growing parking requirements of the complex. All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations, etc.

c) It has been observed that the proposal forms part of a larger complex; however, the master plan for the overall site has not been submitted while the site has been evolving over the time to address building requirements. In the absence of a comprehensive master plan, and considering that the site accommodates multiple functions, no designated space for parking has been clearly identified, resulting in parking spillover thereby exhausting surface areas which can be utilised as potential open green spaces.

It shall therefore be ensured that a master plan for the entire site is submitted, clearly indicating the location and integration of the current proposal. This will enable the Commission to appraise the overall functioning, design intent, and zoning framework of the complex in a cohesive and comprehensive manner.

d) The Sustainability features shall be as per point 7 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.

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 (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal at its meeting held on November 27, 2025; specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal for Commercial building comprised of B+G+3 Floors received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no. OL-26112523025 dated 03.12.2025, the following observations are to be complied with:

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

b) 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.

c) 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.