Action Taken Reports in respect of Minutes of 1863rd meeting held on 09.04.2026.

1. Action Taken Reports in respect of Minutes of the 1863rd meeting held on 09.04.2026 were discussed.

1. The North-DMC forwarded (through online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal at its meeting held on April 2, 2026; specific observations were made.
3. The building plans proposal (for residential building comprising of basement + ground + three floors) 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-25032623007 dated 07-04-2026. Based on the submission made, including documentation, drawings, photographs and replies submitted; the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The front road and the side lane have been earmarked for road widening; the same shall be addressed by the concerned local body in accordance with prevailing UBBL norms, regulations, and applicable statutory provisions.

b) The concerned local body to ensure that the entry steps to individual dwelling are as per the applicable Unified Building bye-Laws, 2016.

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) Solar panel orientation shall be aligned with solar path analysis to ensure optimal performance and efficiency.

e) 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.

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

1. The DDA forwarded (through email) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. 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 meetings held on December 18, 2025, February 12, 2026 and March 25, 2026; specific observations were given.
4. The building plans proposal for additions and alterations (extension of living room, bedroom and balcony to each flat) received (through email) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-16122522119 dated 06-04-2026, and a detailed discussion was held with architect on Cisco Webex meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the submission made, including documentation, drawings, photographs, replies submitted, online discussion, and email dated 23.04.2026; 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) 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.

c) The design proposal incorporates provisions for triple stack parking arrangements to meet the necessary parking requirements. Architect or proponent to ensure the proper implementation of these arrangements on-site alongwith rainwater disposal, 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.

d) It shall be ensured that the nomenclature of the buildings, such as Block 1, Block 2, Block 3, Block 4, Block 5 etc., is not displayed at the top of the structures in the actual construction.

e) 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.

f) 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.

Approved, observations given.

1. The NDMC forwarded (through online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. Earlier, the proposal was received in the Commission for additions and alterations from NDMC on December 24, 1985. However, it could not be considered because of incomplete materials as per Commission’s guidelines.
3. Now the building plans proposal for partial demolition and reconstruction received (through online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and and a detailed presentation was made by the architect online on Cisco Webex meetings and provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the submission made, including documentation, drawings, photographs, and the presentation made; the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that Meghalaya House falls within the LBZ area, and accordingly, all applicable norms, regulations, and guidelines shall apply in this case. The architect in its project report as well as during discussion has informed that:

i. Existing Block-A1 Main Building VVIP Guest rooms & Offices (G+2) (to be retained)

ii. Existing Block-A2 Annexe Building, Guest Rooms cum offices (G+3) (to be retained)

iii. Existing Block-B1 Residential Building for Staffs (Grade-III) (G+1) (to be demolished & reconstructed)

iv. Existing Block-B2 Residential Building for staff (Grade-IV) (G+2) (to be demolished & reconstructed)

v. Existing Block-C (Residence, Kitchen, Dining cum Office) (G+1) (to be retained)

b) In addition to the above, it was observed from the proposed site plan that certain areas have been earmarked for ‘future expansion’ and a proposed electric substation, by demolishing various existing temporary structures. Various watch & ward structures have also been envisaged along the boundary wall.

c) The Commission observed that the proposal forms part of a large existing campus, wherein some buildings are being retained and may possess a distinct architectural vocabulary. Being part of the same campus, the architectural vocabulary of the existing and proposed developments should be harmonious to ensure visual coherence and consistency. It has also been observed that variations within the proposed blocks ie. Block D2 and Block D3 resulting in a lack of coherence. Similar architectural elements shall be adopted to maintain overall harmony within the site.

d) The quality of the 3D views is inadequate and does not effectively convey various aspects of the proposal, including areas under redevelopment and the materiality of the façade. Annotated 3D views, clearly specifying the proposed façade materials, shall be provided. Further, the 3D views shall be superimposed with the existing contextual surroundings, including the road network and adjacent structures, to enable a clearer understanding of the proposal within its actual environment. Additionally, an adequate number of uncut photographs including the main gate, boundary wall, existing development, landscaping, and parking areas from all sides of the site shall be provided.

e) The 3D views indicate full-height glazing on the eastern façade of the proposed Block D2, which is likely to experience solar heat gain. Appropriate façade shading and screening measures should be incorporated to mitigate heat gain and reduce the overall thermal load. Also, it was observed that the façade has two types of jaalis. Consistency in the jaali design shall be maintained by adopting a unified material palette and a harmonious colour scheme.

f) The submission does not clearly indicate the status of the existing main gate and boundary wall. It appears that a new main gate, with a revised material palette and architectural vocabulary, has been envisaged; however, the same has not been adequately elucidated through enlarged details, plans, elevations, or specifications of materiality. The design of the gate and boundary wall can significantly influence the overall aesthetics of the complex; therefore, detailed drawings including gate/grill details, material applications, and their coordination with plans, elevations, sections, and 3D views shall be provided.

g) The proposed Blocks D2 and D3 are connected by sky bridges; however, enlarged details including material specifications, railing features, and structural design etc. have not been provided. Similarly, a bamboo-like structure has been proposed around the building for pedestrian and barrier-free movement, but requisite details, including materiality and design specifications, are lacking. The same shall be presented with enlarged and comprehensive details.

h) The proposed development appears to have been planned without due consideration of the existing and future ground coverage and FAR, including the provision of adequate arrangements for requisite car parking (both present and future requirements). No provisions have been explored for basement development (if applicable under the LBZ regulations) in the proposed design scheme to accommodate parking, and enhance groundwater recharge. The same shall be explored in accordance with permissible ground coverage and FAR provisions and clearly elucidated with necessary details for the better understanding of the Commission.

i) A combined mobility plan showing seamless, conflict-free pedestrian and vehicular movement plan including from the site entry to various parts of the building, to be submitted, to understand the movement pattern within the site. It shall be indicated clearly with segregation of pedestrian and vehicular movement with due consideration to point No. 16, 17 the CPAA (Criteria for Project Assessment and Approval), as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

j) Discrepancies have been observed in the submission. The bird’s eye views depict clear terraces without reflecting utilities such as solar panels, air-conditioning systems, and other necessary equipment, although these are indicated in the terrace plan. Similarly, the proposed ESS and watch & ward scheme lack requisite details, including plans, elevations, sections, 3D views, and material specifications. These elements may impact the visual and aesthetic character of the campus; therefore, they shall be duly incorporated, with enlarged details, including in the revised bird’s-eye views for a better understanding of the proposal.

k) The architect explained the provisions envisaged for wind towers for natural cooling and thermal comfort, as well as solar receptors for the heat-stack ventilation effect; however, the same have not been substantiated with necessary details to adequately understand the proposed passive/active cooling mechanisms of the development.

l) Most of the projections, including canopies and sky bridges, do not indicate provisions for rainwater discharge pipes (RWPs) or their screening mechanisms. If not addressed at this stage, exposed RWPs may adversely impact the visual character of the campus. Accordingly, the scheme shall be revised and presented with necessary details, including provisions for RWPs and appropriate screening mechanisms.

m) A complete wall has been designed with a proposed work of art on the façade. The Commission opined that the artwork may be more suitably accommodated elsewhere, and the possibility of incorporating dynamic pictographs may be explored. 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.

o) 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.

Not approved, observations given.

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

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission accepted the concept of the proposal received at conceptual stage at its meeting held on December 23, 2021.
3. The building proposal (comprising of basement + ground + 3 floors) received (through online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised. Based on the submission made, including documentation, drawings, and photographs; the following observation is to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the proposal involves the demolition of the existing Moti Cinema building and the construction of a new commercial building in its place, comprising of basement + ground + 3 floors.

b) It was noted that the architect in its report has indicated the tentative distance of the property of approx. 262.70 m from the ramparts of the historic ‘Red Fort’.

c) The Commission understands that the proposal is now envisaged as a ‘commercial property’, incorporating provisions for shops, parking for shop owners and visitors, as well as loading and unloading areas. The proposal was reviewed from the perspective of architectural vocabulary, including form, design principles, architectural style, and façade articulation, and it was observed that the overall façade design has not been developed, including main gate, boundary wall etc., with adequate sensitivity to form, proportions, and the historic context of areas such as Shahjahanabad.

d) The architectural form, arches, and sun-shading elements lack uniformity, with different façades exhibiting varying design vocabularies. It was emphasized that the redevelopment should reconstruct the structure on the site in a manner that reflects the characteristic design elements, materials, art, and architectural language of the Shahjahanabad area, including its architectural form, style, and façade details.

e) Detailed skin sections shall also be submitted to clearly illustrate the façade treatment, including material specifications and provisions for weather protection. To ensure a thorough evaluation of the proposal, detailed sections, including longitudinal and cross-sections that encompass the entire site, must be submitted.

f) The proposal appears to have been designed without adequate consideration of its structural system. While a basement has been proposed for parking and household storage, the necessary structural arrangements have not been clearly addressed, which may impact the functionality and feasibility of the proposed parking. It is therefore recommended that the structural system be comprehensively resolved at this stage and the design scheme be revised accordingly.

g) A basement has been proposed to accommodate the requisite parking requirement of 39 ECS, accessible through a single car lift. This arrangement requires re-examination, as any malfunction of the lift may adversely affect parking operations, thus alternate options to be explored. The location of the car lift also needs reconsideration in view of the proposed one-way vehicular circulation, particularly given the 3.0 m side and rear setbacks and multiple shopfront openings along these areas. While double-stack parking has been indicated, detailed plans, sections, and layout drawings have not been provided and shall be submitted to ensure effective functioning. The parking calculations shall be revisited in accordance with permissible ground coverage and FAR provisions and clearly detailed for the Commission’s understanding. All parking arrangements shall comply with Point No. 18 of the CPAA guidelines (DUAC) and shall be complete in all respects, to be verified at the completion stage.

h) Similarly, the shops abutting the front setbacks appear to have inadequate standing space for shoppers. The layout shall be suitably planned to ensure sufficient space in front of these shops, while keeping the area unobstructed and convenient for pedestrian movement.

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

j) A combined mobility plan showing seamless, conflict-free pedestrian and vehicular movement plan including from the site entry to various parts of the building, to be submitted, to understand the movement pattern within the site. It shall be indicated clearly with segregation of pedestrian and vehicular movement with due consideration to point No. 16, 17 the CPAA (Criteria for Project Assessment and Approval), as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

k) Details of landscaping including clear demarcation of segregated open green area for public use, conflict free pedestrian movement, treatment of the exterior hard and soft open spaces, levels, plant materials etc. shall be provided in terms of points nos. 6 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

l) As the development is proposed for commercial use, a comprehensive signage policy shall be adopted to ensure visual uniformity and effective façade control. In addition, well-designed and strategically located signage/graphics shall be integrated within the complex to facilitate clear and efficient wayfinding. The signage design scheme shall form an integral part of the overall architectural proposal and be submitted for review.

m) A lot of waste (dry and wet etc.) supposed to be generated in the complex, a detailed solid waste management plan proposal along with its location on the site plan be submitted.

n) The location of the DG set, DG exhaust pipes not understood. The same shall be clearly demarcated and substantiated with necessary details. 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.

o) 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.

p) 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. The architect is advised to resubmit the proposal through concerned local body at the formal stage with complete documentation including compliances to the above observations of the Commission and provide a point-by-point incorporation and response.

Not accepted, observations given.

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

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission accepted the concept of the proposal received at conceptual stage at its meeting held on January 8, 2020. The Commission did not accept the concept of the proposal for addition/alterations at its meeting held on April 2, 2026; specific observations were given.
3. The building proposal for additions and alterations (Ground to First Floor, with two additional floors proposed above the existing structure; the second block is a proposed structure comprising a double-height Ground Floor only) received (through online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-24032627013 dated 08.04.2026, and a detailed discussion was held with the  architect online who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the submission made, including documentation, drawings, photographs, discussion, and replies submitted, the following observation is to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that it had earlier accepted the concept of the proposal for additions and alterations in its meeting held on January 8, 2020, comprising three (03) basements and floors from ground to fifth level, with the basements accommodating the requisite parking requirements 440 ECS. The elevational façade, architectural form, proportions, materials, textures, finishes, and overall aesthetic composition were also given due consideration while accepting the design scheme at conceptual stage. However, the proposal has not been submitted to the Commission at the formal stage since then.

b) Now, the current design scheme for additions and alterations comprising Ground to First Floor with two additional floors proposed above the existing structure, along with a second block consisting of a double-height Ground Floor, has been substantially revised. The façade, architectural form, proportions, materials, textures, and finishes have been significantly changed without providing any justification for such extensive changes. Further, the revised proposal does not include proposed basements for accommodating the requisite parking requirements.

c) The Commission understands that the overall design scheme represents a culmination of the existing and proposed development on the site; however, it has not been sufficiently developed in the submission. All side 3D views are missing, and the materiality of the façade has not been clearly depicted. The quality of the submitted 3D views is inadequate, appearing overly sketchy, and does not clearly convey scale, proportions, or material specifications.

d) Annotated 3D views, clearly indicating the proposed façade materials, shall be provided. Further, the proposed design scheme shall be presented through annotated 3D views superimposed on the existing superstructure, along with the surrounding context, including road networks and adjacent structures, to enable a better understanding of the proposal in its actual setting. Additionally, the quality of the 3D visuals needs significant improvement, and it shall be ensured that the 3D views are consistent with the submitted drawings.

e) It has been observed that the requisite parking provisions have been accommodated only at the surface level. The Commission generally emphasizes that, for larger sites, the majority of parking requirements should be provided in basements to facilitate improved groundwater recharge. Accordingly, alternative options shall be explored to accommodate the full parking demand of both the existing and proposed schemes.

f) It was further noted that the parking provision has been calculated based on the achieved FAR (existing + proposed) of 44.92%, whereas the permissible FAR is 175, indicating that an additional FAR of approximately 130 may be availed in the future. In the absence of a design scheme addressing such a scenario, it is advised that the parking layout be planned considering the full permissible FAR of 175 to ensure long-term adequacy.

g) The parking plan shall be detailed and clearly indicate the number and location of parking spaces, along with vehicular circulation patterns. Further, the layout plan shall distinctly demarcate existing parking and additional parking arising from the proposed FAR, with a clear bifurcation between the two. 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.

h) Detailed skin sections shall also be submitted to clearly illustrate the façade treatment, including material specifications and provisions for weather protection. To ensure a thorough evaluation of the proposal, detailed sections, including longitudinal and cross-sections that encompass the entire site, must be submitted.

i) A lot of live/dead load is being added to the existing building. Considering structural changes in the existing building structure shall be such designed that it can withstand weather effects, impacts from calamities like earthquake etc. The local body shall ensure the structural safety of the additions/alterations done on the existing superstructure. 

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

k) A sky-bridge connection has been proposed at the second floor level to link the two blocks, along with large open seating areas on the second floor terrace, as indicated in the 3D views. However, the submission lacks the necessary details to adequately understand the overall design scheme, including material specifications and the utilities proposed on the terrace. The same shall be clearly explained with requisite details in the revised submission.

l) The provision of air-conditioning in the proposed building is not clear. A scheme shall be established to conceal the equipment on the facade, terrace etc. and the same shall be reflected in appropriate layouts and 3d views. The materials/finishes used for screening shall be similar to the materials used in the elevation. 

m) Similarly, provision of rainwater drainage pipes in balconies and the terrace level needs to be detailed in the revised submission. 

n) 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.

o) 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.

p) 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 conceptual 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.

Not accepted, observations given.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the South DMC (through email) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal for addition/alterations (demolishing the existing auditorium and proposing an academic block (now denoted as an office building)) at its meeting held on June 25, 2021. The Commission approve the revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on June 15, 2023 (addition of 2nd floor, 3rd floor, 4th floor & 5th floor over an existing office building comprising of S+G+01, and a proposed MLCP (S+G+1).
3. The revised building plan proposal for addition/alteration received (through email) at the formal stage was scrutinised. Based on the submission made, including documentation, drawings, photographs, and previous approvals given on June 15, 2023; the following observation is to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that the architect in its project report has indicated the reasons for revised submission as under:

“…..The Plans, Elevation details, height, Location, etc of the Office building is almost same. The Number of floors are reduced from S+6 To S+4.  The MLCP- RCC Type With Ramp is not being constructed instead Puzzle parking for 50 Cars is proposed…”

b) It was further noted by the Commission that the office building has already been constructed. Accordingly, the observations are in regard of puzzle parking for 50 cars only.

c) The Commission noted that 5 mm profile sheets and 4 mm ACP panels have been predominantly used on the longer façade to screen the puzzle parking system. It is instead suggested that solar panels be incorporated into the façade of the proposed structure to contribute to a reduced carbon footprint and improved energy efficiency of the building.

d) The installation of clear-story solar panels on a well-designed structural frame, integrated with the puzzle parking 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.

e) Rainwater pipes, service equipment, water tanks, 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 proposal was forwarded by the South DMC (through email) 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 plan proposal for addition/alteration (including proposed Block-2, Block-3, and addition of second and third floors on the existing building) received (through email) at the formal stage was scrutinised. Based on the submission made, including documentation, drawings and photographs; the following observation is 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 submitted site photographs and project report indicate that the existing basement is presently vacant and is proposed to be utilized for double-stack parking in the revised scheme, but from the submitted sections, it is evident that the height is insufficient to accommodate double stack parking, thus discrepancy is observed. Further, it is noted that a substantial portion of the surface area is being allocated for double-stack parking behind the proposed Block 3, without exploring the provision of basement parking beneath the proposed Blocks 2 and 3, as well as the possibility of interlinking the existing basement under Block 1 subject to structural feasibility, to ensure seamless, efficient, and uninterrupted access across all blocks.

c) The Commission does not support the provision of stack/double-stack parking in open areas, as it adversely impacts the visual quality and overall urban aesthetics of the site. Surface parking is also discouraged, particularly in view of concerns related to flooding and groundwater recharge. The Commission generally emphasizes that, for larger sites, the majority of parking requirements should be accommodated in basements to facilitate improved groundwater recharge.

d) It was further noted that the parking provision has been calculated based on the achieved FAR (existing + proposed) whereas substantial balance FAR may likely to be availed in the future. In the absence of a design scheme addressing such a scenario, it is advised that the parking layout be planned considering the full permissible FAR to ensure long-term adequacy. Accordingly, alternative options shall be explored to meet the full parking demand of both the existing and proposed schemes.

e) The parking plan shall be detailed and clearly indicate the number and location of parking spaces, along with vehicular circulation patterns. Further, the layout plan shall distinctly demarcate existing parking and additional parking arising from the proposed FAR, with a clear bifurcation between the two. 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.

f) A combined mobility plan shall be submitted, illustrating seamless and conflict-free pedestrian and vehicular movement, including ingress and egress from the site and circulation to various parts of the building, in order to clearly understand the overall movement pattern within the site. It shall be indicated clearly with clear segregation of pedestrian and vehicular movement with due consideration to point No. 16, 17 the CPAA (Criteria for Project Assessment and Approval), as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

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

h) It was observed that the location of the Swachh Bharat toilet has been indicated at the front; however, its detailed drawings, including plans, elevations, and sections, have not been provided, rendering the submission incomplete at the Formal stage. All requisite details, including corrected and coordinated drawings along with annotated 3D views, shall be furnished in the revised submission to enable a comprehensive review.

i) Also, as the proposal is for the additions/alterations, a lot of live/dead load is being added to the existing building. Structure shall be designed to withstand weather effects and impacts from calamities such as earthquakes, etc., as it is an additional structure added to the existing superstructure. The local body shall ensure the structural safety of the additions/alterations done on the existing superstructure. 

j) The terrace plan indicates solar panels; however, the 3D views do not adequately reflect them. All rooftop utilities, including solar panels, HVAC units, and water tanks, shall be clearly shown to assess their integration within the design.

k) 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, and needs improvement. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and provide a point-by-point incorporation and response.