1. Action Taken Reports in respect of Minutes of the 1866th meeting held on 29.04.2026 were discussed.

1. The North-DMC forwarded (through 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 available record of the Commission.
3. The building proposal for residential building (comprising of basement + stilt + ground + three floors) received (through 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, and photographs, etc, the discussion held, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) It was observed that the proforma indicating the Development Control Regulations (DCR) details appears to contain discrepancies (the permissible and the proposed fields have identical entries). Accordingly, the same shall be reviewed and corrected entries pertaining to ground coverage, FAR, building height, and car parking provisions shall be submitted to enable a clearer understanding of the proposal.

b) The Commission observed during the discussion with the Architect, and as evident from the submitted site photographs, that the proposal forms part of a larger combined property characterized by a distinct and cohesive architectural vocabulary in terms of architectural elements, form, proportions, and materiality. It was further noted that the two properties are interconnected at the first-floor level, while remaining segregated at the ground floor through an 8’-0” wide private lane.

c) The architect further informed that only a portion of the existing symmetric development is proposed to be demolished; however, the same has not been appropriately reflected in the submitted plans and existing front façade drawings. Accordingly, the drawings shall be revised to include detailed demolition plans of the subject property, along with clear demarcation of the portions proposed to be retained with superimposition of the current design scheme, and demolished on the front façade of the combined property, as visible in the submitted site photographs.

d) The Commission expressed its intent to review the proposal holistically rather than in isolation, considering that the site forms part of a combined property with potential visual and aesthetic implications on the overall architectural character and design scheme.

e) Further, it was observed that the existing streetscape exhibits a symmetrical character, which should be duly respected and reflected in the proposed design approach. The proposed front façade elevation should derive inspiration from the existing architectural elements, form, and character of the combined property. However, the submitted façade does not appear to integrate harmoniously with the existing setting and overall architectural context. In this regard, it was advised that alternative façade design options be explored and submitted for consideration. The revised façade proposals shall be presented within the existing site context, along with contextual views/renderings, to enable assessment of their visual and urban design implications on the surrounding built environment.

f) The structural arrangement of the proposal, including the column layout, has not been indicated in the submitted drawings. The absence of the structural scheme may have implications on the proposed furniture layouts and parking arrangements within the stilt area. Accordingly, it is suggested that a comprehensive and workable structural scheme be submitted, including detailed column layouts for the basement and stilt levels, along with parking layouts, to ensure efficient, functional, and coordinated planning of the building.

g) It was observed that the ‘North Point’ has not been indicated on the submitted plans, thereby making it difficult to understand the orientation of the building and the overall site layout. Accordingly, it shall be ensured that all drawings, including layout plans, clearly indicate the North Point for proper comprehension and assessment of the proposal.

h) 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.

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.

j) 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 the need to be improvement further. It is suggested that the scheme may first be submitted at the conceptual stage. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and provide a point-by-point incorporation and response.

1. The South-DMC forwarded (through email) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. Earlier, the Commission approved the building plans proposal for additions and alterations at its meeting held on September 23, 2015 and subsequently accepted the NOC for completion plans proposal at its meeting held on October 3, 2019. 
3. The Commission accepted the concept of the proposal (for for additions and alteration) received at conceptual stage at its meeting held on January 29, 2026; specific observations were given.
4. The building proposal for additions and alterations received (through email) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide conceptual acceptance letter no: OL-20012627003 dated 03.02.2026, 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, email dated 14.05.2026, and replies submitted, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations, etc. (in terms of points no. 18 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval)), as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

b) 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 North-DMC forwarded (through online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not accept the concept of the proposal received at conceptual stage at its meeting held on April 16, 2026; specific observations were given.
3. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal received at formal stage at its meeting held on April 29, 2026; specific observations were given.
4. The building proposal for residential building (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-27042623010 dated 04.05.2026. Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations, photographs, and replies submitted, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) It was observed in the submitted drawings that a manhole and GT line are passing through the living room, which is not considered an appropriate location. Accordingly, the same shall be suitably relocated and proposed at an appropriate location.

b) The concerned local body shall ensure that all projections remain within the plot boundaries. Further, the plinth level of the property shall be maintained at an adequate height to safeguard the premises against surface run-off.

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

d) All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations, etc. (in terms of points no. 18 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval)), as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

e) All plumbing pipes, rainwater pipes, service equipment, 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 North-DMC forwarded (through email) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal for residential building at its meeting held on April 2, 2026; specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal (comprising of basement + ground + 1 floor) 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-30032623190 dated 08.04.2026 and a detailed discussion was held with the architect (online) on Cisco Webex meetings, during which clarifications were provided to the Commission’s queries. Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations, and photographs, the discussion held, and replies submitted, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) It was observed and noted by the Commission that the previous submission included photographs of the existing structure, which has since been demolished; however, no demolition plan has been submitted as part of the present proposal. Further, the scanned proforma and details of the owner are also missing from the submission. As the proposal is being considered at the formal stage, all requisite documentation, including duly scanned proforma and owner details shall be submitted to ensure completeness of records and documentation.

b) It is further noted that the previously submitted proposal did not include a basement; however, the current proposal pertains to a building comprising Basement + Ground + First Floor (B+G+1).

c) The Commission in its earlier observation had indicated that:

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

In its continuation, the Commission observed that the proposed elevation and material palette, submitted in the current proposal, still require further refinement and rationalisation. The various architectural elements, projections, textures, and finishes do not appear to be adequately integrated, resulting in a fragmented elevational composition lacking the desired cohesiveness and visual clarity appropriate for a plot of such prominence. The proposed colour scheme, including the extensive use of white colour, may also be reviewed to achieve a more balanced and harmonious architectural expression.

Accordingly, the elevation and façade design shall be suitably revisited and revised design options submitted for consideration. Further, detailed drawings and specifications of the proposed glass railings, including fixing systems, materials, and façade interface details, shall be comprehensively provided in the revised submission.

d) Further, detailed sectional drawings through the double-height areas shall be supplemented in the revised submission to help understand the interconnection between floors and the proposed utilisation of such spaces. The proposed lift size may also be suitably reviewed in relation to the scale of the plot to ensure better functional efficiency and passenger capacity.

e) The proposal includes a basement for household/domestic storage and parking with a hydraulic car lift system. However, upon examination, the turning radius for vehicular movement appears inadequate, which may adversely affect the effective functioning of the basement parking. Accordingly, the basement parking layout, along with the structural arrangement, shall be suitably revised and demonstrated to ensure functional feasibility and smooth vehicular movement.

f) All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations, etc. (in terms of points no. 18 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

g) In addition, furniture layouts shall be superimposed on the floor plans to demonstrate functional usability and judicious space utilisation, while the internal planning may be revisited to ensure adequate light and ventilation throughout the building (in terms of points no. 5 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, 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.

i) 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. In view of the lack of clarity, discrepancies observed in the submission, and the need for further improvement in the proposal, it is suggested that the scheme may first be submitted at the conceptual stage, so that the Commission may provide appropriate observations with respect to urban design and environmental aesthetics. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and provide a point-by-point incorporation and response.

1. The North-DMC forwarded (through online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The building plans proposal (comprising of ground + 1 floor) received (through online) at the formal stage was scrutinised.  Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations, and photographs, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) It was observed in the submission that the air filling point and pollution check kiosk have been placed near each other and also near the exit area. As both functions require adequate operational space, the proposed location appears inappropriate and may adversely affect smooth vehicular movement at the exit. Accordingly, the location of the air filling point and pollution check kiosk shall be suitably revised/interchanged and placed at an adequate distance from each other to ensure smooth circulation and effective functioning.

b) It was further observed that the size and scale of the air filling point and pollution check kiosk shown in the drawings appear inconsistent with those depicted in the 3D views, resulting in a mismatch within the submission. It shall be ensured that the scale and dimensions of all elements are appropriately coordinated and consistently represented in the revised drawings to maintain overall coherence in the proposal.

c) Further, the proposed entry and exit width of 9.0 m appears insufficient considering the multiple functions proposed within the site. It shall be ensured that the entry and exit widths are to be sufficiently increased to facilitate smooth vehicular movement and efficient site functioning.

d) It was observed that there are inconsistencies in the drawings, particularly with regard to the size of the entry/exit as indicated in the 3D views and the plans. The architect/local body shall ensure that the drawings are duly corrected, coordinated, and resubmitted for review.

e) The location of the EV charging station has not been indicated in the submission. The same shall be updated in the revised submission and clearly marked in the revised 3D views. Additionally, the details of the proposed materiality shall be clearly annotated in the revised submission.

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

g) The 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.

3. 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 NDMC forwarded (through email) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission accepted the concept of the proposal received at conceptual stage at its meeting held on March 27, 2019, and approved the Redevelopment of GPRA colony, Sarojini Nagar at its meeting held on January 17, 2020, specific observations were given.
3. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal for residential apartment at its meeting held on April 9, 2026; specific observations were given.
4. The revised building plans proposal (for residential tower 1 to 9 comprising of 2 basement + ground + 10 floors) 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-08042624007 dated 15.04.2026.  Based on the submission made, including drawings, documentations, photographs, and replies submitted, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations, etc. (in terms of points no. 18 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

b) 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 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.

d) The installation of clear-story solar panels on a well-designed structural frame, integrated with the building design, is suggested to ensure the effective utilisation of the space beneath, subject to feasibility as per building bye-laws. This placement also facilitates easy maintenance, reduces heat load through increased shading, and improves aesthetics. The sustainability features shall be as per Point 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval), available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

1. The CPWD forwarded (through online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Rashtriya Smriti Sthal is the designated common memorial site for deceased Presidents, Vice-Presidents, and Prime Ministers of India.
3. The proposal for the Samadhi of Late Shri Pranab Mukherjee, Former President of India received (through 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, and photographs, etc, the discussion held, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) It was observed from the submission that the current proposal introduces two deviations from the design language followed by other Samadhis within the Rajghat Samadhi Complex, namely:

I) installation of a photograph of the Late President on a granite platform, and

II) provision of lighting beneath the square platform.

b) As the site forms part of a larger commemorative complex wherein the other Samadhis do not incorporate photographic installations, the inclusion of a photograph as part of the Samadhi is discouraged to maintain the sanctity of the site and preserve the overall contextual character of the complex. Alternative approaches may be explored to avoid overpowering the sanctity and design of the Samadhi. Further, the overall design shall conform to the approved design language and applicable norms/guidelines of the Rajghat Samadhi Complex.

c) As the proposal pertains to the Samadhi of Late Shri Pranab Mukherjee, Former President of India, within the Rajghat Samadhi Complex, the 3D representation shall be limited to the scope of the present proposal only, while the remaining areas shall be depicted in their actual existing form to facilitate a judicious review of the proposal.

d) The selection of flooring material proposed for the circumambulatory path shall be made keeping in view the safe and functional movement of the public. Further, it shall be ensured that the proposed material is in consonance with the material palette adopted for other Samadhis within the complex, so as to maintain overall uniformity.

e) It was observed that there are inconsistencies between the proposed materials and their representation in the 3D views, which shall be duly rectified. Further, a detailed material palette sheet, along with complete specifications and materiality details, shall be provided in the revised submission for review.

f) The proposal comprises a combination of existing elements and the proposed interventions envisaged for review. To ensure clarity in the submission, it is suggested that the proposal be prepared in a comparative format (clearly depicting the existing elements/site conditions and the proposed design scheme) so as to facilitate a judicious review by the Commission.

4. Overall, the proposal lacks coherence, and needs improvement. It is suggested that the scheme may first be submitted at the conceptual stage in a comparative format (existing and proposed) as suggested above. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations and provide a point-by-point incorporation and response.

1. The CPWD forwarded (through online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal (for the addition of a Conference Hall) at its meeting held March 21, 2024; specific observations were given.
3. The Commission approved the building plans proposal for addition of lifts at Nirvachan Sadan at its meeting held on February 19, 2026.
4. The revised building plans proposal (proposed construction of additional lifts at Nirvachan Sadan) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised. Based on the submission, the following observation is to be complied with:

a) The local body to ensure that the proposed lift provisions are in accordance with the applicable norms/regulations, including requirements related to lift dimensions, weight and load capacity, door size, door opening and width, as well as universal accessibility provisions, so as to ensure safe and barrier-free access for all users.