Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1701st meeting held on 20.04.2023.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of the 1701st meeting held on 20.04.2023 was discussed.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal for additions/alterations (layout plan) at its meeting held on January 14, 2009, and specific observations were given.
3. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on March 09, 2023, specific observations were given.
4. The Commission accepted the Concept of the building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of a new super speciality block B+G+10) at its meeting held on March 23, 2023, specific observations were given.
5. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations {addition of a new super speciality block (B+G+10) and MLCP Block} received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Conceptually Suitable letter no: OL-20032327021 dated 27.03.2023. Based on the previous observations and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that while considering the case for additions/alterations it did not consider and cover the existing built construction at the site. This concerns the proposal for additions/alterations only.

b) All parking is to be as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc.

c) The Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

d) All plumbing pipes, service equipment, water tanks, air-conditioning units, solar panels, DG set, DG exhaust pipes etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of point nos. 10, 11 & 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 (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on June 05, 2007, and the revised layout and building plan proposal was approved at its meeting held on August 12, 2021, respectively, and specific observations were given.
3. The Commission accepted the Concept of the layout and building plans proposal at its meeting held on March 17, 2022, and specific observations were given. But, did not approve the building plans proposal at it meeting held on November 17, 2022, specific observations were given.
4. The revised building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation letter no: OL-16112255071 dated 21.11.2022, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect (online) on Cisco Web Ex meeting who gave a detailed presentation of the proposed design scheme and responded to the queries of the Commission, including not receiving of the complete documentation/drawings on the DUAC OPAAS. Based on the replies submitted, the presentation made by the architect (online), the discussion held, and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) Installation of Solar PV panels shall be ensured, and sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

b) All plumbing pipes, service equipment, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels, DG set, DG exhaust pipes etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of point nos. 10, 11 &12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. No previous record of approval (Formal/Completion) taken has been found in the available record of the Commission.
3. The building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and the Commission intended to discuss the proposal with the architect (online) but he was not available. In the absence of the discussion held (online), and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) No provision has been made to accommodate & screen the plumbing shafts. The exposed plumbing pipes would spoil & mar the visual & urban aesthetics of the area. Arrangements shall be made in the design by creating shafts to accommodate plumbing arrangements.  

b) The location shown for the proposed manhole (MH) on the ground floor right in the middle of the staircase landing leading to the basement is not understood as it appears to hindering the accessibility.

c) The Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

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

4. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. No previous record of approval (Formal/Completion) taken has been found in the available record of the Commission.
3. The building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and the Commission intended to discuss the proposal with the architect (online) but he was not available. In the absence of the discussion held (online), and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) No provision has been made to accommodate & screen the plumbing shafts. The exposed plumbing pipes would spoil & mar the visual & urban aesthetics of the area. Arrangements shall be made in the design by creating shafts to accommodate plumbing arrangements.  

b) The location shown for the proposed manhole (MH) on the ground floor right in the middle of the staircase landing leading to the basement is not understood as it appears to hindering the accessibility.

c) The Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

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

4. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout plan at its meeting held on July 29, 2016, and the building plans for additions & alterations (New Sadhak block, training block, kitchen block and library block) were approved in the meeting held on October 17, 2018.
3. The Commission did not accept the Part- NOC for completion at its meeting held on September 22, 2022, specific observations were given.
4. The proposal for NOC for completion (part- for New Sadhak Block, and Kitchen Block) received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation letter no: OL-15092258024 dated 27.09.2022 and observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., South DMC in part ‘C’ Proforma. Based on the replies submitted, comments received in part ‘C’ Proforma and the revised submission made, the proposal for NOC for Completion (part) is found acceptable.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the North DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. No previous record of approval (Formal/Completion) taken has been found in the available record of the Commission.
3. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on April 06, 2023, specific observations were given.
4. The revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation letter no: OL-31032323020 dated 11.04.2023. The Commission intended to discuss the proposal with the architect (online) at the Cisco Web Ex meeting but he was not available. In the absence of the discussion held (online), and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) It was observed that the proposal has been submitted at the formal stage but photographs of the site for the likely construction appear to be found missing in the submission. An appropriate number of uncut photographs of the site from all sides shall be submitted for a better understanding of the proposal.

b) The Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

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

5. In view of the deficit in the information provided, the proposal could not be considered judiciously.
6. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the North DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not accept the concept of the building plan proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on November 10, 2022, and on March 16, 2023, specific observations were given. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on February 23, 2023, specific observations were given.
3. The Commission accepted the Concept of the Building plan proposal for addition/alterations at its meeting held on April 06, 2023, specific observations were given.
4. The building plan proposal for addition/alteration (additions of a banquet hall, double height banquet, covered lounge (without wall), bakery, kitchen, covered verandah, restaurant area, corridor, multipurpose hall) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Conceptually Suitable letter no: OL-31032327025 dated 11.04.2023, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect (online) on Cisco Web Ex meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the discussion held (online), previous observations of the Commission, and submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that while considering the case for additions/alterations it did not consider and cover the existing built construction at the site. This concerns the proposal for additions/alterations only.

b) The Commission observed that in terms of the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-31032327025 dated 11.04.2023 unsatisfactory compliances for the same has been made.

c) Discrepancies have been observed in the submission received at the formal stage, the architect has claimed to have made provisions for stack parking (164.80 ECS) on the surface but their location on the site has not been provided. Also, the same is found to be missing in the 3D views provided. The Commission opines that providing so much stack parking, on the surface, on the site could impact the visual & urban aesthetics of the complex. The drawings should be corrected and the coordinated submission (plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc.) shall be provided for the review of the proposal.

d) Similarly, a small portion of the existing basement claimed to have been provided with a double stack for accommodating 162.57 ECS. Considering the size of the basement the same appears to be not feasible. The parking arrangements envisaged for the overall proposal (existing + proposed) shall be relooked at and a truthful detailed parking plan with numbers, locations, and movement of cars etc. shall be provided for the judicious consideration of the proposal.

e) It is again reiterated that the overall quality of the elevations and sections submitted is very basic, the Commission opines that since the proposal is at a formal stage, an appropriate number of detailed elevations and sections (longitudinal and cross-section across the site as well) should be provided highlighting the materials, finishes, architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, plumbing details etc. for a better understanding of the overall scheme. Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

f) The mechanism of the DG exhaust pipes protruding out above the surface and its integration with the superstructure shall be elucidated with appropriate details. It is again reiterated that exposed DG exhaust pipes could spoil the visual and the aesthetics of the area if not screened appropriately with a suitable material.

g) The Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

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

5. In view of the unsatisfactory compliances provided to the Commission, the proposal could not be appreciated judiciously by the Commission.
6. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the North DMC (online) 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. However, some scanned drawings for the regularisation taken from MCD were submitted.
3. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on December 29, 2022, and on March 02, 2023, specific observations were given.
4. The Commission accepted the Concept of the building plan proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on April 06, 2023.
5. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of some areas in an existing building comprising of B+G+1 floors, and a new building block comprising of B+G+5 floors) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Conceptually Suitable letter no: OL-03042327026 dated 11.04.2023, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect (online) on Cisco Web Ex meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the discussion held (online), previous observations of the Commission, and submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that while considering the case for additions/alterations it did not consider and cover the existing built construction at the site. This concerns the proposal for additions/alterations only.

b) The Commission observed that in terms of the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-03042327026 dated 11.04.2023 unsatisfactory compliances for the same have been made.

c) Discrepancies have been observed in the submission received at the formal stage, the architect has claimed to have made provisions for stack parking (134.94 ECS) on the surface but the same has not been substantiated with an appropriate number of 3D views. The Commission opines that providing so much stack parking, on the surface, on the site could impact the visual & urban aesthetics of the complex. The drawings should be corrected and the coordinated submission (plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc.) shall be provided for the review of the proposal.

d) The parking arrangements envisaged for the overall proposal (existing + proposed) shall be relooked at and a truthful detailed parking plan with numbers, locations, and movement of cars etc. shall be provided for the judicious consideration of the proposal.

e) It is again reiterated that the overall quality of the elevations and sections submitted is very basic, the Commission opines that since the proposal is at a formal stage, an appropriate number of detailed elevations and sections (longitudinal and cross-section across the site as well) should be provided highlighting the materials, finishes, architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, plumbing details etc. for a better understanding of the overall scheme. Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

f) The mechanism of the DG exhaust pipes protruding out above the surface and its integration with the superstructure shall be elucidated with appropriate details. It is again reiterated that exposed DG exhaust pipes could spoil the visual and the aesthetics of the area if not screened appropriately with a suitable material.

g) Installation of Solar PV panels on available terraces shall be ensured. The Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

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

6. In view of the unsatisfactory compliances provided to the Commission, the proposal could not be appreciated judiciously by the Commission.
7. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

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

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

1. The proposal was forwarded by the NDMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. No previous reference of approvals (formal) was found in the available records of the Commission.
3. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on September 22, 2022, specific observations were given.
4. The revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations (Construction of lift, staircase, ramps for physically challenged, public toilet, relocation of doors and windows, erection and removal of internal partition) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the comments given by the concerned local body i.e., NDMC. Based on the comments received and the submission made, the following observation is to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that while considering the case for additions/alterations it did not consider and cover the existing built construction at the site. This concerns the proposal for additions/alterations only.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the NDMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plans proposal for addition/alterations (extension of chancery block and car port) at its meeting held on December 28, 2017.
3. The proposal for NOC for Completion (part- extension of chancery block and car port) received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., NDMC in parts ‘B’ and ‘C’ Proforma. Based on the observations/recommendations received, and the submission made, the proposal for NOC for Completion (part) is accepted.

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

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

Layout and Building plan proposal for additions/alterations in respect of Saroj Super Speciality Hospital at Block A, Sector-14, Rohini. (Conceptual Stage)

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

Building plan proposal in respect of Motel on Khasra No. 697/1/2, 697/2/2, 696/1/2, 696/2/2, 696/2/1, etc. situated in Village Ghitorni, Tehsil Vasant Vihar. (Conceptual Stage)

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

Building plan proposal for additions/alterations in respect of Air India Employee CGHS Ltd. at Plot no. 9, Sector -3, Dwarka. (Conceptual Stage)

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

Revised Building plan proposal in respect of Motel Building at Khasra no. 23/14/2, 23/17, 23/18, 23/19/2, 23/13/2 at Village Samalkha Tehsil Vasant Vihar.(Conceptual Stage)

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

1. The proposal was forwarded by the East DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the revised layout plan of the proposal at its meeting held on February 13, 2015. The Commission did not accept the concept of the proposal for additional construction at its meeting held on November 06, 2020, specific observations were given.
3. The Commission approved the building plan proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on March 16, 2021, specific observations were given.
4. The Commission did not approve the revised building plans proposal for addition/alterations at its meeting held on March 09, 2023, specific observations were given.
5. The revised building plans proposal for additions/alteration {addition of 4 floors over the existing 2B+G+3 floors in Block-B, the addition of new Block-C (2B+G+service floor+9 floors)} received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation letter no: OL-04032356001 dated 14.03.2023. Based on the replies submitted and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that while considering the case for additions/alterations it did not consider and cover the existing built construction at the site. This concerns the proposal for additions/alterations only.

b) Installation of Solar PV panels shall be ensured. Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

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