Action Taken Reports in respect of Minutes of 1705th meeting & 1706th meeting (Extraordinary) held on 18.05.2023 and 24.05.2023 respectively.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plans proposal in respect of the Redevelopment of the Integrated Exhibition cum Convention Centre (IECC) at its meeting held on June 14, 2017.

3. The Commission accepted the Part-NOC for Completion for exhibition halls (nos. A3, A4 and A5), and Convention Centre at its meeting held on October 12, 2021, and May 24, 2023 respectively specific observations were given.
4. The Commission did not accept the NOC for Completion (Part-Exhibition Hall A2 and Admin Block) at its meeting held on May 18, 2023, and specific observations were given.
5. The proposal for NOC for completion (Part-Exhibition Hall A2 and Admin Block) received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with replies submitted by the architect in response to observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no. OL-16052358011 dated 23.05.2023 and observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., South DMC in part ‘C’ of Proforma. Based on the comments received in part ‘C’ Proforma and the submission made, a detailed discussion was held with the architect (online) on Cisco Web Ex meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. The architect has informed that the construction material seen lying around the building blocks belongs to the surrounding buildings under construction. Based on the discussion held (online), and the submission made, the proposal for NOC for Completion (Part-Exhibition Hall A2 and Admin Block) is accepted. 

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 May 11, 2023, and April 13, 2023, respectively, specific observations were given.
4. The revised building plan proposal for addition/alterations (expansion of the basement, stilt, ground, 1^st and 2^nd floor and addition of 1 floor over the existing basement+stilt+ground+2floors) 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-09052323032 dated 16.05.2023. 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) All requisite parking shall 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, DG sets, DG exhaust pipes, 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.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the revised layout plan at its meeting held on March 04, 2015, and the building plans were approved at its meeting held on January 04, 2019, and specific observations were given. The Commission did not approve the revised master plan and the building plan proposals (for Academic buildings (admin, academic, workshop, activity centre), residential buildings (faculty residences, hostel), ESS building etc.)  at its meeting held on April 20, 2023, and January 25, 2023, respectively, specific observations were given.
3. The revised proposal for the revised masterplan and building plan proposal (for Academic buildings (admin, academic, workshop, activity centre), residential buildings (faculty residences, hostel), ESS building etc.)  received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the DUAC observation letter no: OL-13042355034 dated 24.04.2023, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect (online) who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission.  Based on the revised submission made, replies submitted by the architect, and the detailed discussion held (online), the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission took note of that fact as indicated by the architect in its project report that revisions for the Master plan have been proposed due to the unavailability of a portion of land measuring 9583.55 sqm.

b) The covering options for the vehicular ramp to the basement shall be relooked at for considerations related to the visual & urban aesthetics of the complex.  The presented design for covering ramps is not suitable and is not approved by the Commission.

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 water tanks, plumbing pipes, service equipment, outdoor air-conditioner 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.

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 building plan proposal for additions/alterations received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, 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), 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) Any of the rooms on the ground floor do not have a provision for direct light & ventilation, the same shall be as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc.

c) Also, a toilet provision be made on the ground floor.

d) 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.

e) All water tanks, plumbing pipes, service equipment, outdoor air-conditioner 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.

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 North DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. No previous record of approval (at the Formal/sanction stage) taken has been found in the available record of the Commission.
3. The proposal for NOC for completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., North DMC in part ‘C’ of Proforma. The Commission took note of the fact (as mentioned in the report) that the approval has been taken from DDA vide their file no: F13(03)99/Bldg. dated 5th April 1999. Based on the comments received in part ‘C’ Proforma and the submission made, the proposal for NOC for Completion is accepted.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the NDMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal for demolition and reconstruction at its meeting held on December 09, 2021, and specific observations were given.
3. The revised building plan proposal for demolition and reconstruction received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The entire proposal shall adhere to all the applicable statutory provisions, and norms/regulations of the prevailing Lutyens Bungalow Zone (LBZ) guidelines.

b) 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.

c) All service equipment 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 PWD-GNCTD (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the layout and building plans proposal at its meeting held on February 23, 2023, and specific observations were given.
3. The layout and building plans proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to DUAC observation letter no: OL-15022361002 dated 28.02.2023. Based on the replies submitted, and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) 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.

b) All water tanks, 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) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal at its meeting held on April 13, 2023, and specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal received (online) at the Formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to DUAC observation letter no: OL-10042322030 dated 19.04.2023 and the Commission intended to discuss (online) the proposal with the architect on Cisco Web Ex meetings but he did not join the meeting to answer its queries. Based on the replies submitted, in the absence of discussion held (online), and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) In terms of the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-10042322030 dated 19.04.2023 unsatisfactory compliances on the same have been given.

b) Discrepancies observed in the submission for mechanical tower parking, the architectural elements reflected in the 3D views appear to have not been incorporated in the plans etc. Since the proposal is at a formal stage correlated, the coordinated submission shall be submitted for the consideration of the Commission.

c) It is again reiterated that the provisions made for the mechanical tower parking are not sufficiently detailed with elevations/sections/3D views etc. to understand its working mechanism better including its vehicular access/exit etc.

d) The Commission observed that almost all toilets on every floor do not have a provision of direct light & ventilation, and plumbing shafts/mechanisms, the location of toilets keeps changing on every floor. The same shall be relooked at and elucidated with the required details to understand the design scheme better.

e) Also, the location of the public toilet and the guard room etc. are part of the formal submission but their detailed drawings (including screening mechanism, elevations, sections, 3D views etc.) have not been submitted. The Commission observed that these components have a bearing on the overall visual, urban, and aesthetic quality of the complex. The same is to be revised appropriately and incorporated for review by the Commission.

f) 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.

g) All water tanks, plumbing pipes, service equipment, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels, transformers, 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.

4. In view of the insufficient information provided, the proposal received at the formal stage could not be examined & considered judiciously.
5. 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 Commission approved the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on May 23, 2000. The Commission accepted the NOC for completion at its meeting held on June 05, 2007, specific observations were given.
3. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal for additions/alterations (bedroom, toilet, extension of drawing room & balconies) at its meeting held on May 18, 2023, specific observations were given.
4. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations (bedroom, toilet, extension of drawing room & balconies) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the DUAC observation letter no: OL-15052322037 dated 23.05.2023 and a detailed discussion was held on Cisco Web Ex meetings (online) the architect provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the discussion held (online) 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) The covering of balconies with temporary materials needed to be removed.

c) The design scheme presented for the location of outdoor air conditioners is not accepted, the same shall be placed so that they do not remain visible and spoil the visual & aesthetics of the façade.

d) 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.

e) 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. The architect is advised to adhere to the above observation of the Commission and furnish a pointwise compliance & reply.

1.  The proposal was forwarded by the DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on May 26, 1995.
3. The proposal for NOC for completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., DDA in part ‘C’ of Proforma. Based on the comments received in part ‘C’ Proforma and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) Cropped photographs of the completion plan proposal have been submitted which do not indicate the required details. An appropriate number of existing site pictures of the building blocks (including all blocks A, B, C, main gate, boundary wall, toilet under SBM, guard room, ESS, Community facilities, parking areas etc.) for which completion has been required are to be provided to understand the existing site condition. They need to be resubmitted with proper uncut views from all sides to comprehend the proposal.

b) Approval received from DUAC (at the formal stage) shall be superimposed on the plans/elevations/sections etc., over the actual built structure on the site, existing & proposed changes done in the design from the approval (by DUAC), to understand the extents of deviations made internally as well as external changes made with respect to the sanctioned plan as reported by the sanctioning authority.

c) For a better understanding of the proposal side by side photographs ‘Before (submitted at the time of DUAC formal approval) and After (current actual built construction)’ of the constructed building blocks is provided.

4. In view of the insufficient information provided, the proposal for NOC for the completion plan could not be appreciated judiciously by the Commission.
5. 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 NDMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on July 31, 2013, and accepted the NOC for completion at its meeting held on January 13, 2016.
3. The building plan proposal for additions and alterations (demolition of shed at the ground, second floor and terrace, demolition of the balcony on the first floor, proposed double height entry at ground floor and proposed dress, lounge, service staircase and pergola on the second floor) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and 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 entire proposal shall adhere to all the applicable statutory provisions, and norms/regulations of the prevailing Lutyens Bungalow Zone (LBZ) guidelines.

c) 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.

d) All service equipment including solar panels, outdoor air-conditioning units, DG set, DG exhaust pipes etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the 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 NDMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. No previous record of the approval taken from the Commission has been found in the available record of the Commission.
3. The building plans proposal for demolition and reconstruction received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised 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), and submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The entire proposal shall adhere to all the applicable statutory provisions, and norms/regulations of the prevailing Lutyens Bungalow Zone (LBZ) guidelines.

b) 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.

c) All service equipment including solar panels, outdoor air-conditioning units etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the 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 NDMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. No previous record of the approval (formal/Completion) taken from the Commission has been found in the available record of the Commission.
3. The building plans proposal for demolition and reconstruction received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised 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), and submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The entire proposal shall adhere to all the applicable statutory provisions, and norms/regulations of the prevailing Lutyens Bungalow Zone (LBZ) guidelines.

b) 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.

c) All service equipment including solar panels, outdoor air-conditioning units etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the 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 CPWD (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the Master plan in respect of Delhi University, North Campus at its meeting held on January 06, 2010, specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal in respect of the Computer Centre Building received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised 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), and submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The quality of submitted drawings is not appreciated by the Commission. They are from a scanned report and appear to be not readable. Legible, coordinated drawings shall be submitted for clarity and understanding.

b) The Commission observed that the proposal is part of a large campus with existing development in the vicinity. The Commission observed that the proposal cannot be studied in isolation i.e., it needs to be reviewed in conjunction with the surrounding facilities, therefore, annotated 3D views of the site (including aerial views, night-time views etc.) shall be superimposed with the existing context of the surroundings including road networks, structures around the site, for better understanding of the proposal in the actual environment to make it clearer.

c) All requisite parking requirements of the site have been given on the surface. The Commission opines that these requisite surface parking requirements which not only spoil the visual & urban aesthetics of the area but also create a lot of hard paved surfaces creating a heat island effect. Considering envisaging alternative parking arrangements (including basement) and the freed-up spaces be put to judicious use including open landscaped permeable green spaces etc.

d) The campus is already functional, and the pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the site be elucidated appropriately with linkages from outside. A combined mobility circulation plan showing seamless, conflict-free pedestrian and vehicular movement plans from outside is to be submitted, to understand the movement pattern within the site better. It shall be indicated clearly with clear segregation of pedestrian and vehicular movement.

e) The mechanism for air conditioning needs to be detailed i.e., location, areas of inflow/outflow in indoor areas and the appropriate treatments used to conceal/screen the air-conditioning system. Also, it shall be ensured that there is no leakage from the AC unit causing deterioration of spaces (indoor and outdoor).

f) The provision of utilities, services, and other facilities etc., on the terrace, is not reflected in the drawings/3d views across all buildings, thus not giving a complete picture including overhead utilities in the complex, which could have a bearing on the urban aesthetics from aerial perspectives and tall buildings in the vicinity.

g) The project is submitted at the Formal stage, the elevations and sections (longitudinal and cross-section across the site as well) need to be detailed along with skin sections (in detail) to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

h) 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.

i) All service equipment including solar panels, outdoor air-conditioning units, DG set, DG exhaust pipes etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the 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.

4. Overall, the proposal is not self-explanatory and appears to be not legible, it could not be appreciated judiciously by the Commission.
5. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

Building plan proposal for additions/alterations in respect of Bal Bharti Public School at Plot no. 12, Block no. H-4-5, Pitampura. (Conceptual Stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. No previous record of the approval (formal/Completion) taken from the Commission has been found in the available record of the Commission.
3. The building plans for additions and alterations (addition of Block 3) received (online) at the conceptual stage were scrutinised 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), and submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that no previous record of the approval (formal/Completion) taken from the Commission has been found in the available record of the Commission. The architect is advised to furnish all records related to previous approvals (formal/completion) taken, and the existing/proposed development on the site should be superimposed on the Google map, to highlight the proposal clearly, with proper annotations to ensure clarity of the scheme.

b) 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.

c) 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.

d) All service equipment 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.

4. Overall, the proposal received at the conceptual stage is not self-explanatory, it could not be appreciated judiciously by the Commission.
5. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply including all previous approvals taken (formal/completion).

1. The proposal was forwarded by the North DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on November 6, 1998.
3. The proposal for NOC for completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., North DMC in part ‘C’ of Proforma. The Commission intended to discuss the proposal with the architect but he was not available. Based on the comments received in part ‘C’ Proforma, in the absence of discussion held (online), and the submission made, the following observation is to be complied with:

a) The electrical conduit for the security camera visible on the façade is either appropriately screened, or is very tidily reinstalled so that it is straight and parallel to the ground, or is concealed by being buried in the wall so that it does not remain visible and mar the aesthetics.

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 for addition/alterations (Proposed Block 1 and 2) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, 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 proposal is at the formal stage, the Commission intended to examine the proposal in conjunction with the surrounding facilities, therefore, 3D views of the site shall be superimposed with the existing context of the surroundings including road networks, structures around the site, for better understanding of the proposal in the actual environment to make it clearer.

c) All requisite parking requirements of the site have been given on the surface. The Commission opines that these requisite surface parking requirements which not only spoil the visual & urban aesthetics of the area but also create a lot of hard paved surfaces creating a heat island effect. Considering envisaging alternative parking arrangements (including basement) and the freed-up spaces be put to judicious use including open landscaped permeable green spaces etc.

d) 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.

e) The pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the site is not shown properly. A combined mobility plan showing seamless, conflict-free pedestrian and vehicular movement plans from outside to the various buildings is to be submitted, to understand the movement pattern within the site better. It shall be indicated clearly with clear segregation of pedestrian and vehicular movement.

f) Air-conditioning mechanism of the building is not clear, the same shall be elucidated with its location, and the appropriate treatments used for its concealment & screening. Also, it shall be ensured that there is no leakage from the AC units causing deterioration of spaces (indoor and outdoor).

g) The design of the gate and the boundary wall could have a bearing on the overall aesthetics of the complex, the same needs to be detailed for gate/grill detail/material applications coordinated with plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc.

h) It was observed that the location of the public toilet and the guard room etc. are also part of the formal submission but their detailed drawings (including screening mechanism, elevations, sections, 3D views etc.) have not been submitted. The Commission observed that these components have a bearing on the overall visual, urban, and aesthetic quality of the complex. The same is to be revised appropriately and incorporated for review by the Commission.

i) The design scheme to screen the transformer, DG set and its exhaust pipes shall be elucidated appropriately with detailed drawings/3D views/other relevant details etc. using suitable architectural mechanisms so as not to remain visible, and mar the aesthetics of the complex.

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

k) A Public Art zoning plan for the entire site shall be submitted along with the proposed Work of Art at appropriate locations, in terms of point nos. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

l) The elements of sustainability are missing in the design scheme. These shall be identified and marked on the plans.  Roof-top utilities are not shown in the plan/ 3D views and thus require to be shown on the relevant drawings. The screening for the same shall also be mentioned and marked clearly in the plans/3D views. 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.

m) All plumbing pipes, service equipment, DG sets, DG exhaust pipes, 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. Overall, the proposal received at the formal stage has been provided with insufficient information which is not appreciated, because of inadequate information provided the proposal could not be appreciated fully by the Commission.
5. The architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission and furnish a pointwise compliance & reply.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the CPWD (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the proposal in respect of the Development/ Redevelopment of Central Vista Avenue, Landscape restoration of Rajpath and its adjoining lawns from Vijay Chowk to India Gate at its meeting held on July 29, 2021, specific observations were given.
3. The Commission accepted the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on September 07, 2022, specific observations were given.

4. The building plans proposal for addition/alterations (vending plaza, additions around India Gate and C-Hexagon Road, Rafi Ahmed Marg, Bollards, horticulture additions, etc.) was received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and a detailed presentation was given by the architect (online) & simultaneously provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the presentation made (online), and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) At the outset, the Commission complimented the architect/proponent for envisaging the additions to the extent that yellow barricades put up all over the place for security considerations are being thoughtfully removed.

b) The architect has informed that due to the increase in footfall of the number of visitors including domestic & international which can go up to well over a lakh on weekends. The necessity arises to augment the existing facilities considering higher footfall including additional vending plazas, additional walkways & pavements, benches, railing around shrub beds, fencing & sliding gates, bollards on perpendicular streets, horticulture additions, external development elements, panel coverings, additional dustbins, and security booths etc.

c) The proposal to augment facilities with additions/alterations was deliberated by the Commission. It was desired that additional information on the number of footfalls, vendors/hawkers are needed for some areas. Accordingly, the concerned local body i.e., CPWD during discussion (online) shared the matrix on the influx of visitors at various times during the day, the number of permanent /temporary vendors during weekdays/weekends etc.

d) However, the following interventions, as per the order of the work list, provided by the architect/proponents were found to be acceptable:

2) Addition around India Gate and C-Hexagon Road:

• Additional pavement with additional benches where underpasses emerge
• Railing immediately next to road with height not to exceed 1.25m from base or 1.5m from road level. Please note that after discussion with stakeholders the railing is now immediately next to road and not after footpath.
• The area around IG fountain
• Panel Room

3) Rafi Ahmed Marg Development:

• Revised sidewalks shifted from roadside to being provided after shrubs with old sidewalk along road to be removed and replaced by shrubs.  This will reduce road crossing to designated points.
• Vending Kiosks (water tanks shall ensure to be screened appropriately)

5) Horticulture additions

6) External Development Elements:

• Panel Covering (with Green Colour only)
• Additions of Dustbins locations are approved and the look and feel of metal casing rather than stone as in current installation is also approved.  However, size suggested of dustbins is inadequate and should be 50% larger by volume.

e) Further, the Commission opines that since this area is more frequented by international tourists, and widely covered during Republic Day Parades, new designs for barricades & security cabins/booths etc., shall be envisaged along with options for crowd control management to match international standards.

Additions/ alterations (Part) approved, observations given.