Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1709th meeting held on 08.06.2023.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1709th meeting held on 08.06.2023 was discussed.

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 demolition and reconstruction of the Motel building received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the proposal cannot be studied in isolation i.e., it needs to be reviewed in conjunction with the actual surrounding facilities, therefore, 3D views of the site aerial views, night-time views (to understand lighting pattern) 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.

b) 3D views of the public interface areas, atrium areas, glass rooftops, and landscape areas with appropriate details shall be supplemented for the judicious consideration of the proposal.  

c) The elevations and sections need to be detailed. The project is submitted at the Formal stage and should submit detailed drawings of sections (longitudinal and cross-section across the site as well) and elevations clearly showing the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, plumbing details etc. Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

d) The building is not appropriately oriented, maximum glass has been used in the elevations on all sides, especially on the south façade (the heat-gaining side). Elevation needs to be relooked at and refined with better architectural features/ elements to add interest to the building façade. The glass proposed for the façade needs to be reworked and/or replaced with other materials contextual to the surroundings.  Other techniques for shading from direct insolation without blocking views include vertical fins could be considered.

e) Discrepancies have been observed in the formal submission, number of structural columns appears to have been found missing in the basement, ground & first floor, but otherwise continued from the second floor upwards. These structural columns might cause challenges in the basements and upper-floor banquet areas. Since the proposal is at the formal stage, it needs to be relooked at and corrected. The coordinated submission shall be submitted for the consideration of the Commission. 

f) The Commission favourably observed that all the total parking requirements of the site i.e., 415 ECS have been accommodated in three basements. But all the vehicular circulation including ingress & outgress is through a single ramp, which appears to cause vehicular conflicts, is not acceptable and needs to be relooked or simplified for conflict free movement between levels of incoming and outgoing traffic.

g) Also, the proposal has three types of usages like Commercial, hotel, and service apartments, but their drop off’s & access to the building are not understood. A combined mobility circulation plan showing seamless, conflict-free pedestrian and vehicular movement plans from outside to the Commercial, hotel, and service apartments 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.

h) 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).

i) The terrace garden does not seem to have the required Soil fill to accommodate the proposed vegetation (as shown in sections). The appropriate depth of Soil fill shall be ensured and the heights be designed accordingly. It shall be elucidated with appropriate details.

j) A large glass roof has been provided to cover the atrium area but its details have not been provided, considering its likely impact on the visual & aesthetics of the building it shall be elucidated with necessary details including materials, fixing details etc.

k) The design of the gate and the boundary wall would have a bearing on the overall aesthetics of the complex; thus, it needs to be detailed sufficiently (including 3D views (night time as well), plans, elevations, sections etc.) and complete in all respect shall be provided including gate/grill detail, material applications etc. for the consideration of the Commission.

l) 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.

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

n) Large kitchen areas have been provided but their layout is not understood. A plan needs to be provided that shows the servicing of the kitchen including exhaust mechanism with screening. 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.

o) All service equipment, plumbing pipes, rainwater pipes, 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

p) 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

4. Overall, the submission at the formal stage is not comprehensive and have discrepancies, the same shall be corrected and correlated submission shall be submitted for the consideration of 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 South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on May 07, 2018, specific observations were given. The revised layout and building plans proposal (Tower-1, Clubhouse and Swimming Pool) was approved by the Commission at its meeting held on December 11, 2020, specific observations were given.
3. The Commission accepted the concept of the revised building plans proposal (increase in floors of Tower-1 from 3B+G+33 to 3B+G+36 floors) at its meeting held on February 19, 2021.
4. The Commission did not accept the NOC for Completion (Part- for EWS Block, Tower-2 and Block-2) at its meeting held on February 02, 2023, March 16, 2023, and April 27, 2023, specific observations were given.
5. The revised proposal for NOC for Completion (Part-for EWS Block, Tower 2 and Block-2) 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-26042358009 dated 02.05.2023, and comments were given by the concerned local body i.e., South DMC in Proforma ‘B’ & ‘C’. Also, a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco Web Ex meetings (online) who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission and presented complete documentation related to the part completion. Based on the comments received from the concerned local body (South DMC), the discussion held (online), and the revised submission made, the proposal for NOC for Completion (Part-for EWS Block, Tower 2 and Block-2) is found to be accepted.

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, March 02, 2023, and May 04, 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 Observation letter no: OL-02052323030 dated 09.05.2023. Based on the previous observations of the Commission, 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) Automated/ Double Stack parking provisions (on the surface as well as in basements) have been shown in the design proposal to achieve the requisite parking requirements. The architect/proponent shall ensure its actual execution at the site and the same shall be examined at the time of receiving the proposal at the completion stage.

c) All requisite parking requirements shall be as per applicable rules/regulations/guidelines etc.

d) Considering structural changes in the existing building, the structure shall be designed so that it can withstand weather effects, impacts from calamities like earthquakes etc.

e) 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.

f) 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.

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 plans proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the proposal has been located on an important road in North Delhi adjoining the Vishwavidyalaya metro station.  Considering its location and setting adjoining the existing metro station, thus the proposal cannot be studied in isolation i.e., it needs to be reviewed in conjunction with the surrounding facilities, therefore, an appropriate number of annotated 3D views from all sides (including public interface areas, museum areas, exhibition hall, drop off areas, exhibition areas, open court, sitting areas, water body with sculpture, kiosks, stalls areas, open parking areas, and 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.

b) The food hub areas where kiosks, stalls, and sitting areas have been planned for the public shall be elucidated with appropriate details including a large structural roof covering the food hub with materials, fixing details, detailed skin sections, 3D views, night-time views etc., as it may cause an impact on the visual & the urban aesthetics of the area.

c) Discrepancies have been observed in the submission received at the formal stage, open surface parking has been shown as double stack parking in the plans but 3D views of the area do not match. The submission shall be corrected and the coordinated submission shall be submitted for the judicious review by the Commission.

d) Also, the provision of double-stack surface parking shall be reviewed & relocated in the basement under the food hub area, and the freed-up spaces be put to judicious use including open landscaped permeable green spaces, public use etc.

e) 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.

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

g) Landscaped areas planned on the terraces shall be elucidated appropriately ensuring that sufficient depth for soil is available for the vegetation.

h) Architectural elements on the terrace especially the top is not sufficiently detailed to understand elements with materials, the same shall be elucidated with appropriate details.

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

j) 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.

4. Overall, the submission at the formal stage is not comprehensive and has discrepancies, the same shall be corrected and correlated submission shall be submitted for the consideration of 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 South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the concept of the building plan proposal at its meeting held on May 27, 2021.
3. The Commission approved the building plan proposal for addition/alteration at its meeting held on August 19, 2021, specific observations were given.
4. The existing building comprises (Basement + Ground floor + first floor (partial)).  The revised building plan proposal for addition/alteration (alterations on the ground and 1^st floor and addition of 7 floors over the existing building) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, the following observation is to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the proposal had already been approved by the Commission at its meeting held on August 19, 2021. The proponent vide their letter dated June 08, 2023, has indicated that:

“……it was rejected by the MCD due to non-payment of fees & other statutory charges….”

In view of the above, it is understood that the proposal has been resubmitted due to technical reasons. Since the proposal has already been approved, it is returned to the concerned local body i.e., South DMC without consideration of the Commission.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the North DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission accepted the concept of the building plan proposal at its meeting held on April 06, 2023, specific observations were given.
3. The building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinized, and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) 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 plumbing pipes, outdoor air-conditioning units, service equipment, DG sets, DG exhaust pipes, 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 CPWD (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 a detailed discussion (online) was held with the architect 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 proposed façade deviates from traditional patterns in a whimsical rather than harmonious manner and requires better integration, especially in terms of structural glazing.  The structural glazing on the staircases may be better served by masonry or stone framing and being inset as a multistorey panel or other techniques used to achieve the uninterrupted transparency of modern structural glazing but blending better into the otherwise traditional vocabulary.

b) The elevations are suggested to be relooked especially the structural glazing part & rear façade to enhance the aesthetic of the building with appropriate architectural elements. The architecture of the building should reflect the culture, traditions etc. to portray the spirit of the region. Overall aesthetics to be improved.

c) The location of the sculpture appears to be an afterthought; it shall be appropriately located to portray a cohesive picture of the complex.

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 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.

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 DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held in 1995. NOC for completion was accepted in the meeting held on August 24, 2005. The proposal for additions/alterations was approved in the meeting held on October 3, 2012.
3. The Commission did not accept the part NOC for Completion at its meeting held on July 14, 2022, December 01, 2022, and February 02, 2023, specific observations were given.
4. The revised proposal for NOC for Completion (Part-for the proposal for additions/alteration approved in the meeting held on October 3, 2012) received (online) at the Completion stage was scrutinized along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation letter No. OL-31012348005 dated 07.02.2023 and the observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., DDA in part ‘B’ & ‘C’ Proforma. Based on the replies submitted, observations/recommendations received 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 the areas for which NOC for completion has been applied.

b) The Completion has been applied for sections somewhat randomly & not for contiguous sections which is not suitable from a visual & urban aesthetics perspective. The Commission again reiterated that a lot of temporary extensions (later additions) have been made by the users on the areas for which NOC for completion has been applied, which is not appreciated by the Commission. All temporary coverings/extensions must be removed, and bring back the façade to what was approved at the time of formal approval. The façade in its current form is spoiling the overall visual and urban aesthetics of the complex.

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 January 06, 2010, and the revised layout and building plan proposal was approved in the meeting held on November 02, 2011. The layout and building plan proposals were again revised and approved by the Commission at its meeting held on August 03, 2016, and later on September 20, 2017, respectively.
3. The Commission accepted the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on April 08, 2021, specific observations were given.
4. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal for addition/alterations at its meeting held on May 11, 2023, specific observations were given.
5. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations (alterations in the ground floor and addition of 5 floors over the existing 3B+G+10 floors in Tower-A) 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-08052322036 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 requirements shall be as per applicable rules/regulations/guidelines etc.

c) A lot of live/dead load is being added to the existing building. Considering structural changes in the existing building, the structure shall be designed so that it can withstand weather effects, impacts from calamities like earthquakes etc.

d) 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, outdoor air-conditioning units, service equipment, DG sets, DG exhaust pipes, 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.

Building plans proposal in respect of residential building at 3B Maharaja Lal Lane, Civil Lines. (Conceptual Stage)

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