1. Action Taken Reports in respect of Minutes of the 1714th meeting held on 13.07.2023 were discussed.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the North DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the revised layout plans proposal in respect Sir Ganga Ram Hospital at its meeting held on March 23, 2011.
3. The Commission approved the building plans proposal in respect of additions/alterations {Hospital Building Block B1-(2B+G+8 floors) and MLCP Block- (03B+G+10 floors)} at its meeting held on March 21, 2014, specific observations were given.
4. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of 2 floors over the existing Hospital Block-2B+G+8) 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) In the architect's project report, the proposal is to add two floors (ninth and tenth floors) to the under-construction Hospital Block-B1 (2B+G+8). However, the report lacks updated existing site pictures of the area and plans (basement to the eighth floor), making it difficult to fully comprehend the current site conditions and review the proposal accurately. Accordingly, the architect was suggested to provide a sufficient number of uncut photographs of the under-construction building (block B1) and all the existing plans/elevations/sections etc.

c) Further, since the proposal is for additions/alterations to the existing building. The drawings showing existing & proposed changes should be superimposed on the existing structure to highlight the proposed modifications clearly with proper annotations specifying materials to be used and corresponding to proposal drawings, to be submitted to ensure clarity of the scheme and its judicious considerations.

d) The need for additional parking arises as a result of adding two more floors (additional FAR). The project must clarify how the parking requirements will be met on the site. The layout plan should clearly depict both the existing parking spaces and the proposed parking spaces from the additional FAR, distinctly separated and labelled for better understanding.

e) The design of the additional structure must account for its ability to withstand weather conditions and potential impacts from disasters such as earthquakes. Since it will be integrated with the existing superstructure, special attention should be given to securely brace it to the building without compromising the overall safety and stability of the superstructure.

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 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. Overall, due to the incompleteness of the proposal, for additions/alterations, received at the formal stage, it could not be examined judiciously by the Commission.
6. The architect is advised to carefully follow and address all the observations provided by the Commission. It is requested that the architect submits a detailed response, incorporating each point raised by the Commission in a clear and point-by-point manner.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on June 23, 2023, specific observations were given.
3. The building plan proposal for demolition and reconstruction 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-16062355051 dated 27.06.2023.  Based on the revised submission made and replies submitted, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission has noted that the previous observations communicated via DUAC observation letter no: OL-16062355051 dated 27.06.2023 have not been satisfactorily addressed and complied with. The architect needs to take these observations seriously and make the necessary amendments to ensure full compliance with the Commission's requirements.

b) In terms of its previous observations, the Commission had given some specific points and concerns that need to be addressed and are supposed to be incorporated into the current proposal. But the same has not been given due attention by the architect. A few such observations are as follows:

i. “……3(a). The architect was asked to submit nighttime views to understand the  lighting mechanism……”

However, it seems that these elements are absent in the submission.

ii. “……3(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…..”

Despite the architect's response indicating the removal of glass rooftops and atrium provisions from the design, the presence of two large double-height atriums is evident in the ground-floor and first-floor plans. Additionally, 3D views of the public interface areas and landscape areas have not been included in the submission. The Commission advises the architect to address these discrepancies, make the necessary corrections, and resubmit the proposal with the required 3D views and accurate information for further consideration.

iii. “….3(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…”

The elevations/sections/skin sections provided are rudimentary and lack the essential details expected in a formal submission. The revised proposal shall ensure the inclusion of comprehensive information.

iv. “…3(i)…. terrace garden related…”

In his reply, the architect indicated that:

“…terrace garden on roof deleted…”

However, a discrepancy was observed in the submission, the presence of a terrace garden is clearly marked in the terrace plan and visible in the 3D views presented for the Commission's consideration. As the proposal is currently at the formal stage, a coordinated and revised submission is required to ensure a comprehensive review by the Commission.

v. “…..3(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…..”

Despite the architect's response indicating “boundary wall proposal resubmitted”, no such details seem to have been included in the revised submission, the same need to be complied with. 

vi. “….3(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…”

The revised submission appears to lack the inclusion of such details. It is necessary to ensure that these details are incorporated in compliance with the requirements.

vii. “….3(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…”

The Commission noted that the exposed DG exhaust pipes could have a negative impact on the overall visual appeal and aesthetics of the complex. As a result, the architect is requested to provide a design scheme that clearly indicates the location and screening of the DG exhaust pipes, including details about the materials and mechanism used for screening them effectively.

c) In addition to the above, a detailed observation of the vehicular circulation was made:

“….3(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…”

It appears that the aforementioned observation has not been adequately addressed in the submission. The movement of 415 ECS through a single ramp could potentially lead to significant traffic challenges. This issue must be given proper attention and resolved effectively to ensure smooth traffic flow and safety in the design.

d) The proposal being at the formal stage, the backside area, which includes the swimming pool, pool terraces, and double landscape terraces, lacks comprehensive details, including inclusive 3D views. The Commission desires that these areas be thoroughly elucidated with comprehensive details to facilitate their review effectively.

e) 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.

f) 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. Overall, due to not addressing & resolving previous observations of the Commission, the proposal received at the formal stage, could not be reviewed judiciously by the Commission.
5. The architect is advised to carefully follow and address all the observations provided by the Commission. It is requested that the architect submits a detailed response, incorporating each point raised by the Commission in a clear and point-by-point manner.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on September 15, 2022, specific observations were given.
3. The Commission did not accept the concept of the building plans proposal at its meeting held on June 30, 2023, specific observations were given.
4. The revised building plan proposal (part-1) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Conceptually Unsuitable Letter No: OL-27062327044 dated 04.07.2023. The Commission intended to discuss the proposal with the architect (online) but architect was not available.
5. The Commission took note of the facts that the proposal for residential housing on plot no-4405, located at ward no xi, 5, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi 110002, with a plot area of 1619.88 Sqm, which was forwarded (online) by the concerned local body, South DMC, for the Commission's consideration. Following its review in the meetings held on July 14, 2022, September 08, 2022, and September 15, 2023, respectively, the proposal was approved (formal stage) based on the architect's responses to the previous observations.
6. Currently, the proposal for plot no. 4405, 5, Ansari Road, Daryaganj has been submitted as Part-I, covering a plot measuring 862.29 Sqm. However, the submission lacks any authentic sub-division or the part layout plan of the area from the concerned local body, South DMC.
7. Since no online discussion could take place, and the authentic part layout of the area was not presented, the Commission reviewed the proposal received at the formal stage solely based on the statement provided by the architect in their project report and the urban aesthetics. The following observations are to be complied with:

a) The overall design scheme has not been envisaged thoughtfully. Moreover, discrepancies have been observed in the overall submission received at the formal stage. The site plan, ground floor plan, landscape plan etc. do not match. The drawings are not labelled with appropriate dimensions to understand the areas including set-backs.

b) The entire stilts area & the basement area with the car-parking lift have been envisaged and shown without structural arrangements which could alter the parking arrangements presented. It shall be relooked at and the modified parking arrangements with details shall be presented for the review of the Commission.

c) Only one section has been provided which does not show the requisite details to understand the scheme for a proposal received at the formal stage. The sections must be meticulously detailed, clearly showcasing the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, and other pertinent features. Additionally, it is crucial to submit comprehensive skin sections that provide a detailed understanding of the facade's elevation, including the materials.

d) Large toilets have been shown without plumbing shafts & their screening mechanism with materials, to accommodate sanitary pipes as exposed plumbing arrangements could spoil the overall visual & aesthetics of the complex. It needs to be resolved at this stage.

e) Being residential building provisions for dish antennas and drying of clothes in the balconies shall be screened and shown in the design scheme (plans/elevations/3D views).

f) 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.

g) 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.

8. Overall, the design scheme at the formal stage has not been envisaged thoughtfully and presented appropriately. Simultaneously, a lot of inconsistencies have also been observed in the submission. Due to the aforementioned reasons, the proposal could not be examined judiciously by the Commission.
9. The architect is advised to carefully follow and address all the observations provided by the Commission. It is requested that the architect submits a detailed response, incorporating each point raised by the Commission in a clear and point-by-point manner including submitting an authentic sub-division or the part layout plan of the area showing sub-division of plot no-4405, 5, Ansari Road, Daryaganj from the concerned local body, South DMC.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on September 15, 2022, specific observations were given.
3. The revised building plan proposal (part 2) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Approval Letter No: OL-14092255054 dated 19.09.2022. The Commission intended to discuss the proposal with the architect (online) but the architect was not available.
4. The Commission took note of the facts that the proposal for residential housing on plot no-4405, located at ward no xi, 5, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi 110002, with a plot area of 1619.88 Sqm, which was forwarded (online) by the concerned local body, South DMC, for the Commission's consideration. Following its review in the meetings held on July 14, 2022, September 08, 2022, and September 15, 2022, respectively, the proposal was approved (formal stage) based on the architect's responses to the previous observations.
5. Currently, the proposal for plot no. 4405, 5, Ansari Road, Daryaganj has been submitted as Part II, covering a plot measuring 593.35 Sqm. However, the submission lacks any authentic sub-division or the part layout plan of the area from the concerned local body, South DMC.
6. Since no online discussion could take place, and the authentic part layout of the area was not presented, the Commission reviewed the proposal received at the formal stage solely based on the statement provided by the architect in their project report and the urban aesthetics. The following observations are to be complied with:

a) The overall design scheme has not been envisaged thoughtfully. Moreover, discrepancies have been observed in the overall submission received at the formal stage. Existing photographs of the neighbouring site and surroundings have been attached with this submission, thereby not giving a truthful picture of the site & surroundings.

b) The drawings are not labelled with appropriate dimensions to understand the areas including set-backs.

c) Only one section has been provided which does not show the requisite details to understand the scheme for a proposal received at the formal stage. The sections must be meticulously detailed, clearly showcasing the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, and other pertinent features. Additionally, it is crucial to submit comprehensive skin sections that provide a detailed understanding of the facade's elevation, including the materials.

d) Large toilets have been shown without plumbing shafts & their screening mechanism with materials, to accommodate sanitary pipes as exposed plumbing arrangements could spoil the overall visual & aesthetics of the complex. It needs to be resolved at this stage.

e) Being residential building provisions for dish antennas and drying of clothes in the balconies shall be screened and shown in the design scheme (plans/elevations/3D views).

f) 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.

g) 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.

7. Overall, the design scheme at the formal stage has not been envisaged thoughtfully and presented appropriately. Simultaneously, inconsistencies have also been observed in the submission. Due to the aforementioned reasons, the proposal could not be examined judiciously by the Commission.
8. The architect is advised to carefully follow and address all the observations provided by the Commission. It is requested that the architect submits a detailed response, incorporating each point raised by the Commission in a clear and point-by-point manner including submitting an authentic sub-division or the part layout plan of the area showing sub-division of plot no- 4405, 5, Ansari Road, Daryaganj from the concerned local body, South DMC.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on September 15, 2022, specific observations were given.
3. The revised building plan proposal (Part-North Eastern) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Approval Letter No: OL-14092255054 dated 19.09.2022. The Commission intended to discuss the proposal with the architect (online) but the architect was not available.
4. The Commission took note of the facts that the proposal for residential housing on plot no-4405, located at ward no xi, 5, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi 110002, with a plot area of 1619.88 Sqm, which was forwarded (online) by the concerned local body, South DMC, for the Commission's consideration. Following its review in the meetings held on July 14, 2022, September 08, 2022, and September 15, 2023, respectively, the proposal was approved (formal) based on the architect's responses to the previous observations.
5. Currently, the proposal for plot no. 4405, 5, Ansari Road, Daryaganj has been submitted as (Part-North Eastern), covering a plot measuring 220.735 Sqm. However, the submission lacks any authentic sub-division or the part layout plan of the area from the concerned local body, South DMC.
6. Since no online discussion was conducted, and the authentic part layout of the area was not presented, the Commission reviewed the proposal received at the formal stage solely based on the statement provided by the architect in their project report and the urban aesthetics. The following observations are to be complied with:

a) The overall design scheme has not been envisaged thoughtfully. The entire stilts area & the basement area have been envisaged and shown without structural arrangements which could alter the parking arrangements presented. It shall be relooked at and the modified parking arrangements with details (location & movement of cars etc.) shall be presented for the review of the Commission.

b) A 3.00 M wide area has been left for the drawing & dining room without thoughtfulness. The same shall be relooked at for space efficiency & usability.

c) The sections must be meticulously detailed, clearly showcasing the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, and other pertinent features. Additionally, it is crucial to submit comprehensive skin sections that provide a detailed understanding of the facade's elevation, including the materials.

d) 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.

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.

7. Overall, the design scheme at the formal stage has not been envisaged thoughtfully and presented appropriately. Due to the aforementioned reasons, the proposal could not be examined judiciously by the Commission.
8. The architect is advised to carefully follow and address all the observations provided by the Commission. It is requested that the architect submits a detailed response, incorporating each point raised by the Commission in a clear and point-by-point manner including submitting an authentic sub-division or the part layout plan of the area showing the sub-division of plot no- 4405, 5, Ansari Road, Daryaganj from the concerned local body, South DMC.

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

a) The Commission took note that the concerned property is a gazetted notified heritage-listed (Grade-III) property listed at Sl. No. 36, Zone-A (Walled City) of the Gazette notification F.No.07(367)/227/UD/2002/UD/841 dated February 25, 2010 heritage building indicated issued by the Urban Development Dept., Govt. of NCT of Delhi.

b) The proposal seems to be a case of demolition & reconstruction, however, the plans of the existing structure proposed to be demolished have not been submitted for review, and their absence hinders a comprehensive understanding of the project. To facilitate a better understanding and evaluation of the proposal, it is essential to submit the plans of the structure proposed to be demolished. It will help the Commission make well-informed decisions.

c) The proposal needs to be self-explanatory elucidating with the overall intent of the proposal, the same appears to be missing in the submission.

d) The proposal includes large toilets without provisions for plumbing shafts and screening mechanisms to accommodate sanitary pipes. This oversight could lead to exposed plumbing arrangements, which would negatively impact the overall visual appeal and aesthetics of the complex. It needs to be resolved at this stage, by incorporating these elements into the design, the sanitary pipes can be concealed, ensuring a cleaner and more visually pleasing appearance for the complex.

e) The sections presented do not show the requisite details to understand the overall scheme for a proposal received at the formal stage. The sections must be meticulously detailed, clearly showcasing the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, and other pertinent features. Additionally, it is crucial to submit comprehensive skin sections that provide a detailed understanding of the facade's elevation, including the materials.

f) 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.

g) 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.

4. Overall, the design scheme at the formal stage has not been envisaged thoughtfully and presented appropriately. Due to aforementioned reasons, the proposal could not be examined judiciously by the Commission.
5. The architect is advised to carefully follow and address all the observations provided by the Commission. It is requested that the architect submits a detailed response, incorporating each point raised by the Commission in a clear and point-by-point manner.

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 July 13, 2023, May 04, 2023, and 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 revised 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 the replies submitted by the architect in response to the DUAC observation letter no: OL-08072323047 dated 18.07.2023. Based on the previous observations of the Commission, replies submitted, and 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) The Commission has noted that the previous observations communicated via DUAC observation letter no: OL-08072323047 dated 18.07.2023 have not been satisfactorily addressed and complied with. The architect needs to take these observations seriously and make the necessary amendments to ensure full compliance with the Commission's requirements.

c) The provided 3D views are not self-explanatory, as they lack clarity in distinguishing between the existing and proposed additions. They seem to create an impression of an entirely new design scheme without adequately delineating the areas of existing structures and the proposed changes.

d) To ensure a better understanding of the proposal, it is essential to appropriately delineate the areas in the 3D views. This means clearly distinguishing between the existing elements and the proposed additions in the visual representation. By doing so, it would be possible to comprehend the proposal more effectively and discern the specific changes being proposed.

e) Extensive additions and alterations are planned for the existing building. However, the presentation of the overall design scheme, illustrating both the existing and proposed changes, lacks effectiveness and proper delineation of elevations and sections.

f) To rectify this, the proposed additions should be superimposed on block-wise detailed elevations and sections. This will highlight the modifications clearly and be supplemented with appropriate annotations specifying the materials to be used. These annotations should correspond to the proposal drawings to ensure a clear and comprehensive understanding of the scheme and its thoughtful considerations.

g) The elevations and sections must be meticulously detailed, clearly showcasing the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, and other relevant features. Moreover, it is essential to submit comprehensive skin sections that offer a detailed understanding of the facade's elevation, including the materials used. These improvements will significantly enhance the clarity and evaluation of the proposal.

h) 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.

i) All water tanks, plumbing pipes, service equipment, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels, DG exhaust pipes, DG set 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 general, the design scheme put forth during the formal stage for the additions/alterations is not easily understandable and lacks sufficient information for the Commission to assess it thoughtfully and give its recommendations.
6. The architect is advised to carefully follow and address all the observations provided by the Commission. It is requested that the architect submits a detailed response, incorporating each point raised by the Commission above and its previous observations in a clear and point-by-point manner.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the North DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and the building plan proposal at its meeting held on September 30, 2009, and approved the building plans proposal for additions/alterations (in respect of a library, the addition of a canteen, and the demolition & reconstruction of the principal bungalow) at its meeting held on February 26, 2020, specific observations were given.
3. The Commission approved the building plans proposal for the faculty block at its meeting held on April 28, 2022, specific observations were given, and accepted the concept of the building plans proposal for the redevelopment of the boys’ hostel and proposed convention centre at its meeting held on June 08, 2023, specific observations were given.
4. The building plan proposal for Boys’ Hostel {demolition and reconstruction of existing Boy’s Hostel (Stilt+Ground+4 floors) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, 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 service equipment, water tanks, outdoor air-conditioning units, DG set, DG exhaust pipes, plumbing 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 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 (alterations on the ground floor and addition of 3 floors over the existing ground floor) 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 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.

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 July 22, 2002, and subsequently accepted the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on March 13, 2007.
3. The Commission approved the building plans proposal for addition/alteration (addition of the fourth floor) at its meeting held on May 15, 2019, specific observations were given.
4. The proposal for NOC for completion (Part- for the fourth floor) received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Approval letter no: OL-10051955025 dated May 20, 2019, and observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., South DMC in parts ‘B’ & ‘C’ of Proforma. Based on the previous observations, comments received in parts ‘B’ & ‘C’ Proforma and the submission made, the proposal for NOC for completion (Part-for fourth floor) is found to be accepted.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the NDMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on August 19, 2021, specific observations were given.
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., NDMC in parts ‘B’ & ‘C’ of Proforma, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco Web Ex meeting who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the discussion held (online), comments received in parts ‘B’ & ‘C’ Proforma, and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that while considering and approving the case at the formal stage vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-12082124022 dated 25.08.2021 certain specific observations were given:.

“…….a)  All service equipment at the terrace including solar panels, outdoor AC units, VRV system etc. shall be suitably screened, including DG exhaust pipes, so as not to remain visible & mar the aesthetics of the complex, 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.

b) Work of art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the building, at an appropriate level (human eye) which is also visible from the outside, to be installed.

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....”

But, the compliance on the same has not been supplemented with an appropriate number of uncut photographs to substantiate compliance and its actual execution at the site, but the architect could not show/present them online.

4. In view of the non-compliance of its observations given at the time of formal approval, the proposal for NOC for completion could not be examined judiciously by the Commission.
5. The architect is advised to carefully follow and address all the observations provided by the Commission above. It is requested that the architect submits a detailed response, incorporating each point raised by the Commission above in a clear and point-by-point manner.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and the building plan proposal at its meeting held on September 02, 2004, specific observations were given and accepted NOC for Completion at its meeting held on March 22, 2006.
3. The Commission approved the building plan proposal for addition/alteration (additions on the third floor) at its meeting held on June 19, 2019, and specific observations were given, and accepted the NOC for Completion (Part-additions on the third floor) at its meeting held on December 08, 2022.
4. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal for additions/alterations (10 small and 10 big kiosks on the ground floor, gaming area on the 2^nd floor) at its meeting held on July 13, 2023, specific observations were given.
5. The revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations (10 small and 10 big kiosks on the ground floor, gaming area on 2^nd floor) 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-10072322049 dated 18.07.2023. Based on the revised submission made, and replies submitted by the architect, 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 has noted that the previous observations communicated via DUAC observation letter no: OL-10072322049 dated 18.07.2023 have not been satisfactorily addressed and complied with. The architect needs to take these observations seriously and make the necessary amendments to ensure full compliance with the Commission's requirements.

c) Once again, it is emphasized that the proposal involves adding 10 small and 10 big kiosks on the ground floor, along with a gaming area on the second floor. The Commission strongly believes that to assess its impact on the overall visual appeal, aesthetics, and atmosphere of the area, 3D images of the kiosks should be superimposed on the actual environment of the location.

d) To facilitate a thorough evaluation, the proposal should be presented with comprehensive details, including detailed plans, material specifications, architectural elements/forms, elevations, and 3D views. These elements will provide a better understanding of the proposal and its potential effects on the surrounding environment.

6. In view of the deficient compliances on its previous observations, the proposal for additions/alterations is not appreciated by the Commission. The proposal being at the formal stage needs to provide all necessary details related to the additions including superimposed 3D images of the kiosk & gaming area on the actual environment of the area.
7. The architect is advised to carefully follow and address all the observations provided by the Commission above. It is requested that the architect submits a detailed response, incorporating each point raised by the Commission above in a clear and point-by-point manner.

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 September 14, 2001, specific observations were given.
3. The Commission accepted the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on September 23, 2009.
4. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations (regularization of the area under enhanced FAR & construction of two balconies) 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) Cropped photographs of the existing superstructure have been submitted which do not clearly indicate the required details. An appropriate number of existing site pictures 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 evidently.

c) The Commission noted that the architect has submitted a project report seeking approval for the regularization of the area under enhanced FAR and the construction of two balconies. However, the design scheme presented in the proposal lacked clarity and did not sufficiently explain the details. Additionally, it was observed that many residential units had covered their balconies with temporary materials, adversely affecting the visual appeal and aesthetics of the complex.

d) As the proposal is currently in the formal stage, a comprehensive and self-explanatory scheme must be provided. Moreover, it is imperative to address the issue of unauthorized balcony coverings with temporary materials, and they should be promptly removed.

5. In general, the design scheme put forth during the formal stage for the additions/alterations is not comprehensible and lacks sufficient information for the Commission to assess it thoughtfully and give its recommendations.
6. The architect is advised to carefully follow and address all the observations provided by the Commission above. It is requested that the architect submits a detailed response, incorporating each point raised by the Commission above in a clear and point-by-point manner.