Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1715th meeting held on 20.07.2023.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1715th meeting held on 20.07.2023 were discussed.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout plan at its meeting held on September 02, 2015, and the building plan proposal for ‘New Girls Hostel A building (50-A)’ was approved in the meeting held on September 21, 2016.
3. The Commission did not accept the NOC for completion ‘New Girls Hostel A building (50-A)’ at its meeting held on October 06, 2022, specific observations were given.
4. The revised proposal for NOC for completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation letter no: OL-03102258025 dated 10.10.2022, and comments given by the concerned local body i.e., South DMC in Proforma ‘B’ & ‘C’. Based on the comments received from the concerned local body (South DMC), and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that while considering the case for NOC for Completion at its meeting held on October 06, 2022, very detailed specific observations were communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-03102258025 dated 10.10.2022 with the advice for adhering to the observations of the Commission and furnishing a point-wise reply. But, no such compliances and a point-wise reply were found in the revised submission submitted for the consideration of the Commission.

b) Also, the Commission noticed that old photographs of the superstructure which was part of the old submission (considered at its meeting held on October 06, 2022) were used in this submission as well, which is not appreciated by the Commission. Updated uncut photographs from all sides of the completed structure (for which NOC is required) shall be submitted for the review of the Commission.

c) The Commission has again reiterated its previous observations that:

a) “……The proposal has been submitted at the completion stage but an appropriate number of photographs (including interior areas) of the actually built construction to substantiate the actual work executed at the site, has not been provided. Cropped photographs of the completion plan proposal have been submitted which do not indicate the required details. The proposal being at the Completion stage needs to provide uncut/clear photographs to substantiate the actual work executed at the site including parking, landscape, elevational façade, and screening of services etc.

b) From the photographs submitted it is evident that work on some of the portions of the building block including site development is still in progress. The proposal for NOC for completion must be submitted once all the work on the site is complete.  

c) Also, 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, if any.

d) The car parking details under the drawing title ‘External Development Plan’ has indicated that:

“……....car parking shall be provided in double basement with two stacks parking of (BP5) as shown in layout= 228 nos…….…”

The Commission opines that the proposal is at the Completion stage, uncut photographs of the completed double stacks parking must be provided to substantiate its actual construction at the site for its consideration…..”

5. Overall, due to not addressing & resolving previous observations of the Commission, the proposal received at the completion stage, could not be reviewed 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 North DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on March 05, 2014, and the revised layout plan was approved in the meeting held on July 13, 2016.
3. The Commission approved the building plan proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on May 08, 2020, and accepted NOC for Completion of phase-I at its meeting held on March 16, 2021
4. The revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of one typical floor i.e., 44^th floor in Iconic Tower, revised design scheme (form/elevations) of CSP Tower including the addition of four more typical floors (38^th to 41^st floor), and addition of floors (2^nd to 18^th floor) in one of the EWS block (comprising of G+1)) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised. Based on the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

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

b) All requisite parking provisions 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 service equipment, water tanks, outdoor air-conditioning units, 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 received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The width of the lift lobby is to be as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc.

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 service equipment, water tanks, outdoor air-conditioning units, 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 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. However, some scanned drawings for the regularization taken from MCD were submitted.
3. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal for additions/alterations (Proposed Block-1 and Block-2) at its meeting held on June 01, 2023, specific observations were given.
4. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations (Proposed Block-1 (G+1) and Block-2 (G+2), and additions of some areas in existing Block-3) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with replies submitted by the architect in response to observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation letter no: OL-31052355048 dated 07.06.2023.  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) The design proposal incorporates provisions for double-stack parking arrangements to meet the necessary parking requirements. Nevertheless, the architect or proponent must ensure the proper implementation of these arrangements on-site, which will be thoroughly examined during the proposal's completion stage. It is of utmost importance that all parking arrangements adhere to the relevant rules, regulations, guidelines, and other applicable requirements.

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 service equipment, solar panels, DG Set, DG exhaust pipes, water tanks, outdoor air-conditioning units, 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 DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on May 02, 2000, but did not accept the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on June 19, 2008.
3. 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 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.

c) The Commission observed that the architect submitted a project report seeking approval to regularize the area under enhanced FAR and construct balconies. However, the design scheme presented in the proposal lacked clarity and failed to adequately explain the details. Moreover, several residential units had covered their balconies with temporary materials, negatively impacting 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 removed.

4. 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.
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 building plan proposal at its meeting held on April 29, 1999, and accepted the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on June 01, 2016.
3. The Commission approved the building plan proposal for additions/alterations (additions from the ground to the third floor, and proposed fourth floor) at its meeting held on April 18, 2018.
4. The proposal for NOC for completion (Part- additions from ground to third floor, for fourth floor) received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., DDA in parts ‘B’ & ‘C’ of Proforma. Based on the comments received in parts ‘B’ & ‘C’ Proforma and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) It was observed that while forwarding the proposal to the Commission at the completion stage following observations/recommendations has been made in Part-C (completion stage) by the DDA:

“…….Observations/recommendations of the sanctioning authority while forwarding the matter to DUAC for consideration in the Performa Part-C of the Completion stage from serial no 1 to 4 indicates the following:

“...… NO...…”

Though, the Commission considers the proposals based on the certification related to building bye-laws etc. furnished by the concerned local body.

b) The Commission noted that the proposal has been submitted seeking a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for the completion of certain additions and alterations, for which formal approval was granted during the meeting held on April 18, 2018. However, upon reviewing the current proposal for NOC and comparing it to the previously approved proposal by the Commission, it was observed that a new addition for a toilet block (both male and female) with an ATM along the existing boundary wall has been included in the submission for NOC for completion. This additional proposal is not acceptable in the submission for NOC for completion, it is suggested to seek its approval at the formal stage first.

c) The proposal has been submitted for consideration at the completion stage (part), but it appears that old scanned photographs of the superstructure have been provided instead of recent ones. Additionally, although scooter parking has been indicated in the central courtyards, photographs of this area are missing from the submission. To support and validate the actual work executed at the site, an appropriate set of unaltered photographs depicting the relevant areas, including the central courtyards with scooter parking, shall be submitted. These photographs must be properly labelled and delineated for a comprehensive review of the proposal.

d) The work of public art pieces has been displayed individually; however, the Commission aims to evaluate them within the context of their respective locations. This evaluation shall be supported by an adequate number of updated photographs to provide a clearer understanding.

e) The proposal is for NOC for completion (Part- additions from ground to the third floor, for the fourth floor). However, these additions have not been clearly depicted in the elevations, sections, or actual site photographs submitted. It is essential to elucidate these additions with their superimposition to ensure a better understanding and thorough review of the proposal.

5. Overall, the proposal for NOC for Completion (part) has been submitted without acceptable clarity. In view of the above, the proposal for NOC for completion 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 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 May 17, 1996, and did not approve the building plan proposal for additions/ alterations at its meeting held on November 24, 2022, December 29, 2022, January 19, 2023, February 16, 2023, March 02, 2023, March 23, 2023, April 06, 2023, April 27, 2023, and June 30, 2023, respectively, specific observations were given.
3. The revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations (balconies, extension of drawing rooms & kitchen, parking provisions) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-26062322047 dated 04.07.2023. 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) The Commission took note that all the setback areas, open parking bays etc. have been covered with solid pavers, instead suggested converting parking bays to permeable green pavers to let water to percolate and help it conserve.

c) All parking arrangements comply with relevant rules, regulations, guidelines, and other applicable requirements.

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, outdoor air-conditioning units, 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.