Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1716th meeting held on 27.07.2023.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of the 1716th meeting held on 27.07.2023 were 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 received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and the Commission intended to discuss the proposal with the architect (online) but he was not available. In the absence of the discussion held online, and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The quality of 3d views is not appropriate, the scale, proportion, materials etc. are not understood, they shall be revised and submitted with clarity, better visuals, and better viewing angles. Additionally, 3D views of the public interface areas, swimming pool area, drop-off points, porch details, landscape areas, nighttime views etc. shall also be supplemented for a better understanding of the proposal. The Commission desires that these areas be thoroughly elucidated with comprehensive details to facilitate their review effectively.

b) 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.

c) The Commission favourably observed that most of the total parking requirements of the site i.e., 677 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. The movement of 677 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 overall vehicular circulation across the site seems to have created a lot of conflict points which could cause significant vehicular movement challenges, the same need to be resolved effectively by ensuring hindrance-free vehicular movement across the site.  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 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.

f) 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.

g) 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.

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 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. In general, the design scheme put forth during the formal stage 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 North-DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal at its meeting held on May 02, 2019, specific observations were given.
3. The proposal for NOC for Completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Approval letter no: OL-24041923024 dated 06.05.2019 and comments of the concerned local body i.e., North-DMC in part ‘B’ & ‘C’ of the proforma. Based on the comments received from the local body and the submission made, the proposal for NOC for Completion is found to be accepted.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the North DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on July 20, 2023, and specific observations were given.
3. The revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations (alteration at ground, and addition of 3 floors) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-19072323050 dated 26.07.2023. 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 Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

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

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 January 04, 2019, and the revised building plan proposal was approved at its meeting held on September 12, 2019, and specific observations were given.
3. The Commission did not accept the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on May 18, 2023, November 17, 2022, and November 10, 2022, respectively, specific observations were given.
4. The revised proposal for NOC for Completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation Letter No. OL-17052349003 dated 23.05.2023, the observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., North DMC in part ‘C’ Proforma, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco Web Ex meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the observations/recommendations received, the discussion held (online), and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that careful consideration was taken during the formal approval of the case, particularly regarding the façade, given its location in historic Old Delhi, architectural aspects, and materials used. However, the Commission observed a significant alteration in the façade's aesthetics, architectural elements, form, and materials. This includes the transformation of the west side façade into full-height glass glazing, which the Commission disapproves of, especially since it disregards the area's orientation.

b) In light of the front façade (facing west towards the main road), it is recommended to make adjustments to the west façade through suitable design enhancements that will improve the environmental response of the building while elevating the visual and urban aesthetics of the surroundings. The architect is advised to develop two to three options for these design enhancements, elucidated with appropriate details such as material form, usage & specifications, and presented through 3D views, other details etc. These proposals will then be reviewed by the Commission.

5. Due to the lack of comprehensive information provided to the Commission, the proposal could not be thoroughly evaluated and appreciated.
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 including developing two to three options of design enhancements, at the conceptual level first, in a clear and point-by-point manner.

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 in the existing ground floor and addition of 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd 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, rainwater 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 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 the exhibition hall (nos. A3, A4 and A5), Convention Centre and Hall A2 and Admin block for completion at its meeting held on October 12, 2021, May 24, 2023, and June 01, 2023, respectively specific observations were given.
4. The proposal for NOC for completion (Part- Exhibition Hall A1) received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., South DMC in part ‘B’ & ‘C’ Proforma. Based on the comments received in parts ‘B’& ‘C’ Proforma and the submission made, the proposal for NOC for Completion is found to be accepted.

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, and accepted the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on September 23, 2009.
3. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on July 27, 2023, specific observations were given.
4. The revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition/extension of bedrooms, toilets and balconies) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation Letter No. OL-20072322053 dated 02.08.2023.  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) To one of the previous observations of the Commission:

“…...many residential units have covered their balconies with temporary materials, adversely affecting the visual appeal and aesthetics of the complex…...”

The architect has replied that:

“……the temporary coverage of balconies will be removed during construction...”

c) As per the architect's commitment in their response, it shall be ensured that any unauthorized enclosures of the balconies using temporary materials shall ensure to be dismantled. This will be verified during the proposal submission at the completion stage.

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, rainwater 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 DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not accept the concept of a layout plan for the District Centre at Nehru Place-II at its meeting held on April 15, 2009, specific observations were given.
3. The proposal for the Upgradation of the District Centre at Nehru Place (Renovation of Plaza, parking areas, amphitheatre, tensile shading structures, development works of roads and footpaths etc.) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and a detailed presentation was made by the architect (online) on Cisco Web Ex meetings followed by a discussion wherein 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 noted that the Nehru Place district centre (DC) was constructed approx. around 1972, and stands as one of Delhi's most bustling district centres. With a history spanning over 50 years, there arises a need to focus on enhancing public spaces, services, restroom facilities, walkways, roadways, and parking facilities within the area, which is appreciated by the Commission.

b) The list of works to be undertaken in the upgradation/renovation includes:

i. Upgradation of Plaza

ii. Upgradation of Footpaths by replacing the existing flooring

iii. Upgradation of parking areas by replacing the existing pavers flooring with new paver blocks.

iv. Upgradation of Stormwater drawing by replacing the existing drains with new drain pipes and making provision for the RWH system.

v. Provision of additional seating in open areas.

vi. Provision of tensile structures in open areas to provide shaded seating areas.

vii. Construction of additional toilets (10 nos.)

viii. Upgradation of Amphitheatre

ix.Upgradation of seating around existing trees by replacing existing stone

x. Provision of smart light poles having wi-fi and speaker system

xi. Provision of CCTV surveillance system

xii. Making provision for barrier-free moments in the entire complex

xiii. Providing Lifts and Escalators (for skywalk)

xiv. Skywalk

c) The Commission noted that each of the above-proposed tasks has the potential to significantly influence the overall visual, environmental, and urban aesthetics, thereby setting a precedent for other district centres across various areas of Delhi. While the complex's layout plan designates the placement of these features, the specific information regarding each element seems to be absent in the submission. This absence complicates the Commission's task of thoroughly evaluating and scrutinizing the proposal. The Commission believes that providing comprehensive details for each of these elements is essential to accurately envision their impact on the urban environment of the Complex.

d) There are plans for ten more additional public toilets. However, the specific details outlining the space requirements for different groups such as males, females, children, the elderly, infants, as well as provisions for drinking water facilities, are notably absent from the submission. The Commission suggests that in order to adequately serve a broad demographic, the planning should also account for spaces accommodating drinking water facilities and other provisions.

e) The intended parking zones are crucial as they will serve as the initial point of contact with the public. However, the submission lacks comprehensive information regarding these areas, such as entrance and exit points, curb specifications, movement pathways complete with curb details, and even three-dimensional (3D) visual representations. It is important that these areas are thoroughly explained with suitable details in order to assess their influence on the overall visual and urban aesthetics of the complex. Additionally, designated locations for electronic sign boards shall be installed to indicate the availability of parking spaces within each parking lot.

f) Likewise, the design includes plans for lifts and escalators to access the planned skywalk. However, the submission lacks information regarding their design characteristics, architectural features, material specifications, and how they interact with the public. This absence of details prevents the Commission from evaluating their potential visual impact on the area's aesthetics. It is essential that these aspects be elucidated with essential particulars, including a 3D representation, materials, design, architectural elements, and any other necessary information required for the thorough assessment by the Commission.

g) The allocated spaces for dry and wet waste must be carefully considered, taking into account their specific design requirements. Inadequate planning and placement of these elements could potentially detract from the overall visual and urban aesthetics of the complex.

h) The large open paved spaces between buildings could include some elements of green, including plantation of species like Areca Palms, Ficus Benjamina, Monsteria and/or other evergreen shade-tolerant species.

i) Given that the proposal is now in the formal stage, it is imperative that all the aforementioned fourteen tasks aimed at enhancing the Nehru Place area are comprehensively explained. This should include before (presenting the current status through photographs) and after (providing 3D representations depicting the envisioned outcome after completion) images. These visual aids are crucial for facilitating a clearer understanding of the proposal.

4. In general, the design scheme presented in the formal stage is unclear and lacks the necessary information for the Commission to thoroughly evaluate it and provide well-considered 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 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 Commission did not accept the proposal for NOC for Completion at its meeting held on July 27, 2023, specific observations were given.
4. The revised proposal for NOC for completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation Letter No. OL-19072350012 dated 02.08.2023 and observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., NDMC in parts ‘B’ & ‘C’ of Proforma. Based on the comments received in parts ‘B’ & ‘C’ Proforma, and the revised submission made, the proposal for NOC for Completion is accepted.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the PWD-GNCTD (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission accepted the concept of building plans proposal at its meeting held on May 25, 2023.
3. The building plans proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the observations given in DUAC conceptually suitable letter no: OL-23052327038 dated 30.05.2023. Based on 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 PWD-GNCTD (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plans in respect of Guru Gobind Singh University Campus at its meeting held on May 01, 2006, but not accepted NOC at Completion stage at its meeting held on April 16, 2019, specific observations were given.
3.  The building plan proposal for the expansion of Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (Under phase-II) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and a detailed presentation was given by the architect (online) who simultaneously provided with 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 the proposal has been submitted for the approval (formal) of the following works to be undertaken during phase-II:

i. Academic block- (2B+G+8)

ii. Boys Hostel- (Stilt+12)

iii. Dining and multipurpose and Indoor sports- (G+2)

iv. Girl’s hostel- (Stilt + 12)

v. Warden residence- (G+2)

vi. Community centre- Guest house extension- (G+2)

vii. Faculty hostel- (Type-II, Type-III S+12)

viii. Faculty hostel- (Type IV - S+15)

ix. Faculty hostel- (Type V - S+12)

x. Health centre extension- (G+1)

xi. Atal Lab- (G+3)

b) The Commission noted that the planned faculty hostel blocks (Type-IV, V) are positioned facing the playground. In light of the privacy considerations for the faculty hostel residents, the Commission suggests that their placement be relooked at including a buffer zone between them.

c) While the majority of the planned building blocks feature an external façade composed of a blend of Unistone clay in beige and white tones, the provided 3D views lack distinct delineation between these elements. It is recommended that improved 3D visualizations for each proposed block be created to effectively showcase the façade materials, allowing for a comprehensive analysis of their influence on the campus's overall visual and urban aesthetics.

d) The sections shall 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 employed.

e) In the hostel, warden residence etc., appropriate screening arrangements shall be made to ensure the screening of clothes hanging on the balconies. Appropriate arrangements/spaces shall be created to house air-conditioners, etc. so as not to mar the visual & urban aesthetics of the complex.

f) 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.

g) The area accommodating the DG set, DG exhaust pipes etc. shall be suitably screened, using appropriate architectural mechanisms so as not to remain visible, and mar the aesthetics of the complex.

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 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 general, the design scheme presented for phase II (formal stage) is unclear and lacks the necessary information for the Commission to thoroughly evaluate it and provide well-considered 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.

Building plans proposal in respect of the 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. 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 plan proposal at its meeting held on April 13, 2023, and did not accept the concept of the building plan proposal at its meeting held on June 30, 2023, specific observations were given.
4. The revised building plans proposal received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised along with the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC conceptually unsuitable letter no: OL-13062327042 dated 04.07.2023.  Based on the revised 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 plumbing pipes, service equipment, water tanks, air-conditioning units, solar panels, DG set, DG exhaust pipes etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of point nos. 10, 11 & 12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

Demolition and Reconstruction plans proposal in respect of Plot No. 11-B & 12-B for Akshara National Classical Theatre of India, Baba Kharak Singh Marg. (Conceptual Stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (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 plan proposal at its meeting held on June 15, 2023, and specific observations were given.
4. The revised building plans proposal received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised along with the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-07062324017 dated 20.06.2023. Based on the compliances made to the previous observations of the Commission, and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission was presented three different choices for the building's façade design, considering architectural features, geometric shapes, patterns, etc. Among these, option-I was deemed the most suitable. The semi-circular arch area (upper portion) will have a single glass panel for the glazed portion.

b) The architect was suggested to further elucidate option-I in the subsequent submission (formal stage) supplemented with skin sections (in detail) to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

Found conceptually suitable (not limited to these observations).

‘The conceptual suitability is only with reference to the mandate of the Commission. However, it would be reassessed at the formal stage based on the 20-point criteria as available on the DUAC website.  It would not be a substitute for formal approval of the proposal referred through the concerned local body in terms of section 12 of the DUAC Act, 1973.