Action Taken Reports in respect of Minutes of 1717th meeting held on 03.08.2023.

1. Action Taken Reports in respect of Minutes of the 1717th meeting held on 03.08.2023 were discussed.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal for the redevelopment of the Integrated Exhibition-cum-Convention Centre (IECC) at Pragati Maidan at its meeting held on June 14, 2017.
3. The proposal for NOC for completion (Part-Exhibition Hall A6) received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., South DMC in parts ‘B’ & ‘C’ of Proforma. Based on the comments received in parts ‘B’ & ‘C’ Proforma, and the submission made, the proposal for NOC for Completion (Part-Exhibition Hall A6) is found to be accepted.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal at its meeting held on February 13, 2015, 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., South DMC in parts ‘B’ & ‘C’ of Proforma, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect (online) on Cisco Web Ex meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the previous observations of the Commission, comments received in parts ‘B’ & ‘C’ Proforma, discussion held (online), 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 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 27, 2023, 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 previous comments of the Commission communicated vide Observation Letter no: OL-24072323053 dated 02.08.2023, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco Web Ex meetings (online) who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the previous observations of the Commission, a discussion held with the architect (online), 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-24072323053 dated 02.08.2023 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) It is again reiterated that:

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…...”

d) Furthermore, it was noted that all elevations and sections of the different proposed additions have been combined into a single sheet, lacking proper distinctions. To facilitate a more comprehensive review by the Commission, it is recommended that these additions be categorized on a separate sheet, accompanied by suitable elaborations.

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, 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. Overall, due to not addressing & resolving previous observations of the Commission satisfactorily, the proposal received at the formal 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 above and its previous observations 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 March 19, 1997, specific observations were given.
3. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of room, balcony, toilet & extension of living room in type-B, and addition of bedroom, balcony, and toilet in type-B, addition of bedroom, balcony & toilet in type-A & type-L flats) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco Web Ex meetings (online) who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the discussion held with the architect (online), 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 presented 3D perspectives do not clearly differentiate between the existing and proposed elements, nor do they effectively depict the materials intended for the facade. It is advisable to enhance the 3D visual representations for each proposed block (including the terrace), ensuring the inclusion of specific facade materials. This will enable a more thorough assessment of how these materials contribute to the overall visual and urban aesthetics of the complex.

c) Furthermore, although the inclusion of WPC Jaali for balcony screening has been planned, this feature is conspicuously absent from the provided 3D visualizations. Given the current stage of submission (formal), it should ensure a cohesive presentation that encompasses plans, elevations, sections, and 3D views.

d) Based on the provided photographs of the current development, it is evident that only specific areas have been captured. Considering the formal nature of the proposal, it is essential to cover all residential blocks with uncut photographs from all sides.

e) Furthermore, there is a significant presence of temporary materials used to cover balconies, which is detracting from the visual appeal and overall aesthetics of the complex. All unauthorized coverings must be promptly dismantled and removed.

f) Visible plumbing pipes are apparent across the complex's facade, negatively impacting its visual and urban aesthetics. Moreover, there is a lack of consideration in the proposal for new additional toilets, as no provisions have been made for accommodating plumbing arrangements discreetly. The design of the proposed toilets must incorporate proper plumbing shafts to ensure that no plumbing pipes are left exposed, maintaining the overall visual integrity of the complex.

g) Extensive expansions have been proposed throughout the existing superstructure, which was originally designated for residential use and received approval in 1997, with completion in 2003. This entails a substantial increase in both live and dead loads imposed on the current building. Given the alterations to the building's structural integrity, the design must incorporate measures to ensure its resilience against weather-related influences and potential impacts from natural disasters such as earthquakes.

h) Currently, the residential building does not have provision for a basement, considering a substantial increase in the requisite parking requirements 156 ECS, the arrangements envisaged for accommodating additional parking requirements appear to be not sufficiently addressed. Not addressing parking requirements for the complex would spoil the overall visual, urban, environmental, and aesthetic quality. Existing parking and parking from additional FAR (proposed) are to be shown clearly on the layout plan with a bifurcation of two.

i) It was observed that the location of the public toilet is also part of the formal submission but its detailed drawings (including screening mechanism, elevations, sections, 3D views etc.) have not been submitted. The Commission observed that it could 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.

j) 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.

k) All service equipment water tanks, plumbing pipes, rainwater 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. In general, the design scheme put forth during the formal stage for the additions/alterations is not comprehensible and lacks sufficient information to 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 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 addition/alterations (10 small and 10 big kiosks on the ground floor, gaming area on the 2^nd floor) at its meeting held on July 27, 2023, and July 13, 2023, respectively, specific observations were given.
5. The revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of 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 observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation letter no: OL-20072322052 dated 02.08.2023. A detailed discussion was held with the architect (online) on Cisco Web Ex meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the replies submitted, the discussion held (online), 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 (addition of 10 small and 10 big kiosks on the ground floor, gaming area on the 2^nd floor) only.

b) The Commission has noted that the previous observations communicated via DUAC observation letter no: OL-20072322052 dated 02.08.2023 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 Commission firmly holds the view that evaluating the potential impact necessitates a clear understanding of the proposed twenty (20) kiosks of different sizes in the main entrance zone of the mall. Essential details such as the spacing between these kiosks, movement spaces after the erection of these kiosks, and distances between the major retail showrooms at the rear of the kiosks, must be elucidated with all requisite details. The design and material choice for the kiosks seems excessively weighty, obstructing the panoramic sightlines of the central atrium areas, thus resulting in congestion and a detrimental effect on the overall visual charm, aesthetics, and ambience of the locale.

d) To address these concerns, a deliberate and considerate approach must be taken in the design, configuration, and material selection for the kiosks, to prevent an overpowering effect within the already occupied space. Additionally, it is recommended that 3D renderings of the kiosks be integrated into the actual environment of the site, providing a more accurate depiction of their impact.

e) Also, though the location of the proposed gaming area has been marked on the second floor the 3D views of this area have not been submitted, the elucidated 3D visuals of the area shall be submitted along with its integration into the actual environment of the site, providing a more accurate depiction of their impact.

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 as desired by the Commission for its judicious review.
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 North DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on September 15, 2022, and specific observations were given, but did not accept the concept of the revised design submission of the proposal at its meeting held on June 30, 2023, specific observations were given.
3. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal at its meeting held on July 27, 2023, specific observations were given.
4. The revised building plan proposal (Part-North Eastern) 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-23072355061 dated 02.08.2023. Based on the replies submitted and the revised submission made, 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) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

b) 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.