Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1720th meeting held on 24.08.2023.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1720th meeting held on 24.08.2023 were discussed.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the North DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission accepted the concept of the building plan proposal at its meeting held on April 06, 2023, specific observations were given and approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on June 23, 2023, specific observations were given.
3. The revised building plans proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinized and a detailed discussion was held online with the architect who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the revised submission made and the discussion held online, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that the building plan proposal had previously received approval (formal) during the Commission's meeting on June 23, 2023. However, the architect has not sufficiently clarified the reasons for resubmitting the proposal for revised approval, making it difficult to understand and judiciously evaluate the revised proposal.

b) The requested revisions in the revised submission should be clearly explained with comprehensive details, which should include the use of different colours to overlay the proposed changes onto the previous approval. This visual representation of the "before" (previous approval) and "after" (current proposal) will facilitate a better understanding of the proposal and enable informed decision-making.

c) Also, it was noted that cross and longitudinal sections of the site have not been provided to understand the proposed revisions made for the earlier proposed podium area. The proposal being at the formal stage needs to submit detailed drawings of sections (longitudinal and cross-section) across the site including the front landscaped area for better review of the proposal.

d) It appears that the two vehicular ramps (in the front setback) leading to the basement below have been covered using some material and a structural mechanism. However, there is a lack of specific information regarding these design elements. Since the proposal is at a formal stage, it is essential to provide comprehensive details, including the type of material used, the structural arrangement, the overall form, design considerations, and any other pertinent details that are necessary for the Commission to take an informed review, especially considering its potential impact on the overall visual and urban aesthetics of the Complex.

e) Work of public art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at an appropriate level which is also visible from outside, to be installed in terms of the point nos. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

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

4. In general, the building plan proposal that has been submitted at the formal stage for revised approval lacks thoroughness in explaining the rationale behind the resubmission for revised approval. This deficiency in information makes it challenging for the Commission to make well-informed decisions.
5. The architect is advised to carefully follow and address all the observations provided by the Commission above. It is requested that the architect submit 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 South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal at its meeting held on August 10, 2023, specific observations were given.
3. The revised building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the Architect in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation Letter No: OL-03082355064 dated 16.08.2023. Based on the replies submitted, and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) Work of public art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at an appropriate level which is also visible from outside, shall ensure to be installed in terms of the point nos. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

b) 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.

c) All water tanks, plumbing pipes, service equipment, DG set, DG exhaust pipes, 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.

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 July 27, 2023, and on June 23, 2023, respectively, specific observations were given.
3. The revised building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation Letter No: OL-21072355060 dated 02.08.2023. Based on the replies submitted, and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) Work of public art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at an appropriate level which is also visible from outside, shall ensure to be installed in terms of the point nos. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

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 water tanks, plumbing pipes, service equipment, outdoor air-conditioner units, DG sets, DG exhaust pipes, 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 NDMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal for additions/alterations in the new Resident Hostel Block and Automated Multilevel Car Parking for PGIMER at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital at its meeting held on October 05, 2016.
3. The Commission approved the revised building plan proposal for Resident Doctor Hostel Block at its meeting held on January 15, 2021.
4. The proposal for NOC for completion (Part- Resident Doctor Hostel Block) 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. 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 the proposal has been received at the NOC for the Completion stage (Part- Resident Doctor Hostel Block) but all side photographs of the completed structure appear to have been missing in the submission including plans, superimposed plans etc.

b) The proposal has been submitted at the completion stage but an appropriate number of photographs (including interior areas, work of public art) of the actually built construction to substantiate the actual work executed at the site, has not been provided. It needs to provide uncut/clear all side photographs of the superstructure to substantiate the actual work executed at the site including parking, basement, landscape, elevational façade, terrace, and screening of services etc.

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.

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 submit 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. 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, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that the proposal falls in the LBZ (Lutyens Bungalow Zone) area, and all applicable norms/regulations/guidelines shall be adhered to.

b) The Commission observed that the proposal is on a large plot area of 13759.30 sqm and three entry/exit gates seem to have been envisaged but the design of the gate & the boundary wall has not been given much attention by the architect in terms of design, elements, materials etc. The same needs to be detailed for gate/grill detail/material applications coordinated with plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc.

c) Similarly, for such a large property the location of the DG set/DG exhaust pipes shall be marked on the layout plan along with its screening mechanism.

d) The proposed car parking 26.68 ECS has been shown in terms of ECS, the parking plan needs to be detailed, i.e., it needs to mark the location of no. of cars, car movement patterns, soft parking areas etc. for better understanding of the Commission.

e) Work of public art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at an appropriate level which is also visible from outside, shall ensure to be installed in terms of the point nos. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

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.

4. The architect is advised to carefully follow and address all the observations provided by the Commission above. It is requested that the architect submit 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. 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 Commission observed that the design of the gate & the boundary wall has not been given much attention by the architect in terms of design, elements, materials etc. The same needs to be detailed for gate/grill detail/material applications coordinated with plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc.

b) Similarly, for such a large property the location of the DG set/DG exhaust pipes shall be marked on the layout plan along with its screening mechanism.

c) The proposed car parking 15.42 ECS has been shown in terms of ECS, the parking plan needs to be detailed, i.e., it needs to mark the location of no. of cars, car movement patterns, soft parking areas etc. for better understanding of the Commission.

d) Work of public art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at an appropriate level which is also visible from outside, shall ensure to be installed in terms of the point nos. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

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. The architect is advised to carefully follow and address all the observations provided by the Commission above. It is requested that the architect submit 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 CPWD (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The proposal for additions/alterations (addition of Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya statue, 5 interpretative walls, lily pond, stone benches and entry gate) in respect of Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Park at Pocket 7A, DDU Marg received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect online who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the discussion held online and the submission made, the following observation is 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.

Building plans proposal in respect of Saral Scheme at property no. 1958, situated at Neela Wali Gali, Bazar Sita Ram. (Conceptual Stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal at its meeting held on August 24, 2023, and on July 20, 2023, specific observations were given.
3. The revised building plan proposal received (online) at the Conceptual stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation letter no: OL-23082323006 dated 31.08.2023.  Based on the previous observations of the Commission and the revised submission made, the following observation is to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that in terms of the earlier observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no. OL-23082323006 dated 31.08.2023 inadequate/unsatisfactory compliances have been given. 

4. In view of the unsatisfactory compliance made to the previous observations of the Commission, the proposal could not be appreciated judiciously by the Commission.
5. The architect is advised to carefully follow and address all the previous observations of the Commission. It is requested that the architect submit 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 layout and building plans proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect online who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the discussion held online, and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that the proposed site is flanked by roads on three sides, with the primary entry/exit point for residential towers connecting to a 30-meter-wide main road, while other entrances (for EWS & Tower and Commercial) connect to an 18.0-meter-wide road. Given the presence of 336 residential units, along with a mixture of commercial and office spaces, and parking provisions for 966 ECS, it was observed that 9.00-meter-wide setback roads were allocated for two-way vehicle movement. The Commission expressed the view that, given the substantial occupancy in terms of both occupants and vehicles, it is advisable to plan for one-way traffic flow to ensure smooth vehicle movement.

b) Based on the provided submission, it seems that the primary entry/exit point is directly connected to the main 30.0-meter-wide road, potentially causing congestion for the city's traffic flow. Therefore, it is recommended to consider relocating the entry/exit gate to the 18.0-meter-wide road to prevent any conflicts with the traffic on the 30.0-meter-wide road. This zone should be comprehensively illustrated with enlarged details to facilitate a clear understanding of traffic dynamics, encompassing both incoming and outgoing vehicular flow to the site.

c) It was noticed that the overall parking demand (proposed 966 ECS) has been accommodated as follows: 379 ECS on stilts/ground (including double stacking), 289 ECS in basement-I, and 298 ECS in basement-II. The sole vehicular access to the basements is currently provided through the stilted area using a single ramp, which seems to present some challenges. It is recommended to explore alternative solutions to create a more convenient and conflict-free vehicular circulation throughout the entire site, including accessing the basement levels.

d) Work of public art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at an appropriate level which is also visible from outside, shall ensure to be installed in terms of the point nos. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

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 service equipment, solar panels, DG sets, 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.

3. The architect is advised to carefully follow and address all the observations provided by the Commission. It is requested that the architect submit 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. No previous record of approval (Formal/Completion) taken has been found in the available record of the Commission.
3. The layout and building plans proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and 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, solar panels, 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.