1. Action Taken Reports in respect of Minutes of the 1721st meeting held on 31.08.2023 were discussed.

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, specific observations were given.
3. The Commission did not approve the revised building plans proposal at its meeting held on August 31, 2023, and July 27, 2023, respectively, specific observations were given.
4. The revised building plan proposal (part-2) 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-24082355004 dated 06.09.2023. 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.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the North DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal in respect of Youth transit hostels and facilitation Centre at its meeting held on June 30, 2023, specific observations were given.
3. The revised building plan proposal for demolition of existing building (Udaipur House) and proposed construction of Youth transit hostels and facilitation Centre 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-27062323046 dated 04.07.2023, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect/proponent 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 has noted that the previous observations communicated via DUAC observation letter no: OL-27062323046 dated 04.07.2023 have not been satisfactorily addressed and complied with.

b) Additionally, it was noticed that the proposal is currently at the formal stage, and there are a lot of discrepancies in the submission. Plans, elevations, sections, and 3D views do not match with each other. Given the formal stage of the submission, coordinated drawings (plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc.) shall be submitted for the Commission's review.

c) Furthermore, while a limited number of 3D views of the proposal have been included in the submission, considering the formal stage of the application, it is necessary to provide annotated 3D views from all sides, including a bird's-eye view to take a thorough and comprehensive review.

d) The elevations and sections must be meticulously detailed, clearly showcasing the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, and other pertinent features. Additionally, submit comprehensive skin sections that provide a detailed understanding of the facade's elevation, including the materials employed. By providing these detailed elements, a comprehensive overview of the architectural design and facade can be obtained.

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, 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 service equipment, plumbing pipes, rainwater pipes, water tanks, DG sets, DG exhaust pipes, 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.

4. Overall, the submission at the formal stage is not comprehensive and found inconsistencies in it, the same shall be relooked at and the revised coordinated submission be submitted for consideration 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 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 Commission did not approve the building plans proposal at its meeting held on June 23, 2023, specific observations were given.
3. The revised building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation Letter No: OL-13062362013 dated 27.06.2023. 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, 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 service equipment, water tanks, DG sets, DG exhaust pipes, 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 NDMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal for the Contemporary Art Centre, Bikaner House at its meeting held on July 26, 2017, specific observations were given.
3. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations {(addition of Cultural & office block, Hostel block, Open air theatre and M-Block)} after demolishing existing office blocks, servant quarters, staff quarters, kitchen and garage received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised. The Commission intended to discuss the proposal with the architect online but he was not available. Based on the unavailability of the architect to discuss the proposal 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. The Commission also noted that the “Bikaner House” is a Grade-II heritage property listed at Sr. no. 4 of the heritage list for the NDMC area.

b) Presently, the campus consists of many built structures, each serving its distinct function. The recent augmentations, including the Cultural & Office Block, Hostel Block, Open-Air Theatre, and M-Block, have been proposed following the demolition of existing office blocks, servant quarters, staff residences, kitchens, and garages. However, the proposed design scheme lacks self-explanatory clarity. Given its proximity to India Gate, a popular destination for both domestic and international tourists throughout the year, the Commission intends to evaluate this proposal not in isolation but as an integral part of the broader context of existing campus constructions.

c) To enhance the comprehension of the proposal within its actual setting, the Commission strongly believes that it is essential to superimpose 3D images of the proposed additions onto the actual environment of the campus to facilitate a judicious assessment, considering its significant impact on the overall visual appeal, aesthetics, atmosphere, and other pertinent factors associated with the area. This approach aims to provide a clearer depiction of how the proposal fits into its immediate environment.

d) The 3D views (external & internal) have been presented without proper annotations to understand the overall materiality considering the “Bikaner House” is a listed Grade-II heritage property listed at Sr. no. 4 of the heritage list for the NDMC area.

e) The elevations and sections must be meticulously detailed, clearly showcasing the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, and other pertinent features. Additionally, submit comprehensive skin sections that provide a detailed understanding of the facade's elevation, including the materials employed. By providing these detailed elements, a comprehensive overview of the architectural design and facade can be obtained.

f) The property serves a wide range of purposes, such as housing the Cultural and office Block, Hostel Block, Open-Air Theatre, staff accommodations, servant quarters, and dining establishments. Given the anticipated high volume of visitors, including pedestrians, it is crucial to carefully plan for parking facilities. Reviewing the parking plan (found on sheet no-4), the Commission noted that it outlines provisions for open parking with 348 equivalent car spaces, stilt parking with 16.93 equivalent car spaces, two-wheeler parking on both the stilt and ground levels totalling 57 equivalent car spaces (ECS), and ground floor parking with 169 equivalent car spaces (ECS). However, the parking plan lacks comprehensive detailing concerning the precise location, vehicle numbers, traffic flow, and vehicle circulation. Additionally, it appears that a substantial portion of the site has been transformed into hard-paved areas.

g) Since the campus is presently operational, the architect must provide a clear and comprehensive elucidation of pedestrian and vehicular circulation within the site. The submission shall include an integrated mobility circulation plan that illustrates a smooth and conflict-free flow of both pedestrians and vehicles from external access points to the various buildings (existing & proposed). This plan should be presented with distinct demarcations for pedestrian and vehicular movement to enhance an overall understanding of the on-site traffic patterns.

h) The provision of air-conditioning in the proposed buildings is not clear. 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. Also, it shall be ensured that there is no leakage from the AC unit causing deterioration of spaces (indoor and outdoor). A scheme shall be established to conceal the equipment on the facade, terrace etc. and the same shall be reflected in appropriate layouts and 3D views.

i) A signage policy should be adopted on the site to maintain uniformity. They need to be appropriately located to ensure that they do not mar the aesthetics of the façade.

j) A lot of waste (dry and wet, food items, etc.) is supposed to be generated in the complex, and a detailed solid waste management plan proposal along with its location on the site plan be submitted.

k) Further, the location of a public toilet has been indicated in the layout plan but its detailed drawings including all sides 3D views with materials seems to have been missing in the submission. The proposal being at the formal stage its detailed drawings (including screening mechanism, elevations, sections, 3D views, etc.) shall be submitted for the consideration of the Commission as these elements could have a bearing on the overall visual, urban, and aesthetic quality of the complex.

l) Work of public art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at an appropriate level, 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.

m) 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.

n) 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, because the proposal submitted at the formal stage lacks clarity and comprehensiveness, the Commission could not undertake a thorough review.

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 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 building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of a lift and a connecting bridge) received (online) at the conceptual 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 (addition of a lift and connecting bridge) only.

b) It has been noted that a proposal for installing an elevator in the current building, complete with a landing platform, has been made. However, the design concept has not been adequately presented to the extent that the 3D illustration of the proposed elevator is missing from the submission.

c) Furthermore, the current building exhibits older construction with distinct artistic and architectural elements, as well as specific material specifications. It is essential to provide comprehensive details regarding the proposed elevator's facade to comprehend its influence on the visual and urban aesthetics of the surrounding area.

d) Since the proposal involves additions and alterations, it is crucial to prepare and present the design scheme comprehensively. This should include a clear depiction of pedestrian circulation to augment understanding of its functionality.

4. In general, because the proposal submitted at the conceptual stage lacks clarity and comprehensiveness, it could not undertake a thorough review.
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 approved the building plans proposal in respect of NCUI Complex for Jawahar Lal Nehru Co-op Centre at its meeting held on October 06, 1976.
3. The Commission returned the proposal of layout and building plans in respect of Auditorium-cum-office building in NCUI Complex at its meeting held on May 28, 1997, specific observations were given.
4. The completion plans proposal in respect of Auditorium-cum-office building in NCUI Complex was considered in the Commission meeting dated February 21, 2007.
5. The Commission approved the building plan proposal for demolition (existing G+3 building) and reconstruction (B+G+7) of the NCUI hostel building in NCUI Complex at its meeting held on July 06, 2023 but did not approve the revised proposal at its meeting held on August 24, 2023, specific observations were given.
6. The revised building plan proposal for demolition (existing G+3 building) and reconstruction (B+G+7) of the NCUI hostel building in NCUI Complex 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-21082355065 dated 31.08.2023. 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) 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, 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.

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 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 North DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal at its meeting held on September 06, 2023, specific observations were given.
3. The revised layout and building plans 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-05092323067 dated 12.09.2023, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect 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) 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 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 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.