Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1722nd meeting held on 06.09.2023.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of the 1722nd meeting held on 06.09.2023 were discussed.

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 a detailed discussion was held with the architect at Cisco WebEx meetings (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) 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, 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 August 24, 2023, on July 20, 2023, respectively, and did not accept the Concept of the building plan proposal at its meeting held on September 06, 2023, specific observations were given.
3. The revised building plan proposal 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 Conceptually Unsuitable letter no: OL-31082327003 dated 12.09.2023.  The Commission intended to discuss the proposal with the architect (online) but he was not available. Based on the replies submitted, non-availability of the architect online, and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that in terms of the Gazette notification No. F. 13(43)/MB/UD/2014/1602 dated July 29, 2016, issued by the Urban Development Department, Government of NCT of Delhi Haveli, Gali Neelawali, Opp. Arya Samaj, indicated at the Sr. No. 514 is a grade-III gazette notified heritage listed property.

b) Simultaneously, the Commission also noted that one of its previous observations:

“……. Furthermore, the photographs of the present façade indicate the presence of heritage-style elements. It is necessary to provide a detailed description of the property's current condition, including its architectural form, constituent elements, and heritage notified building status…...”

The architect has replied that:

“……..there is no heritage style element indicate in façade. The present condition of property is deteriorated which requires to be demolish for reconstruction of property. As per gazette circulated in year 2010 & 2016, the property bearing no: 1958, Gali Neelawali, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi-110006 is not listed in the list of heritage property…”

c) Based on the photographs of the property, including both its exterior and interior, which were provided along with the demolition and reconstruction design proposal, and the architects statement, there is an uncertainty created in the minds of the Commission that the Commission would require advice from the concerned local body i.e., North DMC on the current status of the property including its heritage for the judicious review of the design proposal.

d) 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, 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. Overall, due to uncertainties in the submission at the formal stage, it could not be satisfactorily reviewed by the Commission. Simultaneously, considering the nature of the proposal it was decided to seek advice from the concerned local body i.e., North DMC on the current status of the property including its heritage.
5. The Commission will advise the architect upon receipt of inputs from the local body for further processing.

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, with specific observations and subsequently approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on June 23, 2023, with specific observations given.
3. The Commission did not approve the revised layout and building plans proposal at its meeting held on September 06, 2023, specific observations were given.
4. The revised building plans proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinized along with replies submitted by the architect in response to observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation letter no: OL-30082323066 dated 12.09.2023.  Based on the replies submitted, and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) All parking provisions shall be as per applicable rules, regulations, guidelines etc.

b) The design of the vehicular ramp covering leading to the basement should be reevaluated to incorporate innovative tensile structures or the inclusion of planters, enhancing its visual appeal and aesthetic appeal.

c) 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.

d) 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, 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.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the CPWD (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout Master plan in respect of Delhi University, North Campus at its meeting held on January 06, 2010.
3. The building plan proposal for additions/alteration {alterations in the existing (G+1 floor) building and addition of a new proposed building blocks (Basement+Ground+3 storied) building} received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, 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 discussion held online, and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the Central Reference Library at Delhi University is currently an approximately century-old structure, consisting of one ground floor and one additional floor (G+1). The formal proposal under consideration involves integrating this existing building with a new structure that includes a basement, ground floor, and three additional stories (Basement+Ground+3 stories), following the demolition of certain sections of the existing building.

b) It was observed that only three nos. 3D views have been provided, the proposal being at the formal stage must provide all side views including courtyard areas, public interface areas, bird eye views of the whole site, night views (to understand the lighting mechanism better), and any other areas for the better elucidation of the design scheme.

c) Additionally, the Commission observed that the current structure possesses distinctive architectural features and design aesthetics. The proposed architectural elevations do not seem to align with the existing elevations in terms of architectural elements and style, particularly concerning the vertical and horizontal elements on the facade and around windows (such as lintels and sills). The proposed facade lacks a sense of unity and integration with the existing structure, resulting in a fragmented appearance for the entire complex. Given that the facade serves as the point of convergence between the existing and proposed elements, it is recommended that a consistent approach be adopted for the entire complex to maintain architectural harmony.

d) Furthermore, taking into account the extensive available rooftop space on both the existing and proposed structures, it is imperative to formulate a comprehensive and detailed plan for the positioning and concealment of potential rainwater pipes. These details should be elaborated upon in a manner that ensures their visibility does not detract from the visual and urban aesthetics of the campus.

e) 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) 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.

g) 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.

h) 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.

i) 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.

j) All 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. Overall, 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 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) 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 NDMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal for demolition and reconstruction at its meeting held on December 09, 2021, and the revised building plan proposal for demolition and reconstruction was approved at its meeting held on June 01, 2023 specific observations were given.
3. The building plan proposal received (online) at the Completion stage was scrutinised and the proposal for NOC for Completion is found acceptable.