1. Action Taken Reports in respect of Minutes of the 1724th meeting held on 21.09.2023 were discussed.

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (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 respectively, specific observations were given. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on August 17, 2023, July 27, 2023, July 13, 2023, May 04, 2023, and on February 23, 2023 respectively, 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 halls, double height banquet, covered lounge (without wall), bakery, kitchen, covered verandah, restaurant area, corridor, multipurpose hall) received (online) at the conceptual 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-14082323059 dated 21.08.2023, 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 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) It has been observed that the khasra numbers mentioned in the submitted proforma do not match with the khasra numbers in the Project report and drawings, thus showing inconsistency in the submission.

c) Discrepancies have been observed in the submission. Survey plan shows Part A and B of site plan whereas the submitted drawings and 3d views show only Part A of the plot lacking clarity in site boundary, thereby giving an incorrect information related to the site.  

d) Similarly, Part B of the plot is shown in the survey plan but does not reflect in other submitted drawings and 3d views, therefore the actual site boundary is not clear.

e) The front elevation of the existing motel building does not show the proposed restaurant building thus giving an incomplete picture. All elevations, with all co-ordinated architectural elements to be submitted.

f) The skin sections do not match with the submitted drawings and do not give clarity about location of the detail.

g) 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.

h) 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, a lot of discrepancies have been observed in the submission received at the conceptual stage. In view of the above, the Commission is unable to take a judicious review of the proposal.
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 previous observations in a clear and point-by-point manner.

The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting the confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

Demolition and Reconstruction plans proposal in respect of 165 Bedded R.B. Jessa Ram and Bros. Charitable Hospital at 6/35, Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh.  (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 revised building plan proposal for demolition and reconstruction received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised and a detailed discussion was held with the architect/proponent 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 signages in the hospital complex do not present a cohesive view. The signages on OPD side, seem to be too large as compared to other signages in the building. All signages to be of same size and to be placed in one single line to maintain coherence and uniformity.

b) The turning radius in the basement parking seems to be insufficient considering two-way traffic movement. To ensure smooth movement of vehicles, it is suggested to increase the turning radius to gain maximum width for vehicle turning.

c) A mumty terrace plan showing solar panels was found to be missing in the submission.

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, 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, 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. The architect is advised to incorporate all the observations of the Commission indicated above in the next submission (formal stage) in a clear and point-by-point manner.

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.

The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting the confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

Demolition and Reconstruction plans proposal in respect of Residential Building on Plot no. 03 at Bela Road, 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 revised building plan proposal for demolition and reconstruction received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The number of floors mentioned in the project report (basement + ground + first floor) vary from the submitted drawings (basement + ground+ two floors), thus should be consistent in the submission.

b) Only one VRV system is shown in the terrace plan. Considering the size of the floorplate, more VRV systems may be added to fulfil the requirement. 

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) 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 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.

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.

The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting the confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.

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, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The proposal seems to be of demolition and reconstruction which has not been mentioned in the subject title or submission drawings. As the proposal is at formal stage, a demolition plan needs to be submitted.

b) Discrepancies have been observed in the submission received at the formal stage. There is mismatch in plot numbers mentioned in the proforma, drawings and project report i.e. proforma mentions plot no. 5822 whereas, part layout plan in drawing and project report mentions plot no. 1281; needs clarification and corrected submission shall be submitted for the review of the Commission.

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.

4. Overall due to inconsistency found in the submission received at the formal stage, it could not be fully appreciated by the Commission. A corrected and co-related submission shall be submitted for the review of 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 DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations (Extension of FAR and Construction of Podium) 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) Incomplete submission has been received at the formal stage. Details including proforma, existing site picture, parking plan, landscape plan, building plan, elevations and sections are missing in the submission which are mandatory requirements for the consideration of the Commission.

c) Staircase to the podium level is not visible in the 3d views, therefore the approach to the podium level is not clear. All proposed changes to be reflected in the respective drawings and 3d views for clarity in submission.  

d) 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.

e) All water tanks, plumbing pipes, rainwater 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.

3. Overall due to incomplete submission and inconsistency found in the submission received at the formal stage, it could not be fully appreciated by the Commission. A corrected and co-related submission shall be submitted for the review of the Commission. 
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 DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on October 31, 2012, specific observations were given and accepted the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on August 09, 2017.
3. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal {addition of Block-2(Office) and Block-3(Servant)} at its meeting held on August 24, 2023 and July 13, 2023, specific observations were given.
4. The revised building plan proposal {addition of Block-2(Office) and Block-3(Servant Quarters)} 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 Observation letter no: OL-18082322060 dated 31.08.2023. 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, 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) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

c) All plumbing pipes, service equipment, outdoor air-conditioner units, DG set, 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.