Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1727th meeting held on 12.10.2023.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of the 1727th meeting held on 12.10.2023 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 at its meeting held on July 07, 2022, specific observations were given.
3. The revised building plans proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Approval letter no: OL-04072255041 dated 08.07.2022 and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Zoho Web Ex meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the previous observations, the discussion held (online) and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that during its prior meeting on July 7, 2022, when reviewing and approving the case, it had assessed the façade's elevations concerning factors such as materials, finishes, and architectural elements. However, in the present proposal, the elevational façade has undergone a complete transformation and is too noisy with excessive elements and clutter.  It is recommended that current elevations be revised, focusing on enhancing aesthetics by simplifying through reducing the number of architectural elements, perhaps through removal of floating colonnades and expanding the arch elements on the ground floor to larger proportions.  It is suggested to prepare alternative options for the façade and present to the Commission at the conceptual level first.

b) The proposed design lacks clarity regarding how the site intends to meet its total parking requirements. To better evaluate the proposal, the Commission requires a comprehensive parking plan that includes specific details such as the number of parking spaces, their locations, and the flow of vehicular traffic. All requisite parking requirements should be as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc.

c) Discrepancy has been noticed in the submissions received at the formal stage, a 2.80-meter-wide connecting bridge at the terrace level has been proposed, yet this element is absent from the 3D views. The Commission believes that this omission could potentially affect the overall visual and urban aesthetics of the complex. Therefore, it shall be ensured that the proposal is consistent with other drawings and that all elements are accurately represented.

d) An intricate design plan outlining the screening mechanism for the area that houses the DG set, DG exhaust pipes, and other components should be provided. This plan should encompass the concealment of DG exhaust pipes through suitable architectural techniques to ensure they are not visible and do not detract from the overall aesthetics of the complex.

e) The presence of exposed plumbing pipes, including those for rainwater, has the potential to adversely affect the visual and urban aesthetics of the complex. To address this concern, it is necessary to provide comprehensive information and details, including the incorporation of a screening mechanism and the choice of materials to be used in this context.

f) Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

g) All service equipment, water tanks, DG sets, DG exhaust pipes, air-conditioning units, solar panels etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the 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.   Overall, the revised design proposal received in the formal stage lacks clarity in explaining the design scheme and has some discrepancies, the same needs to be revised & modified accordingly for the review of the Commission.
5. The architect is advised to respond to all the observations given by the Commission above and shall submit two to three different facade design alternatives during the initial conceptual stage for the Commission's review. This submission should include a comprehensive response that addresses each of the points raised by the Commission, presenting the responses 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 Commission intended to discuss the proposal (online) but the architect was not available for discussion. Based on the submission made, the non-availability of the architect for discussion (online), the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the proposal is at the formal stage and a lot of discrepancies have been observed in the submission. The proposed 3D views and the elevations/sections do not match. The proposal being at the formal stage the proposal shall have coordinated, co-related submission (plans/elevations/sections/3 D views etc. for the consideration of the Commission.

b) A Sustainability feature shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) are 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) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

4. In view of the discrepancies noticed in the submission received at the formal stage, it could not be appreciated judiciously 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 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 for demolition and reconstruction received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) All requisite parking requirements shall be as per the applicable rules/regulations of the area.

b) Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

c) All service equipment, rainwater pipes, water tanks, air-conditioning units, solar panels etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the 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.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not accept the concept of a layout plan for the District Centre at Nehru Place-II at its meeting held on April 15, 2009, specific observations were given.
3. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal for the upgradation of the District Centre, Nehru Place at its meeting held on August 10, 2023, specific observations were given.
4. The revised proposal for the Upgradation of the District Centre at Nehru Place (Renovation of Plaza, parking areas, amphitheatre, tensile shading structures, development works of roads and footpaths etc.) 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-07082322057 dated 16.08.2023.  Based on the replies submitted, and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) Given the proposal's importance in improving public spaces, services, restroom facilities, walkways, roadways, and parking areas, including the construction of a Skywalk, lifts, and escalators for the Skywalk, the Commission decided to conduct an on-site visit to experience the design proposal firsthand. This site visit was conducted along with the DDA, and DMRC on October 25, 2023.

b) A significant observation was made regarding pedestrian experience on the road that runs between the Eros Hotel on one side and the Nehru Place District Centre (DC). This road experiences heavy traffic from vehicles heading to the DC or passing through and pedestrians accessing Satyam Cinema, the DC, Eros Corporate Tower, and the multi-level car parking facilities. It seems that these aspects were not adequately considered in the proposed design scheme for the Skywalk, which appears to lack sensitivity to the pedestrians, and the urban environment, particularly the area between the Eros Hotel and Satyam Cinema. The same shall be given due consideration and ensured to be duly incorporated in the revised design scheme.

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.

Revised Layout and Building plan proposal in respect of Himachal Niketan- State Guest House at Plot no. 1 & 2, Sector-19, Dwarka. (Conceptual Stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plans proposal in respect of State Guest House (Himachal Pradesh) on Plot no. 2, Sector 19, Dwarka at its meeting held on October 14, 2021, specific observations were given.
3. The Commission did not accept the concept of the revised building plans proposal at its meeting held on October 12, 2023, and September 27, 2023, specific observations were given.
4. The revised layout and building plans proposal in respect of Himachal Niketan-State Guest House at Plot no. 1 and 2, Sector 19, Dwarka received (online) at the conceptual 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-10102327010 dated 16.10.2023. Based on the replies submitted and the revised submission made, the following observation is to be complied with:

a) The architect is advised to carefully follow and address all the observations provided by the Commission vide their observation letter no: OL- 26092327005 dated 03.10.2023 and OL-10102327010 dated 16.10.2023 respectively in the next submission (formal stage) incorporating each point raised by the Commission 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.

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 for additions/alteration (alterations in the ground floor and addition of basement and 3 floors above the existing ground floor) 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.