Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1729th meeting held on 26.10.2023.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of the 1729th meeting held on 26.10.2023 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 plans proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, 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, rainwater pipes, 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 approved the building plans proposal at its meeting held on January 11, 2007, and accepted the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on June 23, 2010. The Commission approved the building plans proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on December 11, 2013, and subsequently accepted the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on October 18, 2017.
3. The building plans proposal for additions/alterations {addition of rotunda (G+1 floors), new Hospital Block (B+G+7 floors), MLCP Block (G+7 floors)} received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect online on Zoho 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 noted that the proposal entails the addition of a rotunda (G+1 floors), a new Hospital Block (B+G+7 floors), and an MLCP Block (G+7 floors) within an already existing hospital block with (G+6 floors). In its deliberation, the Commission focused solely on the new additions and did not take into account the existing construction at the site.

b) The Commission observed that the proposal, which is currently in the formal stage, lacked comprehensive detailed drawings (including plans, elevations, sections, and other necessary details) specifically for the MLCP submission. Given that the proposal is in the formal stage, it is essential for complete drawings and documentation to be provided for the Commission's consideration.

c) The site plan indicated that the proposed new hospital block and MLCP block are planned for an area presently utilized as a substantial surface parking lot for hospital staff and visitors. To meet the necessary parking needs, encompassing both existing and proposed requirements, a new MLCP has been envisioned to accommodate approximately 253 Equivalent Car Spaces (ECS).

d) The architect presented the proposed design of the MLCP during the online discussion, revealing a single ramp with a median to manage incoming and outgoing vehicle traffic. The Commission, however, expressed the view that this arrangement may not adequately address the vehicular movement within the hospital complex, despite the inclusion of a valet provision. As an alternative, the Commission recommended the preparation of one or two additional options, possibly incorporating car lift provisions, for the Commission's review.

4. In general, the Commission was unable to fully appreciate the proposal submitted at the formal stage due to the incomplete submission concerning the proposed MLCP block and the necessary improvements needed in its (MLCP) design.
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. 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 (online) on Zoho 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) It was recommended to eliminate the circular arched portion from the top of the fifth-floor façade on the West, East, and North West sides to enhance uniformity in the design elements across the outer façade.

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) as 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 service equipment, 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.

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 Commission did not approve the revised building plans proposal at its meeting held on October 26, 2023, specific observations were given.
4. The revised 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: F. No.- 55(69)/2023-DUAC, OL-18102355069 dated 27.10.2023. 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) as 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) 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.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on October 04, 2023, specific observations were given.
3. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of balcony, and the extension of drawing room) 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: F. No-22(63)/2023-DUAC, OL-03102322063 dated 11.10.2023. The Commission intended to discuss the design proposal for additions/alterations with the architect (online) but he/she was not available. Based on the replies submitted, the absence of 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) The proposed design involves adding a balcony and extending the drawing room to the existing structure. The current site photographs lack clarity to fully comprehend and visualize the proposed changes within the current setting. To address this, it is recommended to submit an adequate number of site photographs that offer a detailed understanding of the site and its surroundings. The resubmitted photographs should include uncut views from all sides, encompassing the existing podium, basement, ramp accessing basement, stilt areas, main gate & boundary wall, and terraces etc. Additionally, it is suggested to capture photographs of all set-backs from the terraces to assess the availability of spaces within the existing set-backs.

c) The 3D views of the whole complex give an impression of a new housing complex, but the proposal is for additions/alterations to the existing building. The drawings showing existing & proposed changes should be superimposed on the existing structure to highlight the proposed modifications clearly with proper annotations specifying materials to be used and corresponding to proposal drawings, to be submitted to ensure clarity of the scheme and its judicious considerations.

d) The freshly added or extended balconies lack provisions for rainwater pipes, and the Commission is of the view that visible pipes could detract from the visual appeal and urban aesthetics of the facade. It is recommended to submit a design scheme for screening the pipes for the Commission's review.

e) The covering of balconies with temporary materials needed to be removed.

f) The clarity of the proposed design regarding the envisioned additions on the podium is lacking. The staircase, highlighted in red on the podium, suggests a new addition, but it appears to be absent in the 3D views of the submitted design scheme. The design scheme must be self-explanatory, ensuring that all proposed additions are identified and visible for the Commission's review.

g) In addition to the above, it was also observed that the location of the public toilet is also part of the formal submission but its detailed drawings (including screening mechanism, elevations, sections, 3D views etc.) have not been submitted. The Commission observed it could have a bearing on the overall visual, urban, and aesthetic quality of the complex. The same is to be revised appropriately and incorporated for review by the Commission.

h) 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.

i) 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.

4. Overall, the design proposal for additions/alterations received at the formal stage lacks clarity in explaining the design scheme which could not be examined 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 DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the revised building plans proposal at its meeting held on February 2, 2001 and subsequently accepted the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on January 21, 2003, respectively, specific observations were given.
3. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of bedroom, toilet and extension of balcony) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect (online) on Zoho WebEx 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 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) The 3D views of the whole complex give an impression of a new housing complex, but the proposal is for additions/alterations to the existing building. The drawings showing existing & proposed changes should be superimposed on the existing structure to highlight the proposed modifications clearly with proper annotations specifying materials to be used and corresponding to proposal drawings, to be submitted to ensure clarity of the scheme and its judicious considerations.

c) The proposed design involves the addition of a bedroom, toilet and extension of the balcony to the existing structure. The current site photographs lack clarity to fully comprehend and visualize the proposed changes within the current setting. To address this, it is recommended to submit an adequate number of site photographs including stilt areas that offer a detailed understanding of the site and its surroundings. Additionally, it is suggested to capture photographs of all set-backs from the terraces to assess the availability of spaces within the existing set-backs.

d) The newly added toilets and extended balconies lack provisions for plumbing arrangements, and rainwater pipes respectively & their screening mechanism. The Commission is of the view that visible rainwater pipes & plumbing pipes could detract from the visual appeal and urban aesthetics of the facade. The proposed toilets shall be adequately designed including making provisions for fixtures and plumbing shafts etc. It is recommended to submit a design scheme for screening sanitary pipes including rainwater for the Commission's review.

e) A lot of balconies are seen covered with temporary materials, which are spoiling the visual & urban aesthetics of the complex. The covering of balconies with temporary materials needed to be removed.

f) In addition to the above, it was also observed that the location of the public toilet is also part of the formal submission but its detailed drawings (including screening mechanism, elevations, sections, 3D views etc.) have not been submitted. The Commission observed it could have a bearing on the overall visual, urban, and aesthetic quality of the complex. The same is to be revised appropriately and incorporated for review by the Commission.

g) 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.

h) 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.

4. Overall, the design proposal for additions/alterations received at the formal stage lacks clarity in explaining the design scheme which could not be examined 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 DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission accepted the concept of the Research Block and Test Research Laboratory at its meeting held on November 18, 2002, and accepted the NOC for Completion in respect of the Malaria Research Centre at its meeting held on October 27, 2010, specific observations were given.
3. The proposal for NOC for Completion received (online) at the completion stage for (the auditorium & conference hall, Director’s Bungalow, hostel, housing type-2, housing types 3 & 4, housing type 5, and VIP Guest house) was scrutinised, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that no formal approvals for the building blocks, for which the proposal has been submitted for a NOC for Completion, have been obtained by the proponent.

b) Additionally, incomplete drawings and documentation for the proposal received at the completion stage have been noticed. Essential drawings and photographs showing the built construction for the Directors' Bungalow, housing type-2, housing type 3 & 4, and housing type 5 respectively, which are necessary to validate the actual construction on site, seem to be absent in the submission. It is advised to submit an appropriate number of photographs, from all sides including the terrace, depicting the completed superstructure, for which the NOC for completion is required, with clear labelling and uncut views from all sides substantiating the executed work at the site for the Commission's review.

4. Overall, the proposal received for NOC for completion was found to be incomplete and incomprehensible 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 NDMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on September 06, 2023, specific observations were given.
3. The revised building plans proposal for demolition and reconstruction 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: F. No.- 24(22)/2023-DUAC, OL-31082324022 dated 12.09.2023, 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 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 water tanks, 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.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held in 1995. NOC for completion was accepted in the meeting held on August 24, 2005. The proposal for additions/alterations was approved in the meeting held on October 3, 2012.
3. The Commission did not accept the part NOC for Completion at its meeting held on July 14, 2022, December 01, 2022, February 02, 2023, and June 23, 2023, respectively, specific observations were given.
4. The revised proposal for NOC for Completion (Part- for the proposal for additions/alteration approved in the meeting held on October 3, 2012) received (online) at the Completion stage was scrutinized along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation letter No. OL-13062348017 dated 27.06.2023 and the observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., DDA in part ‘B’ & ‘C’ Proforma. Based on the replies submitted, observations/recommendations received and the revised submission made, the proposal for NOC for completion (part) was accepted.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the NDMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on April 08, 2015, specific observations were given.
3. The revised building plan proposal for the addition of four residential blocks A, B, C & D as separate residential units, after demolishing some existing development on the site, received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and a detailed discussion was held (online) with the architect on Zoho Web Ex meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the discussion held online, 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 on the site.

b) The proposed design scheme covers a sizable plot with numerous existing structures. However, the current site photographs are not clear to fully grasp and visualize the present site conditions comprehensively. To enhance understanding, it is advised to submit a sufficient number of site photographs accompanied by annotations. These annotations should provide a detailed insight into the site and its surroundings, facilitating a better comprehension for the Commission.

c) The Commission observed that the proposal cannot be studied in isolation i.e. being part of a large plot area with so many existing development, it needs to be reviewed in conjunction with the surrounding building blocks, therefore, annotated 3D views, with enhanced visuals and better viewing angles, of the site shall be superimposed with the existing context of the surroundings including road networks, structures around the site, for better understanding of the proposal in the actual environment to make it clearer.

d) The design scheme presented for the main/other gates needs to be detailed to be fully appreciated by the Commission.  The design of the boundary wall and the main gates could have a bearing on the overall visual & urban aesthetics of the complex, the same needs to be detailed for gate/grill detail/material applications coordinated with plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc.

e) The air-conditioning mechanism of the proposed buildings is not understood, the same shall be elucidated with appropriate mechanisms for its screening to avoid spoiling the visual and the urban aesthetics of the complex.

f) It was observed that the location of the guard room & toilet etc. is also part of the overall design proposal but their detailed drawings (including screening mechanism, elevations, sections, 3D views etc.) appear to have not been submitted. The Commission observed that these components have a bearing on the overall visual, urban, and aesthetic quality of the complex. The same is to be submitted for review by the Commission.

g) The landscape plan shall be detailed with appropriate treatment (Hardscape and Softscape). The landscape plan should indicate the details of the trees planted, existing trees, levels, and types of species on an appropriate scale, (in terms of point nos. Six of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

h) The area accommodating the DG set shall be suitably screened, including DG exhaust pipes, using appropriate architectural mechanisms so as not to remain visible, and mar the aesthetics of the complex.

i) 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.

j) 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. 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 DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on July 19, 1979.
3. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of bedroom, toilet, and balcony) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, 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 discussion held (online), and the 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) The 3D views of the whole complex give an impression of a new housing complex, but the proposal is for additions/alterations to the existing building. The drawings showing existing & proposed changes should be superimposed on the existing structure to highlight the proposed modifications clearly with proper annotations specifying materials to be used and corresponding to proposal drawings, to be submitted to ensure clarity of the scheme and its judicious considerations.

c) The proposed design involves the addition of a bedroom, toilet and extension of the balcony to the existing structure. The current site photographs lack clarity to fully comprehend and visualize the proposed changes within the current setting. To address this, it is recommended to submit an adequate number of site photographs including stilt areas that offer a detailed understanding of the site and its surroundings. Additionally, it is suggested to capture photographs of all set-backs from the terraces to assess the availability of spaces within the existing set-backs.

d) The newly added toilets and extended balconies lack provisions for plumbing arrangements, and rainwater pipes respectively & their screening mechanism. The Commission is of the view that visible rainwater pipes & plumbing pipes could detract from the visual appeal and urban aesthetics of the facade. The proposed toilets shall be adequately designed including making provisions for fixtures and plumbing shafts etc. It is recommended to submit a design scheme for screening sanitary pipes including rainwater for the Commission's review.

e) A lot of balconies are seen covered with temporary materials, which are spoiling the visual & urban aesthetics of the complex. The covering of balconies with temporary materials needed to be removed.

f) In addition to the above, it was also observed that the location of the public toilet is also part of the formal submission but its detailed drawings (including screening mechanism, elevations, sections, 3D views etc.) have not been submitted. The Commission observed it could have a bearing on the overall visual, urban, and aesthetic quality of the complex. The same is to be revised appropriately and incorporated for review by the Commission.

g) 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.

h) 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.

4. Overall, the design proposal for additions/alterations received at the formal stage lacks clarity in explaining the design scheme which could not be examined 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.

Building plans proposal in respect of the Construction of a New Building in the existing premises of CPCB at Parivesh Bhawan, East Arjun Nagar. (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 at its meeting held in 1986 and accepted the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on July 06, 2007, specific observations were given.
3.  The building plan proposal for the construction of a new building adjoining the existing premises of CPCB at Parivesh Bhawan, East Arjun Nagar received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised, 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 discussion held (online), and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that while considering the case for additions/alterations (construction of a new building adjoining the existing premises of CPCB) it did not consider and cover the existing built construction at the site. This concerns the proposal for the construction of a new building adjoining the existing premises of CPCB only.

b) The envisioned construction of the proposed building is intended to be closely situated to the existing structures within the campus. However, only a glimpse of the current building block has been presented. To ensure coherence between the facades of the existing and proposed structures, it is imperative to submit a sufficient number of uncut photographs capturing the existing superstructure from all sides, including the terrace, gate/boundary wall, set back areas etc. for better understanding of the Commission.

c) Discrepancy observed in the submission, in the site plan the existing building blocks have been denoted as ‘Proposed Building’, the same needs to be corrected and resubmitted for the review of the Commission.

d) The Commission understands that the proposal is currently in the Conceptual stage. In the next submission (formal stage), it is imperative to enhance the quality of elevations and sections, ensuring to provide a detailed and clear representation of architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, plumbing details, and other aspects. Additionally, detailed skin sections should be included to comprehensively depict the facade's elevation with the use of materials etc.

e) The spacious cafeteria, conference rooms, and other areas have been furnished without functional furniture arrangements. It is advisable to revisit these arrangements with functional furniture arrangements to enhance the overall understanding of the functionality and efficiency of these spaces.

f) All architectural features presented in the elevations, including projections, windows, and other elements, should be consistently reflected in all architectural plans and documentation included in the formal submission.

g) The parking plan with details appears to be missing in the submission, provisions made for proposed parking are not clearly understood. Existing parking and parking from additional FAR (proposed block) are to be shown clearly on the layout plan with a bifurcation of two. 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.

h) The construction of parking sheds close to the existing building block is causing a visual obstruction, detrimentally affecting the visual and urban aesthetics of the area. It is recommended to reassess this situation and minimize surface car parking wherever feasible. Instead, consider transforming these open areas into landscaped greens, providing an aesthetically pleasing environment for users to appreciate.

i) The campus is currently operational, and there is a need to clearly articulate the pedestrian and vehicular circulation on the site, establishing effective linkages from the outside. A comprehensive mobility circulation plan, integrating seamless and conflict-free pedestrian and vehicular movements from outside points to both existing and proposed buildings, is required. This plan should be submitted to enhance understanding of the movement patterns within the site, clearly delineating pedestrian and vehicular routes.

j) A design scheme to address the likely waste (dry and wet, food items, etc.) generated on the site is not understood the same shall be elucidated with appropriate details including a detailed solid waste management plan to understand the overall design scheme better.

k) Photographs of the current facade reveal numerous overhanging outdoor air-conditioning units, adversely impacting the visual and urban aesthetics of the facade. To prevent this issue, the design should incorporate provisions for accommodating outdoor units at this stage to preserve aesthetics. A detailed scheme must be submitted, outlining the placement, screening, and materials for screening in plans, elevations, and 3D views.

l) 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.

m) The landscape plan shall be detailed with appropriate treatment (Hardscape and Softscape). The landscape plan should indicate the details of the trees planted, existing trees, levels, and types of species on an appropriate scale, (in terms of point nos. Six of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

n) 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.

o) Toilets and kitchen areas be envisaged keeping in mind the plumbing arrangements and their potential impact on the visual and urban aesthetics of the complex. The same shall be elucidated with appropriate details including incorporation of a screening mechanism, material application etc.

p) 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 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 in the next submission (formal stage) for the consideration of the Commission.

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.

Revised Master/Layout and Building plans proposal in respect of Multi-Speciality Hospital and Research Centre at Jamia Hamdard University formerly known as IHMMR and IIIS, Hamdard Nagar. (Conceptual Stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The proposal was deferred.