Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1730th meeting held on 02.11.2023.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of the 1730th meeting held on 02.11.2023 were discussed.

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 June 23, 2023, 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 Observation letter no: OL-19062323045 dated 27.06.2023 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 previous observations, discussion held (online), and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) It was observed that during its meeting on June 23, 2023, the Commission made very detailed and specific observations regarding the design proposal. However, it is noted that almost all of its observations conveyed in the DUAC observation letter OL-19062323045 dated 27.06.2023 have not been addressed, especially those outlined in items 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), 3(d), 3(e), 3(f), 3(h), 3(i), 3(j), and 5. The proposal is currently at a formal stage, it needs to be more specific, detailed, and comprehensive to ensure better understanding.

b) In view of the above, the Commission is again reiterating its observations communicated vide DUAC observation letter OL-19062323045 dated 27.06.2023:

“…….…a) The Commission observed that the proposal has been located on an important road in North Delhi adjoining the Vishwavidyalaya metro station.  Considering its location and setting adjoining the existing metro station, thus the proposal cannot be studied in isolation i.e., it needs to be reviewed in conjunction with the surrounding facilities, therefore, an appropriate number of annotated 3D views from all sides (including public interface areas, museum areas, exhibition hall, drop off areas, exhibition areas, open court, sitting areas, water body with sculpture, kiosks, stalls areas, open parking areas, and night time views, etc.) 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.

  b) The food hub areas where kiosks, stalls, and sitting areas have been planned for the public shall be elucidated with appropriate details including a large structural roof covering the food hub with materials, fixing details, detailed skin sections, 3D views, night-time views etc., as it may cause an impact on the visual & the urban aesthetics of the area.

  c) Discrepancies have been observed in the submission received at the formal stage, open surface parking has been shown as double stack parking in the plans but 3D views of the area do not match. The submission shall be corrected and the coordinated submission shall be submitted for the judicious review by the Commission.

  d) Also, the provision of double-stack surface parking shall be reviewed & relocated in the basement under the food hub area, and the freed-up spaces be put to judicious use including open landscaped permeable green spaces, public use etc.

  e) 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.

  f) The design scheme to screen the DG set and its exhaust pipes shall be elucidated appropriately with drawings/3D views/other relevant details etc. using suitable architectural mechanisms so as not to remain visible, and mar the aesthetics of the complex.

  g) Landscaped areas planned on the terraces shall be elucidated appropriately ensuring that sufficient depth for soil is available for the vegetation.

  h) Architectural elements on the terrace especially the top is not sufficiently detailed to understand elements with materials, the same shall be elucidated with appropriate details.

  i) The 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.

 j) 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) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.......”

4. In general, because the Commission's previous observations have not been satisfactorily addressed and resolved, and due to the incompleteness of the current submission, the proposal received at the formal stage could not be reviewed judiciously by the Commission.
5. The architect is advised to diligently address all the observations of the Commission, communicated vide DUAC observation letter OL-19062323045 dated 27.06.2023. It is requested that the architect submit a detailed response, incorporating each point raised by the Commission 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 the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The 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.

b) All service equipment, water tanks, rainwater 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 approved the layout and the building plan proposal at its meeting held on September 02, 2004, specific observations were given and accepted NOC for Completion at its meeting held on March 22, 2006.
3. The Commission approved the building plan proposal for addition/alteration (additions on the third floor) at its meeting held on June 19, 2019, and accepted the NOC for Completion (Part-additions on the third floor) at its meeting held on December 08, 2022.
4. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal for addition/alterations (10 small and 10 big kiosks on the ground floor, gaming area on the 2nd floor) at its meeting held on October 12, 2023, August 17, 2023, July 27, 2023, and July 13, 2023, respectively, specific observations were given.
5. The revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of 10 small and 10 big kiosks on the ground floor, gaming area on 2^nd floor) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation letter no: F. No. 22(65)/2023-DUAC, OL-04102322065 dated 16.10.2023. Based on the replies submitted, and the revised submission made, the proposal for the addition of 10 small and 10 big kiosks on the ground floor and, a gaming area on 2nd floor was found to be acceptable.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the CPWD (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The proposal in respect of Nav Bharat Udyan- A part of Amrut Biodiversity Park on the Western banks of River Yamuna received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and a detailed presentation was given by the architect who also provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the presentation given, and the discussion held, and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

A. Access to the site:

a) Situated in a bustling area with significant congestion during peak hours, it is imperative to implement an effective entry and parking strategy to mitigate potential traffic jams at the site. Given that the ramp from the Pragati Maidan tunnel converges just before reaching the site, navigating through merging traffic poses challenges. Consequently, the site's entry must be meticulously planned to minimize disruptions to the traffic flow on the Ring Road.

b) Pedestrian connections from the Sarai Kale Khan side to the site, for the convenience for users shall be explored by the possibilities of constructing an underpass or a foot overbridge.

B. Site Landscaping:

a) Given that the project also involves a Biodiversity Park commemorating 75 years of India's Independence, the landscaping appears insufficient and not adequately detailed for the significance of the undertaking. The provided landscape plans lack clarity in elucidating the landscaping scheme. Enhancements are required for the site's landscaping, encompassing appropriate treatment of both hardscape and softscape elements, along with the incorporation of clear signage, effective lighting mechanisms, and designated locations for waste bins. Additionally, wherever feasible, the preservation of peripheral greenery should be emphasized and distinctly illustrated in the drawings and 3D views.

C. Surface Parking:

a) The Commission does not accept the provisions outlined for the suggested surface parking, as it occupies valuable space that could be more wisely utilized for permeable green areas and recreational purposes. Instead, it is recommended to consider the feasibility of a proposed Multi-Level Car Park (MLCP) positioned perpendicular to the river. Such a structure could accommodate more cars within a smaller footprint, and its capacity could be expanded to accommodate future needs.

D. Information centre:

a) The specifics of the steps at the information centre should be thoroughly outlined, given that it serves as the initial entry point for visitors. Therefore, it requires meticulous design to elevate the aesthetics and overall image of the complex.

b) Considering the extensive use of bamboo in constructing the pergolas for the walkways, it is essential to furnish comprehensive details, including the base and top aspects of the columns. This is necessary to prevent deterioration of the termination points due to wear and tear.

c) The material of the boundary wall may be reconsidered with some other matching alternative including as it does not match the eco-friendly material i.e., bamboo used extensively throughout the site.

E. Martand Gate:

a) The Martand gate, inspired by the Sun Temple at Anantnag, requires additional detailing to closely resemble the authentic gate. Certain elements appear to be absent in the proposed structure and should be meticulously identified and elaborated upon to ensure true replication of its character. It is recommended to utilize a higher-quality image as a reference to ensure accurate matching of the character.

F. Sphere of Unity:

a) The Sphere of Unity necessitates more comprehensive detailing, including specifications for materials, sizes/scale, proportions, and the text to be illustrated.

G. Journey of India:

a) The Commission recommended the use of toughened glass for the ceiling of the Journey of India dome, as opposed to the proposed material, which is coloured polycarbonate supported on a steel frame. Toughened Glass was suggested for its ability to provide enhanced clarity, visuals, and aesthetics, especially considering the substantial scale of the structure.

H. Cafeteria:

a) The landscape design in the cafeteria area appears insufficient, with fragmented greenery that does not seamlessly integrate with the seating area. There is a lack of clarity regarding how the open space will be shaded by landscape elements, and detailed information on this aspect is needed.

b) The details of the flooring, stairs etc. are missing i.e., they need to match the proposed bamboo structure to ensure design integration.

c) There is a recommendation to decrease the paved area and incorporate more green spaces to mitigate the heat island effect.

I. Arboreal walkway:

a) Comprehensive details of the arboreal walkways, encompassing seating and pausing points, lighting specifications, stone details, etc., are not provided, the same shall be elucidated with these details to understand the complete portrayal of the walkway.

J. Service block:

a) The indented section in the service block's elevation featuring Chajja, etc., is not appreciated, as it is prone to attracting dust and birds, potentially ruining the façade. Instead, it is recommended to maintain a flush arrangement to preserve the elevation, similar to the design of box windows.

b) The roof of the service block can be used for the installation of solar panels to provide electricity for common areas, utilities etc.

K. Miscellaneous Points:

a) Details including lighting, signages for wayfinding, rainwater harvesting, solar panels, etc. are missing in the overall submission.

b) An appropriate number of sections across the site and details are missing.

c) The provision of the air-conditioning mechanism is not understood in the submission the same shall be elucidated with necessary details.  

d) Public art depicting tribal art is suggested to be added to the complex.

e) Details of elements like dustbins to be improved to ensure creativity in repetitive elements throughout the site.

3. The architect is advised to address all the observations of the Commission. It is requested that the architect submit a detailed response, incorporating each point raised by the Commission 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 plans proposal during its meeting on September 23, 1994. Additionally, the proposal for additions and alterations received approval at the meeting held on August 01, 2019, with specific observations provided. However, there is no record of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for completion in the Commission's available records.
3. The proposal for NOC for Completion received (online) at the Completion stage was scrutinised, and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that there is no official documentation of a 'No Objection Certificate (NOC)' in the Commission's existing records. The building plan proposal received approval twice, first on September 23, 1994, and later with additions/alterations approved during the meeting on August 01, 2019. However, the proposal lacks clarity in explaining for which specific part of the proposal the NOC application has been submitted.

b) An appropriate number of photographs of the completed superstructure (for which NOC for completion is required) shall be provided with proper labelling/delineation and uncut/clear photographs from all sides (including parking, landscape areas, terrace etc.) to substantiate the actual work executed at the site.

c) From the photographs provided it was evident that the work on site is still in progress. The exposed rainwater pipes (RWP) are evidently visible on the façade, and temporary covering is visible in some of the areas. The air-conditioners are also seen on the outer façade spoiling & marring the visual and the urban aesthetics of the area. The same shall be appropriately screened so as not to remain visible and spoil the façade.

d) All temporary coverings/extensions must be removed, and exposed rainwater pipes be screened.

e) Approval received from DUAC (at the formal stage) shall be superimposed on the plans/elevations/sections etc., over the actual built structure on the site, existing & proposed changes done in the design from the approval (by DUAC), to understand the extents of deviations made internally as well as external changes made with respect to the sanctioned plan.

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