Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1731st meeting held on 09.11.2023.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of the 1731th meeting held on 09.11.2023 were discussed.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the North DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The building plans proposal 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 noted that while the proposal was submitted in the formal stage, a majority of the drawings lacked a north point, creating difficulty in determining the actual orientation of the proposed facade. It is essential to ensure that all drawings include north points to enhance clarity and understanding of the proposal.

b) Duly filled in Performa indicating necessary details about the proposal seem to have been missing in the submission, the same shall ensure to be submitted for the Commission's review.

c) Numerous inconsistencies were identified in the submission received during the formal stage. Although screening arrangements for outdoor air-conditioners are depicted in the 3D views, they are absent in the plans. Additionally, the proposed solar PV panels on the roof are incorrectly oriented towards the North instead of the South. The delineation of the proposed building block is labelled as a 'Demolition plan.' Utilities shown on the terrace in the 3D views have not been incorporated in the terrace plan. At the formal stage, it is imperative to rectify and provide correlated drawings and documentation (including plans, elevations, sections, and 3D views) for the Commission's review.  

d) While the proposed basements include provisions for car parking, details such as their locations and movement have not been depicted. To enhance comprehension of the provided car parking arrangements, their locations, numbers, and movements with appropriate details shall be provided for a more comprehensive understanding of the proposal.

e) The inclusion of a car lift for basement parking has been envisioned; however, there seems to be no provision for a power backup. In the event of a power failure, the parking facility may become non-functional. It is advisable to reconsider and incorporate an alternative power arrangement to ensure continuous functionality of the parking facility.

f) 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.

g) 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.

3. Overall, the 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.
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 NDMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal at its meeting held on March 07, 2018, specific observations were given.
3. The proposal for NOC for Completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised and was found to be acceptable.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the DDA (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 design proposal with the architect online but he was not available. Based on the submission made, and the non-availability of the architect online, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The quality of the 3d views submitted is such that the scale, proportion, materiality on the facade etc. is not understood for a submission received at the formal stage. It shall be enhanced with better viewing angles. Annotated 3D views of the proposed design scheme shall be superimposed on the existing context of the surroundings, including road networks, and structures around the site, for a better understanding of the proposal in the actual environment to make it clearer.

b) The proposal, being a public building, should include annotated 3D views that offer improved viewing angles of the public interface areas. These views should encompass key areas such as the main entrance lobby, courtyard spaces, large open terraces on the second floor, restaurant areas on the third floor, basement areas, and areas covering ramps to the basement for the judicious review of the Commission.

c) Also, the quality of elevations and sections provided is not appreciated (they are very basic), and need to be detailed clearly showing the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, plumbing details etc. Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

d) A notable observation is that a majority of the toilets within the LSC lack a provision for a plumbing shaft to accommodate the extensive network of plumbing pipes. Additionally, a substantial ladies' toilet has been proposed directly above the vehicular entry point to the basement, necessitating careful consideration and detailed attention. It is imperative to address these concerns by ensuring adequate ventilation for all toilets and incorporating provisions for a plumbing shaft. The plans should be revised accordingly and resubmitted for the Commission's review.

e) Both side ramps have been provided for accessing the basement for parking, in case the entry to basement ramps needs to be covered in the future, it is suggested to provide their design and related details at this stage, so as to ensure they duly get incorporated in the design scheme.

f) The third floor is planned to have three spacious restaurants; however, details such as their capacity, functional furniture arrangements, and related services like kitchen facilities, exhaust mechanism, storage for essentials, washing areas, etc., have not been specified. It is suggested that comprehensive information, including plans indicating capacity, functional furniture layout, loading and unloading areas, and a solid waste management plan illustrating effective disposal method for both dry and food waste items, be provided for the review of the Commission.

g) The pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the site is not shown properly. A combined mobility plan showing seamless, conflict-free pedestrian and vehicular movement plans from outside is to be submitted, to understand the movement pattern better. It shall be indicated clearly with clear segregation of pedestrian and vehicular movement.

h) The provision of proposed parking is not clearly understood. It needs to be clearly indicated in appropriate plans with other parking details including the location of no. of cars, car movement pattern, etc.  All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations etc.

i) Apart from private vehicles, the complex will attract users from IPT (intermediate paratransit). Also, Pick-up/ drop-off for IPT is to be planned at this stage to avoid discrepancies at later stages. Movement of various users via modes including auto/taxi/e-rickshaw etc. shall also be looked into.

j) The mechanism for air conditioning needs to be detailed i.e., location, areas of inflow/outflow in indoor areas and the appropriate treatments used to conceal/screen the air-conditioning system. Also, it shall be ensured that there is no leakage from the AC unit causing deterioration of spaces (indoor and outdoor).

k) As the complex is a local shopping centre, it is suggested that the hoardings/ advertisements be placed/ located carefully (as per the prevailing policy/ guidelines) so as not to mar the aesthetics of the complex or neighbourhood.

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

m) The provision of utilities, services, and other facilities etc., some of these have been shown in the 3D views on the terrace but found to be missing in the terrace plan, thus not giving a complete picture including overhead utilities in the complex, which could have a bearing on the urban aesthetics from aerial perspectives and tall buildings in the vicinity. The drawings/documentation etc. received at the formal stage shall have correlated submission for the review of the Commission.

n) The landscape plan shall be detailed with appropriate treatment (Hardscape and Softscape). The landscape plan should indicate the details 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.

o) 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.

p) 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.

q) 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.

4. Overall, the design proposal 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 NDMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on June 15, 2023, and specific observations were given. But accepted the concept of the building plan proposal at its meeting held on August 10, 2023, and specific observations were given.
3. The revised building plans proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Conceptually Suitable Letter no: OL-07082327002 dated 16.08.2023. Based on the previous observations of the Commission and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The design proposal incorporates provisions for double-stack parking arrangements to meet the necessary parking requirements. Nevertheless, the architect or proponent must ensure the proper implementation of these arrangements on-site, which will be thoroughly examined during the proposal's completion stage. It is of utmost importance that all parking arrangements adhere to the relevant rules, regulations, guidelines, and other applicable requirements.

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) 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.

d) 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 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. Also, the Commission did not approve the proposal for the upgradation of the District Centre, Nehru Place at its meeting held on August 10, 2023, and October 26, 2023 respectively, 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: F. No .22(67)/2023-DUAC, OL-13102322067 dated 27.10.2023, and a detailed presentation was given by the architect & the 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 noted that in response to a previous observation regarding sensitivity to pedestrians and the urban environment, especially the area between Eros Hotel and Satyam Cinema, the architect has provided the following reply:

“……. This walkability plan was approved vide memo no. F.1(2)2022/UTTIPEC/65th GB/D-118. dated: 12.05.2022. (Copy Enclosed) under the Chairmanship of Hon’ble lieutenant Governor of Delhi in the meeting held dated 26.04.2022 in the presence of Transport Dept. GNCDT, IRC, MCD, DUAC & PWD etc….”

Nevertheless, no representative from the Commission participated in the specific meeting referenced, a fact evident from the provided attendance sheet, a situation that the Commission does not appreciate.

b) The Commission also observed that while the proposal's title indicates "Proposal in respect of Upgradation/Renovation of District Centre at Nehru Place," only the walkability plan for the area outside Nehru Place District Centre has been submitted by the architect and presented. It is noteworthy that the presented plan significantly deviates from the actual conditions at site and the discussions held during the Commission's site visit on October 25, 2023, including considerations such as the probable location of the skywalk and escalators.

c) The Commission strongly recommends modifying the walkability plan to align with the discussion held during the site visit, and the revised submission complete in all respects including "Proposal for Upgradation/Renovation of District Centre” should be presented for the Commission's review and judicious considerations.

5. Overall due to inadequate compliances made to its observations, the proposal received at the formal stage could not be appreciated by the Commission.  
6. 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 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 Commission approved the masterplan layout at its meeting held on October 11, 1996, specific observations were given, and also considered & approved the proposal in respect of the revised Master plan and layout plan at its meeting held on June 24, 1999, specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal in respect of Multi-Speciality Hospital and Research Centre received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation letter no: F. No. 22(61)/96-DUAC dated 30.07.1999, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect online on Zoho Web Ex meetings who presented the proposed design scheme & provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission.  Based on the previous observations made by the Commission related to the master plan of Hamdard University, the discussion held online, and the design scheme submitted, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that while considering the case concerning the Multi-Speciality Hospital and Research Centre it did not consider and cover the existing construction at the site at all.

b) The Commission noted that the revised Master plan and layout plan of the Jamia Hamdard University was approved at its meeting held on June 24, 1999. Certain revisions from the approved layout appear to have been noticed in the layout received at the conceptual stage. It was advised to get its formal approval from the Commission.

c) The Commission understands that the design proposal has been submitted at the conceptual level, but the quality of 3d views is not appropriate these shall be enhanced with better visuals. They are very sketchy and the scale, proportion, materials etc. are not understood. Annotated 3D views of the proposed design scheme shall be superimposed on the existing context of the surroundings, including road networks, and structures around the site, for a better understanding of the proposal in the actual environment to make it clearer. 3D views of the public interface areas including drop-off areas, atrium, entrance porch, waiting areas etc. 

d) The provision of utilities, services, solar panels, water tanks, and other facilities etc., have not been shown in the 3D views on the terrace, thus not giving a complete picture including overhead utilities in the hospital complex, which could have a bearing on the visual & urban aesthetics.

e) Though the conceptual nature of the proposal, there is a lack of appreciation for the quality of the elevations and sections presented. These visuals must be enhanced to provide clear and detailed depictions of architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, plumbing details, and other relevant features. Additionally, a comprehensive submission of detailed skin sections is required to better comprehend the façade's elevation with a focus on the materials used.

f) The GRC jaali pattern has been extensively incorporated into the proposed design, covering the overall façade and main gate of the hospital complex. However, there is a lack of clarity in understanding the termination details at the top. It shall be elucidated with appropriate details and specifications to comprehend the interaction between the main wall of the superstructure and the GRC jaali. Additionally, a reconsideration of the facade material, opting for a GRC Jaali, is suggested, taking into account the maintenance & weather patterns in Delhi, as well as factors such as dirt, dust, and bird droppings etc.

g) The provision of proposed parking is not clearly understood. It needs to be clearly indicated in appropriate plans with other parking details including the location of no. of cars, car movement pattern, etc.  All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations etc.

h) The pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the site is not shown properly. A combined mobility plan showing seamless, conflict-free pedestrian and vehicular movement plans from outside is to be submitted, to understand the movement pattern better. It shall be indicated clearly with clear segregation of pedestrian and vehicular movement.

i) Apart from private vehicles, the hospital complex will attract users from IPT (Intermediate Para Transit). Also, Pick-up/ drop-off for IPT is to be planned at this stage to avoid discrepancies at later stages. Movement of various users via modes including auto/taxi/e-rickshaw etc. shall also be looked into.

j) The mechanism for air conditioning needs to be detailed i.e., location, areas of inflow/outflow in indoor areas and the appropriate treatments used to conceal/screen the air-conditioning system. Also, it shall be ensured that there is no leakage from the AC unit causing deterioration of spaces (indoor and outdoor).

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

l) The provision of utilities, services, and other facilities were found to be missing in the terrace plan, thus not giving a complete picture including overhead utilities in the complex, which could have a bearing on the urban aesthetics from aerial perspectives and tall buildings in the vicinity. The drawings/documentation etc. received at the formal stage shall have correlated submission for the review of the Commission.

m) Work of public art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at an appropriate level, 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.

n) 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.

o) 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, the proposal received at the conceptual stage lacked clarity in explaining the design proposal and was found to be 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.

Building plans proposal for additions/alterations in respect of Bharat National Senior Secondary School at Ram Vihar.  (Conceptual Stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on January 11, 1991, but approved the proposal for the addition of the fourth floor at its meeting held on October 07, 2015, specific observations were given. No record of NOC for Completion taken was found in the available record of the Commission.
3. The building plans proposal for additions/alterations (addition of a new building block comprising of 2B + stilts + upper ground + three floors) received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The envisioned new building block is designed to connect with the existing building block, likely built in the 1990s. The design of the proposed facade is intended to harmonize with the older construction, ensuring consistency and cohesion in the overall architectural composition.

b) It is understood that most of the classrooms may not be air-conditioned, but can preplan for potential additions in future including the administrative areas, principal rooms etc. which could be using separate air-conditioning units. Air-conditioners could be an eye-sore to the building façade. To avoid the same, the provision shall be made in the design to accommodate the outdoor units, at this stage, so as not to mar the aesthetics. A scheme needs to be submitted to show the placement, screening and material of screening for the same in plans/elevations and 3d views.

c) The added structure shall be designed so that it withstands weather effects, impacts from calamities like earthquakes etc. as it is an additional structure attached to the existing superstructure. It shall be ensured it is braced firmly to the building and does not impact the safety of the superstructure.

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) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

e) 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.

f) 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.

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.