Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1732nd meeting held on 16.11.2023.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of the 1732nd meeting held on 16.11.2023 were discussed.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the CPWD (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal in respect of the GPOA Building at Africa Avenue at its meeting held on May 29, 2020, specific observations were given and accepted the proposal for NOC for Completion at its meeting held on September 09, 2021.
3. The building plans proposal for additions/alterations {addition of MLCP (Phase-2)} 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 observed that while considering the case for additions/alterations (addition of Multilevel Car Parking (MLCP Phase 2)) it did not consider and cover the existing built construction at the site. This concerns the proposal for additions/alterations only.

b) The Commission reviewed the proposal for an additional Multilevel Car Parking (MLCP Phase 2)) in respect of the GPOA Building at Africa Avenue after taking cognizance of the previous approval (formal) given, including layout, at its meeting held on May 29, 2020, and the NOC for completion given on September 09, 2021. Some noticeable changes related to the location of MLCP-1 & 2 were found which appears to have already been constructed on site and proposed location of MLCP Phase-2. Revised approvals, if any, shall be submitted for the information & record of the Commission.

c) The Commission intended to assess the present proposal within the context of neighbouring structures, namely MLCP 1, 2, and 3, considering their identical usage, design elements, and operational mechanisms. To enhance comprehension of the proposal, an appropriate number of annotated photographs depicting these structures from all perspectives, both externally and internally, including their operational mechanisms and terraces, shall be provided.

d) Additionally, it was observed that the existing main office structures (Block A, B, C & D) all stand at approximately 30.0 meters in height. In contrast, MLCP 1, 2, & 3 have a height of 14.82 meters. The proposed MLCP is set to reach a height of 32.60 meters, surpassing all existing structures. Given the relatively narrow footprint of the proposed structure, the architect was advised to also explore options for adding additional floors above the existing MLCP 1, 2, & 3. This suggestion aims to achieve proportionality in the overall skyline of the structures (both current and proposed) on the site.

e) To understand the height variation in the existing development & proposed MLCP on site, an appropriate number of sections (longitudinal and cross-section across the site as well) clearly indicate vertical heights for a better understanding of the overall scheme. Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

f) Consideration shall be given to exploring alternatives for incorporating green/vegetation integration on the structure's façade. It is suggested to avoid small black green basket containers and instead focus on implementing lower maintenance solutions in green integration. This approach aims to enhance the overall visual and urban aesthetics of the complex while softening the views from the building facing the MLCP.

g) The provision of utilities, services, solar PV panels, and other facilities etc., on the terrace, is not reflected in the 3d views, thus not giving a complete picture including overhead utilities in the complex, which could have a bearing on the urban aesthetics from aerial perspectives.  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, 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.

4. Overall, the design proposal received in the formal stage lacks clarity in explaining the design scheme. The same needs to be revised accordingly for the review of the Commission.
5. The architect is advised to carefully follow and address all the observations provided by the Commission above. It is requested that the architect submit a detailed response, incorporating each point raised by the Commission above in a clear and point-by-point manner.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plans proposal at its meeting held on April 10, 2001, and accepted the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on July 04, 2005.
3. The building plans proposal for additions/alterations (extension of drawing room and balcony, addition of powder room, WC and balcony) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that while considering the case for additions/alterations (extension of drawing room and balcony, addition of powder room, WC and balcony) it did not consider and cover the existing built construction at the site. This concerns the proposal for additions/alterations only.

b) All temporary coverings/extensions must be removed. All visible outdoor air-conditioners shall be screened appropriately as they are spoiling the visual & urban aesthetics of the complex.

c) All parking requirements shall be as per applicable rules/regulations/guidelines etc.

d) It shall be ensured that the rainwater pipes (RWP) are appropriately screened so that not remain visible and spoil the façade.

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

f) All service equipment, 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) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the CPWD (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) The Commission noted that the design proposal only included 3D views from the front and rear. It is recommended to provide 3D views from the sides including bird eye view, showcasing key public interface areas such as the reception, double-height drop-off area, terrace, and nighttime view. This will enable a comprehensive evaluation of the design proposal.

b) The architect aims to address the site's parking requirements by designating space in the stilt areas and open rear sections for two-wheelers. The Commission recommends exploring the possibility of an alternative mechanism including a basement with double-stack parking to meet all parking needs. The freed-up spaces in the stilt area can be put to incorporating amenities like a staff café.

c) Discrepancies have been noted in the submission received at the formal stage, particularly the absence of the extensive structural roof covering atop the terrace in the elevations/sections. Additionally, no information regarding its design, material specifications, or other details has been given. It is imperative to provide comprehensive details, incorporating essential specifics such as material, design, form, fixing details, maintenance, etc., to facilitate a thorough review by the Commission.

d) The elevations and sections must be meticulously detailed, clearly showcasing the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, and other pertinent features. Additionally, to submit comprehensive skin sections that provide a detailed understanding of the facade's elevation, including the materials employed. By providing these detailed elements, a comprehensive overview of the architectural design and facade can be obtained.

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 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).

g) 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.

h) 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.

i) 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.

Building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of a new block) in respect of Mother International School at Aurobindo Marg.  (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal at its meeting held on August 06, 2002. The Commission accepted the NOC for Completion (Part-Auditorium Block) at its meeting held on July 23, 2021, and specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal for additions/alterations (addition of a new Block comprising of Ground+4 floors) received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that while considering the case for additions/alterations (addition of a new Block comprising of Ground+4 floors) it did not consider and cover the existing built construction at the site. This concerns the proposal for additions/alterations only.

b) The Commission noted that the current school building structure (comprising three primary blocks, a Secondary block, and the Auditorium Block) is in a C-shaped configuration. The proposed new building block, consisting of ground + four floors, is planned in the open courtyard without adequately addressing the need for light and ventilation in both the existing and proposed building blocks. Additionally, the submitted plans lack information regarding the proposed distances between the existing and proposed blocks.

c) The architect was advised to reassess the placement of the proposed building block to ensure it does not obstruct the light and ventilation of the existing building blocks. The Commission requested the architect to provide comprehensive plans, sections, and other relevant details of these areas to elucidate how the synergy between the existing and proposed building blocks is envisioned. This would enhance understanding and facilitate a better evaluation of the proposed design.

d) The project shall submit detailed drawings of sections (longitudinal and cross-section across the building blocks) for a better understanding of the proposal.  Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

e) 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.

f) 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.

g) 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 conceptual stage lacks vision & clarity in envisaging the design scheme which appears to be not appreciated 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 Office building for CBSE at Plot no. 8, PSP Pocket (FC-16), Sector-30, Rohini. (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not accept the concept of the building plans proposal at its meeting held on November 02, 2023, specific observations were given.
3. The building plan proposal received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Conceptually Unsuitable Letter No: OL-26102327017 dated 03.11.2023. Based on the replies submitted, and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The suggested clearance height for the basement shall be maintained to allow for potential conversion to double-stack parking in the future, encompassing both existing and proposed parking requirements for the site.

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, rainwater pipes, water tanks, DG set, 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 and vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-26102327017 dated 03.11.2023. 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 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.

Completion plan proposal in respect of Commercial building on 86, Khasra no. 175/110, Daryaganj (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal at its meeting held on February 19, 2014.
3. The building plan proposal received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised, and the following observation is to be complied with:

a) The Commission noted that the architect submitted the proposal for an NOC for Completion at the conceptual stage, which is not appreciated by the Commission. The conceptual submission is intended for proposals still in the drawing stage, requiring guidance from the Commission in the design process, not for proposals that have already been constructed on-site. Consequently, the proposal is returned to the architect without the Commission's consideration in light of the aforementioned reasons.

Building plans proposal in respect of Residential building on 501, Gali Bahar Wali, Chatta Lal Mian, Daryganj. (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. No previous record of approval (Formal/Completion) taken has been found in the available record of the Commission.
3. The building plan proposal received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect 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 noted that the building proposal, located in Old Delhi (Darya Ganj area), features a facade that appears stark and lacks contextual alignment with the surroundings, notably deviating from the heritage character of Old Delhi. Consequently, the Commission recommends a redesign of the elevation (including the option of a recessed window, if possible), incorporating improved architectural features, elements, form, and materials that harmonize with the historical context. It is suggested to present two to three alternative options for the elevation for the Commission's review upon resubmission.

b) The 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.

c) 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. 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.