Action Taken Reports regarding Minutes of 1744th and 1745th (extra-ordinary) meetings held on 08.02.2024 and 09.02.2024, respectively.

1. Action Taken Reports regarding Minutes of the 1744th and 1745th (extra-ordinary) meetings held on 08.02.2024 and 09.02.2024 were discussed.

1. The CPWD forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the revised layout plan of Delhi University (North Campus) at its meeting held on January 06, 2010, specific observations were given.
3. The building plans proposal for demolition and reconstruction of Building for Agricultural Economics Research Centre in DSE Complex, Delhi University, North Campus received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect (online) 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 layout plan for the University of Delhi North Campus received approval during its meeting on December 01, 2004, with a revised layout later approved during its meeting on January 06, 2010. Furthermore, it was observed that the most recent layout plan for the Delhi University Campus was approved by the MCD in 2022 without consulting the Commission.

b) The Commission has recently received proposals for individual plots within the Delhi University North Campus, Delhi. Some of these proposals are as follows:

c) Further, the Commission takes a holistic approach to evaluate each proposal, considering its alignment with surrounding contexts and the potential impact of nearby developments on the proposed projects. As part of the same campus, these individual proposals are impacted by shared infrastructural resources, including parking provisions, sewage systems, sanitation facilities, roads, and other utilities.  The individual proposals also impact public space, the aesthetics, and the urban environment created by each addition and deletion of built form, landscape, horticulture, roads, and other elements.  This interconnectedness underscores the importance of considering the collective impact on the university's future requirements.

d) Considering the influx of proposals presented to the Commission regarding the individual building projects in University Campus, it was suggested that an updated Masterplan of the Delhi University Campus area be submitted, addressing current & future requirements, for the Commission's review prior to presenting individual building plan projects for consideration.

1. The CPWD forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2.   The ‘Jaisalmer House and Campus’ is a listed Grade-II heritage building at Serial No. 53 in the Gazette notification no. F. No. 4/2/2009/UD/16565 dated 01.10.2009, issued by the Department of Urban Development, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
3.   The proposal for Installation of Statue in Central Lawn of Jaisalmer House and Canopy at entry & exit gate of Jaisalmer House received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect (online) 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 the proposal involves replacing an existing statue with a new one at the same location, facing the main boundary wall. Additionally, it was noted that only a limited number of photographs depicting the existing development have been provided, which do not sufficiently support in understanding the current context of the Jaisalmer House.

b) Furthermore, the Commission does not assess proposals in isolation; rather, it adopts a holistic approach by considering their alignment with surrounding contexts. It is imperative to provide an adequate number of site photographs, including those showcasing the existing main gate, boundary wall, internal courtyards, and landscaped lawns, to comprehensively elucidate the surrounding context.  The proposal for a statue facing away from the building and towards the main road also did not include the necessary documentation and photographs to show whether the statue would be visible from the main road traffic at all.  In the view of the Commission the proposed statue with its back to the main porch and only side and rear profile visible from the entry and exit gates and driveway does not do justice to the potential.

c) After taking into account all the facts, the Commission recommends the preparation of additional alternative options for suitable evaluation:

i) The existing landscape of the complex shall be preserved to maintain its original character, while the proposed path further reducing and fragmenting the front green shall be eliminated.

ii) The existing statue, slated for removal, shall be suitably relocated with the following options:

Option-1:  The new statue shall be positioned at a fresh location within the landscaped lawn, in the middle of the lawn on an East West axis but towards the northern side, approximately 1-2 meters deeper than the rainwater tank into the lawn on a north south axis, facing the main entry (due north) and the old one is relocated mirrored to the opposite side of the lawn facing the exit gate (due south). This placement aims to create greater proximity and visibility of the statues and the one facing the entry will have significantly superior impact on those entering the compound.

Option-2: The proposed statue will be turned around in its current position and made to face the porch of the building and away from the main road.  The existing statue shall be relocated to the internal courtyard of the building.

4. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

1. The CPWD forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2.   The Commission approved Layout plan in respect of Central Armed Forces Institute of Medical Sciences at Maidan Garhi at its meeting held on July 13, 2016, specific observations were given.
3.   The proposal for NOC for completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: 55(30)/2016 dated August 05, 2016, and a discussion was held with the architect (online) on Cisco 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 has observed that the Campus comprises over 15 individual building blocks serving various purposes; however, it appears that no formal approval has been taken from the Commission. Approvals, if any shall be submitted for the reference & record of the Commission.

b) The request for a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for completion of the entire campus has been submitted. However, an inadequate number of photographs depicting the individual blocks for which the NOC has been requested have been received. This includes images of terraces, public interface areas, parking areas, landscape areas, the main gate, boundary walls, completed work of public art, basement areas, utility areas, etc. It is necessary to provide an appropriate number of photographs showing the completed superstructure for which the NOC for completion is required. These photographs should be properly labelled and delineated, providing uncut and clear views from all sides to accurately depict the work executed at the site.

4.  In view of the insufficient information provided, the proposal for NOC for the completion plan could not be appreciated judiciously by the Commission.
5. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

1. The CPWD forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The building plan proposal (for the addition of Conference Hall and security block including main gate) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco 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 the proposal involves the construction of a temporary structure, consisting of a Conference Hall and a security block with the main gate, on the front lawn of the current building facing Ashoka Road in the LBZ area of New Delhi.

b) It was additionally observed that the existing building possesses distinctive architectural characteristics, including its form, style, elements, and material specifications. The proposed building does not align harmoniously with the existing building in terms of matching architectural elements, style, and materials.

3. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

1. The NDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The demolition and reconstruction plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the comments given by the concerned local body i.e., NDMC, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect online 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 entire proposal should adhere to all the applicable statutory provisions, and norms/regulations of the prevailing Lutyens Bungalow Zone (LBZ) guidelines.

b) 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 service equipment, water tanks, outdoor air-conditioning units, solar panels etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 &12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

1. The NDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The demolition and reconstruction plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the comments given by the concerned local body i.e., NDMC, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The entire proposal should adhere to all the applicable statutory provisions, and norms/regulations of the prevailing Lutyens Bungalow Zone (LBZ) guidelines.

b) 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 service equipment, water tanks, outdoor air-conditioning units, solar panels etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 &12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

1. The NDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. No previous record of approval (Formal/Completion) taken has been found in the available record of the Commission.
3. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations (alterations in the existing basement, ground floor to second floor) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the comments given by the concerned local body i.e., NDMC, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The entire proposal should adhere to all the applicable statutory provisions, and norms/regulations of the prevailing Lutyens Bungalow Zone (LBZ) guidelines.

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 plumbing pipes, service equipment, rainwater pipes, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels, water tanks 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 NDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The demolition and reconstruction plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the comments given by the concerned local body i.e., NDMC, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect online 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 entire proposal should adhere to all the applicable statutory provisions, and norms/regulations of the prevailing Lutyens Bungalow Zone (LBZ) guidelines.

b) 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 service equipment, water tanks, outdoor air-conditioning units, solar panels etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 &12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

1. The DDA forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on March 17, 2004 and accepted the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on January 20, 2010.
3. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition/extension of bedrooms, dining room, toilets and balconies, demolition of some balconies) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, 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) Existing site photographs do not provide a clear understanding of the site, thus difficult to appreciate and visualize the proposal in the current context. An appropriate nos. of site photographs of each block, and the area shall be provided to get in-depth clarity of the site and surroundings. They need to be resubmitted with proper uncut views from all sides.

c) Likewise, photographs of the setbacks from terraces should be captured to assess their current condition, enabling an evaluation of the available open spaces for accommodating additional parking requirements.

d) The extensive use of temporary materials to cover balconies across the entire complex has been observed, detracting from both the visual appeal and urban aesthetics. These coverings shall be removed. Additionally, any proposed additions or alterations should be carefully planned to address the residents' needs, ensuring that they do not resort to covering the balconies in the current manner. Any proposed temporary additions should be designed suitably and harmonised aesthetically across the campus.

e) Similarly, outdoor air-conditioners are visible across the complex. The additions/alterations proposal shall be such planned to ensure the screening of the outdoor air-conditioners, and drying of cloths so as not to mar the visual & urban aesthetics of the complex.

f) Discrepancies have been noted in the submission received during the formal stage. Double-stack parking provisions have been proposed along one of the side setbacks of the housing society to meet the necessary car parking requirements. However, these provisions are not depicted in the 3D model views, which could impact the visual and urban aesthetics of the complex. Since the proposal is at the formal stage, it is crucial for it to be consistent and coordinated. Therefore, a revised submission addressing these issues shall be provided for the Commission's review.

g) All rainwater pipes and plumbing arrangements for the additional toilets shall be adequately screened to ensure they are not visible and do not detract from the visual and urban aesthetics of the complex.

h) It was observed that the location of the public toilet and the guard room etc. are also made part of the formal submission but their detailed drawings (including screening mechanism, elevations, sections, 3D views etc.) 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 revised appropriately and incorporated for review by the Commission.

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

j) 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.

k) All plumbing pipes, service equipment, rainwater pipes, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels, water tanks 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 lacked a self-explanatory design scheme and have inconsistencies involved. The architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Committee and furnish a pointwise compliance & reply.

1. The DDA forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal at its meeting held on February 01, 2024 and February 15, 2024; specific observations were given.
3. The revised building plan 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. 22(88)/2024-DUAC, OL-13022422088 dated 19.02.2024. 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) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

c) All water tanks, plumbing pipes, rainwater pipes, service equipment, DG set, DG exhaust pipes, 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.

Building plan proposal in respect of Residential building at plot no. 1, Sehgal colony, Civil Lines. (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 plans proposal for demolition and reconstruction received (online) at the Conceptual stage was scrutinised, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) 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.

b) All plumbing pipes, service equipment, water tanks, air-conditioning 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) 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.

1. The SDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal (Formal) at its meeting held on October 22, 2021.
3. The proposal for NOC for Completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) Based on the photographs provided by the architect, it is apparent that construction work on the building, including the façade, is still ongoing. This makes it difficult to assess the actual finish compared to the approved design. The proposal for the completion plan should be submitted once all aspects of the work, including civil and landscaping, are completed in accordance with formal approval.

b) Further, 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, if any.

4. Overall, the NOC for Completion proposal has been submitted without the completion of work at the site. The proposal shall be resubmitted once all work at the site is complete. The architect is requested to submit a detailed response that addresses each point raised by the Commission above in a clear and point-by-point manner.

1. The North-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal 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 Commission did not approve 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)} at its meeting held on November 09, 2023 and did not accept the concept of the building plans proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on January 25, 2024. Subsequently, the commission accepted the concept of the building plans proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on February 8, 2024, specific observations were given.
4. The building plans proposal for additions/alterations {addition of rotunda (G+1 floors), new Hospital Block 2 (B+G+7 floors), MLCP Block (G+10 floors)} received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted in response to the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC conceptually suitable letter no: OL-30012427005 dated 13.02.2024. Based on the replies submitted, and the revised 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 2 (B+G+7 floors), and an MLCP Block (G+10 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) 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.