Action Taken Reports regarding Minutes of 1751st meeting held on 14.03.2024.

1. Action Taken Reports regarding the Minutes of the 1751st meeting held on 14.03.2024 were discussed.

1. The SDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. No previous record of approval (Formal/Completion) taken has been found in the Commission's available record.
3. The building plan proposal for additions and alterations received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinized, and the following observation is to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that while considering the case for additions/alterations, it did not consider or cover the existing construction at the site. This concerns the proposal for additions/alterations only.

b) However, based on the submission received, including drawings and documentation at the formal stage, demolition and reconstruction seem to be involved instead.

c) There appears to be a mismatch between the submitted layout plans and the 3-D views, thus giving an incorrect picture of the proposal. As a result, the Commission could not appreciate the submission judiciously. Coordinated plans, sections, elevations, and 3D views are to be submitted.

d) Given that the proposal pertains to additions and alterations, and there is no record of prior formal approvals obtained from the Commission, it is requested that any previous approvals obtained be submitted for the Commission's review.

e) The design scheme for the proposed additions and alterations, as submitted by the architect, lacks clarity and is not self-explanatory. Since the scheme pertains to additions and alterations, the proposed changes should be clearly marked on the drawings (plans, elevations, sections, 3D views, etc.) for easy identification and review by the Commission.

4. Overall, the proposal for additions/alterations received at the formal stage is not comprehensible; it is returned to the MCD without consideration by the Commission.
5. The architect is advised to address all the Commission's observations. 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 DDA forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the layout and building plans at its March 4, 1999, meeting and accepted the NOC for Completion at its meeting held on November 22, 2005.
3. The building plan proposal for additions and alterations (addition of one bedroom, toilet, extension of utility room and balconies in each unit, extension of community hall) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinized. Based on 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 or cover the existing construction at the site. This concerns the proposal for additions/alterations only.

b) The Commission took note of the email dated 26.03.2024 from panditskt@gmail.com in this regard.  

c) The balconies in the submitted layout plans and 3d views do not match. Before and after images (from the same angle to ensure clarity) to be submitted showing the proposed alterations/additions. Also, the drawings do not distinguish between the balcony railing and the wall, thus giving an incorrect picture, and they need to be drafted carefully.  

d) The proposal also includes additions/alterations in the Community Hall, but the same is not elucidated with appropriate details, including detailed layout, sections, elevations etc. to understand the scheme better.

e) It was noticed that the basements are under every building block, but the same appears to be missing in the sections provided. The proposal is at a formal stage need to be comprehensive, and coordinated drawings shall be submitted for the review of the Commission.

f) Noticeable discrepancy observed in the formal submission: the toilet shaft, which juts out in the plans, is flushed in the 3D view, thus giving an incorrect picture of the proposed façade. The drawings shall be reviewed, and corrected drawings shall be submitted for the Commission's consideration.

g) 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.

h) All water tanks, plumbing pipes, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels, DG Sets, DG exhaust pipes, etc. must 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 proposal for additions/alterations received at the formal stage is not comprehensible. The architect is advised to address all the Commission's observations. 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.

Building plans proposal in respect of Socio-Cultural Building on Plot No. Nil, situated at Chittaranjan Park, for Buddha Tri-Ratna Mission (Regd.) 

(Conceptual Stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded (online) by the architect for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not accept the concept of the building plans proposal at its meeting held on February 29, 2024, observations were made.
3. The revised building plan proposal received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinized, along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Conceptually unsuitable letter no: OL-24022427008 dated March 01, 2024. Based on the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The proportions of the Sanchi gate appear off with members too thick and the Torana main gateway opening not tall enough. Specifically, increasing the metal gate's height to rise significantly above that of the boundary wall and the horizontal members of the Torana to begin much higher for a much taller and proportionate opening. Additionally, some adjustments of the thickness of the Sanchi gate columns and beams can improve overall proportions.

b) Ensure the metal gate design harmonizes with that of the boundary wall grill.

c) 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.

d) 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.

e) All service equipment, rainwater pipes, water tanks, DG set, DG exhaust pipes, transformers, 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 SDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not accept the building plans proposal (conceptual) at its meeting held on December 28, 2023, but accepted the concept of building plans proposal at its meeting held on January 25, 2024, observations were made. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal (Formal) at its meeting held on March 07, 2024, where specific observations were made.
3. The building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinized along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC letter no: OL-06032455079 dated March 08, 2024. Based on the revised submission made, the following observation is to be complied with:

a) In terms of the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-06032455079 dated March 08, 2024, unsatisfactory compliances for the same have been made.

b) The Commission observed that the proposed small basement is inadequate to fulfil the necessary car parking requirements (as per the Full FSI) of the site. It is reiterated that the basement should be designed to accommodate both current and future car parking needs, aiming to free up surface area from parking and allow for potential expansion in the future. Suggestions were discussed to optimize space utilization and accommodate potential project growth and development.

c) The geometry of the ramp leading to the basement parking displays a sharp 90-degree turn, which appears impractical for vehicular manoeuvrability. The ramp should be enhanced with a larger turning radius to facilitate smooth two-way vehicular circulation. Additionally, the direction of the arrows appears incorrect and requires correction.

d) The banquet hall is envisaged to have a considerable span of approximately 30x35m, yet details regarding column placement and structural arrangement are missing along with its capacity and functional furniture arrangements. These must be incorporated into the submission. Additionally, the structural elements, including columns, shall be clearly indicated in the basement plans to ensure feasibility of parking.

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, 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.

f) 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.

g) All service equipment, rainwater pipes, water tanks, DG set, DG exhaust pipes, transformers, 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 address all the Commission's observations. 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 SDMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal with respect to the NCUI Complex for Jawahar Lal Nehru Co-op Centre at its meeting held on October 06, 1976.
3. The Commission returned the proposal of layout and building plans in respect of Auditorium-cum-office building in NCUI Complex at its meeting held on May 28, 1997; specific observations were given.
4. The completion plans proposal in respect of Auditorium-cum-office building in NCUI Complex was considered in the Commission meeting dated February 21, 2007.
5. The Commission approved the building plan proposal with respect to the redevelopment of the NCUI hostel building in NCUI Complex at its meeting held on September 14, 2023, and specific observations were given. Subsequently, the Commission accepted the concept of a building plan proposal for additions and alterations in respect of the NCEE Building at NCUI Complex at its meeting held on December 21, 2023.
6. The building plan proposal for additions and alterations in respect of the NCEE Building at NCUI Complex received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinized, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that while considering the case for additions/alterations, it did not consider or cover the existing construction at the site. This concerns the proposal for additions/alterations only.

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