1. Action Taken Reports regarding the Minutes of the 1754th meeting held on 05.04.2024 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. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal (Formal) at its meeting held on March 14, 2024, where specific observations were made.
3. The revised building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinized along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation Letter No.: OL-08032455080 dated March 18, 2024. The Commission intended to discuss with the Architect online, but he could not connect. Based on the previous observations made, the absence of online discussion, and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that unsatisfactory compliances has been given to the previous observations of the Commission communicated via DUAC observation letter No.: OL-08032455080, dated March 18, 2024.

b) The design of the railing baluster has the thicker portion on top and the thinner at base, counter-intuitive for safety with no clear aesthetic benefits.  Alternate designs for the same may be explored and submitted for the Commission's consideration.

c) The windows shown in the drawings seem to be fixed. They shall at least partially openable to ensure sufficient light and ventilation.

d) Discrepancy observed in the submission: The toilet shaft shown on the typical floor is not shown on the terrace plan. Being at the formal stage, the proposal needs to be correlated with plans/elevations/sections etc.

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, 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. The Architect is advised to address all the above Commission's observations, including those communicated via DUAC observation letter no: OL-08032455080 dated March 18, 2024. 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. No previous record of approval (Formal/Completion) taken has been found in the Commission's available record. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal (Formal) at its meeting held on March 21, 2024, where specific observations were made.
3. The revised building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinized along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation Letter No.: OL-18032455081 dated March 28, 2024. The Commission intended to discuss with the Architect online, but he could not connect. Based on the previous observations made, the absence of online discussion, and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that unsatisfactory compliances has been given to the previous observations of the Commission were communicated via DUAC observation letter No.: OL-18032455081, dated March 28, 2024.

b) Discrepancies observed in the submission received at the formal stage, the windows as shown in the plans do not match with the ones shown in the 3D views. Being at the formal stage, the proposal needs to be correlated with plans/elevations/sections etc.

c) The design of the railing baluster has the thicker portion on top and the thinner at base, counter-intuitive for safety with no clear aesthetic benefits.  Alternate designs for the same may be explored and submitted for the Commission's consideration.

d) The size of the life lobby seems inadequate it shall be increased in terms of applicable norms, rules, regulations etc.

e) The current submission lacks clarity on the concealment of rainwater pipes, plumbing pipes, and shafts. They must be clearly addressed and depicted in the respective layout plans and their screening mechanism.

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.

4. The Architect is advised to address all above Commission's observations, including those communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-18032455081 dated March 28, 2024; 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 (Formal) at its August 19, 2021, meeting. The Commission accepted the concept of the revised building proposal at its meeting held on May 18, 2023, where specific observations were made.
3. The revised building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinized, and the replies submitted in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated via DUAC Conceptually Suitable Letter No.: OL-29042327032 dated May 23, 2023. Based on the replies submitted and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The design proposal incorporates provisions for double-stack parking arrangements in all three basements proposed to meet the necessary parking requirements. Nevertheless, the Architect or proponent must ensure the proper implementation of these arrangements on-site, which will examined during the proposal's completion stage. It is important 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, 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.

c) 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.

d) 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.

1. The North-DMC forwarded (online) the proposal for consideration by the Commission.
2. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal (Formal) at its meeting held on March 28, 2024, where specific observations were made.
3. The revised building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinized along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC Observation Letter No.: OL-26032423112 dated April 02, 2024, and a detailed 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 observed that unsatisfactory compliances has been given communicated via DUAC observation letter No.: OL-26032423112, dated April 02, 2024, has been given.

b) The design of the railing baluster has the thicker portion on top and the thinner at base, counter-intuitive for safety with no clear aesthetic benefits.  Alternate designs for the same may be explored and submitted for the Commission's consideration.

c) The existing and proposed drawings exhibit inconsistency; the submitted plans and elevations for the existing building do not align with the actual photographs. Superimposed plans of both the existing and proposed structures should be provided to ensure clarity in the submission. Additionally, the existing drawings should be consistent with the site photographs.

d) The Architect stated that the ground floor section of the building has existed for a considerable period, including a lift. To validate these assertions, photographs of the existing ground floor, including the lift area, should be provided to understand the current situation better.

e) A detailed building section illustrating the existing structure and proposed modifications shall be submitted to enhance clarity in the submission.

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.

4. Overall, the submission received at the formal stage lacks clarity, and inconsistencies are observed. The Architect is advised to address all the Commission's observations above, including those communicated via DUAC Observation Letter No.: OL-26032423112 dated April 02, 2024. 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 directly by the Architect (online) for consideration by the Commission.
2. Earlier, the Commission approved the building plan proposal at its February 07, 1992, meeting. The Commission accepted the concept of extension of the hospital at its meeting held on January 08, 2021. Subsequently, the Commission approved the extension of the hospital proposal (Formal) at its meeting held on February 19, 2021, where specific observations were made.
3. The building plan proposal for additions and alterations received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinized, and 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 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.

c) The design scheme submitted by the Architect is not comprehensible, i.e., it is not self-explanatory. Since the scheme is for additions/alterations, the additions/changes made should be marked on the drawings (plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc.) for the judicious review of the Commission. Due to a lack of clarity of understanding, the Commission could not appreciate and comment upon the scheme.

d) Multiple toilets are proposed on the seventh floor directly above the existing ICUs on the sixth floor. Plumbing arrangements for these toilets must be clearly explained to prevent potential leakages that could affect the ICUs below ans aesthetics of the building.

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 plumbing pipes, service equipment, DG sets, DG exhaust pipes, 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 submission lacks clarity and is not self-explanatory. 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.