1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1589th meeting held on 15.04.2021 was discussed.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the South DMC (online) for consideration of the Commission.

2. The Commission approved the building plan at its meeting held on July 22, 2002 and the NOC for completion plan proposal was approved in the meeting of the Commission held on July 19, 2005. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal for additions/alterations (additional construction) at its meeting held on April 08, 2021 specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations (additional construction) received (online) at formal stage was scrutinised and following observations were given:

a) The added structure shall be such designed that it withstands weather effects, impacts from calamities like earthquake etc. and does not impact the safety of the superstructure.

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.

c) All service equipment at the terrace should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 &12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on DUAC website at www.duac.org.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the CPWD (online) for consideration of the Commission.
2. The proposal was deferred.

Revised Layout and Building plans proposal in respect of Residential Building at Chankyapuri on Northern Railway Land at plot no. X, near Safdarjung Railway Station, New Delhi.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the IRSDC (online) for consideration of the Commission.

2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on December 18, 2020 and specific observations were given.

3. The revised layout and building plan proposal received (online) at formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in compliance to the earlier observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: 16(2)/2020-DUAC, OL-19102016002 dated December 28, 2020 following observations were given:

a) The entrance of the separate building blocks need to be well articulated and shall be made more visible by architectural mechanisms appropriate to human path of vision and the building scale.

b) Internal circulation (lift, staircases etc.) shall be better coordinated and synchronized with each other by efficient design improvisations.

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.

d) All service equipment at the terrace should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 &12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on DUAC website at www.duac.org.

Proposal for Covering of the ramps of Ashram underpass developed in the Construction of underpass along Mathura Road at Ashram Chowk, New Delhi.

(Conceptual Stage)

1. The proposal was directly submitted by the architect (online) for consideration of the Commission.

2. The Commission did not approve the proposal at its meeting held on March 23, 2021 specific observations were given.

3. The revised conceptual plan proposal for covering of ramps received (online) was scrutinised along with the replies of the architect in compliances to observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-19032161002 dated 26.03.2021 and following observations were given:

a) Three options to the covering of ramp were presented before the Commission. The option no-1 was found to be more appropriate with the suggestion that for the two ends (entry and exit) edge details the form have a better resolution than currently presented including considering options of sculpting the fabric into a symmetric end or mimicking the figurehead of a ship but simplified amongst other possible modifications/approaches.

b) Options shall also be explored for the sides of the ramps considering safety/ security of the users and protection against rain etc.

c) Taking into consideration the weather conditions in the City of Delhi, maintenance aspect of the fabric proposed shall be outlined thoughtfully.

d) The foot over bridge proposed along the stretch shall follow the same architectural vocabulary in terms of materials, design, fabric, scale, proportions etc.

e) Rain water harvesting aspects shall be outlined thoughtfully with appropriate detailing.

4. The architect was advised to adhere to the above observations in the subsequent submission at formal level with appropriate detailing and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the CPWD (online) for consideration of the Commission.

2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on March 25, 2021 specific observations were given.

3. The building plan proposal completed as per DUAC guidelines was received (online) from CPWD at formal stage on 12.04.2021 subsequently scrutinised by the Commission along with replies submitted by the architect in compliance to the earlier observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: 62(6)/2021-DUAC, OL-12032162006 dated March 30, 2021. Based on the scheme submitted the following observations were given:

a) The Commission reiterated its earlier observation that the DG sets proposed along the boundary wall of the complex suggested to suitably relocate to a suitable alternate location or to be further lowered below the ground.

b) Queuing up spaces shall be suitably increased at gate no. 1 & 2 in order to manage the vehicular entry during security check and to avoid a tail/bottleneck.

c) Parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations etc. including for double stack parking requirements.  Portion of basement parking be considered for allocating to visitors on a flexible basis.

d) Separate provisions of shower/bath etc. facilities shall be made for Gymnasiums/yoga room.

e) To maximise energy efficiency, instead of using film on space frame for shading over courtyard, solar panels can be mounted on a frame over the courtyard and the building’s rooftop to shade both while ensuring it is screened properly at the outer periphery by using appropriate architectural mechanisms. The complex should aim to maximise energy efficiency and set an example in the city for such future proposals.

f) The People Mover wagon strategy for movement within the Secretariat be evaluated relative to possibly using Travelator as in new airport terminals to ensure that more reliable movement can continue in broader set of conditions/situations. 

g) 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.

h) All service equipment at the terrace should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 &12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on DUAC website at www.duac.org.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the North DMC (online) for consideration of the Commission.

2. The Commission approved the layout and the building plan proposal at its meeting held on December 19, 2018, and the revised layout and the building plan proposal was approved in the meeting of the Commission held on January 15, 2021 specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plan proposal at formal stage received (online) was scrutinised and following observations were given:

a) The green area requirements shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations etc.

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.

c) All service equipment at the terrace should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 &12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on DUAC website at www.duac.org.

Prof. (Dr.) Mandeep Singh, Member of the Commission recused himself during the consideration of the proposal.

The Commission decided to take action in the matter without awaiting confirmation of the minutes of the meeting.