Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1587th and 1588th meetings held on 08.04.2021 and 12.04.2021 respectively.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1587th and 1588th meetings held on 08.04.2021 and 12.04.2021 respectively.

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

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on January 23, 2015.

3. The Completion plan proposal (part completion) for NOC received (online) was scrutinised and following observations were given:

a) The architect has indicated in the report submitted along with the submission that:

“…. Part area of the sanctioned plans vide file no. 62/B/HQ/EDMC/N/2013-14 dt. 25.03.2015 has been constructed in the first phase (i.e. phase-1) for which completion has been applied….”

b) The Commission observed that a four wheeler parking has been constructed in the portion of the site where the building in phase-II has been sanctioned, including basement, and likely to come up in near future, needs clarification. In case the phase-II building is also complete, the parking requirements would be inadequate. The parking provisions shall be adhering to applicable norms/guideline/regulations etc.

c) An appropriate nos. of site photographs shall be provided to get in-depth clarity of the site and surroundings. They need to be resubmitted with proper uncut views from all the sides.

d) Presence of the temporary structures observed in the set-back areas, all temporary structures shall be removed.

e) From the photographs submitted by the architect/proponent it is evident that the work at site is yet to be completed including civil and the landscape work. The proposal for completion plan shall be submitted once all the works including civil, landscape etc. is complete as per formal approval in entirety.

4) The architect was advised to submit the completion plan proposal for NOC only when all works including civil, landscape works, signage, screening of services, work of public art etc.  is complete at site as per formal approval in entirety.

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

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on February 13, 2004, and NOC was accepted in the meeting held on July 23, 2018. The proposal for additions/alterations was not approved in the meeting held on March 5, 2021 specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations received (online) at formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL- 02032155009 dated 08.03.2021 and following observations were given:

a) All parking provisions shall adhere to applicable norms/guidelines/regulations etc.

b) Paved area shall be reduced and adequate green areas shall be created for children, elderly etc.

c) Sustainability features 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.

Revised Building plans proposal for addition/alterations in respect of Motel (Silver Oak) plot on Khasra no. 63/8/2 Min, 63/13 63/17 Min, 63/18 Min at Mundka Village, NH- 10.

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

2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on February 09, 2019 specific observations were given. The revised proposal for additions/alterations was approved in the meeting of the Commission held on September 25, 2019.

3. The Commission did not approve the revised building plans proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on March 16, 2021 and also did not accept the concept for additions/alteration in the meeting of the Commission held on April 8, 2021 specific observations were given.

4. The revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations received (online) at formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observations letter no: OL-27032127025 dated 19.04.2021 and following observations were given:

a) The elevation of the building (existing and proposed) in the complex ensured to be in coherence (architectural features, elements etc.) with each other.

b) Appropriate signages/ graphics shall be installed in the building complex to ensure proper wayfinding.

c) Sustainability features 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.

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

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

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on January 03, 2008 and the revised building plan proposal was approved in the meeting of the Commission held on April 28, 2010. The NOC for completion plan proposal was approved in the meeting held on November 24, 2010.

3. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of lifts and covering of terraces) was approved in the meeting held on October 26, 2016.

4. The building plan proposal for additions/alteration received (online) at formal stage was scrutinised and following observations were given:

a) The Commission consider the proposals based on the certification related to building bye-laws etc. furnished by the concerned local body. It was observed that the Development Control Regulations (DCR) related to the proposal submitted along with the submission are incorrect. The same shall be reviewed and correct DCR’s be submitted.

b) The drawings submitted by the architect are not comprehensible i.e. they are not self-explanatory. The drawings provided are not legible, i.e. resolution is too low for the drawings to be readable appropriately. Legible, co-ordinated drawings shall be submitted for clarity and understanding. The same shall be resubmitted in a high-resolution format. All additions shall be clearly indicated on plans/elevations/sections as appropriate.

c) It has been observed that a lot of commercial areas including Restaurants, Banquet halls etc. have been proposed but without indicating its tentative occupancy & associated services. It would result into substantial increase in the number of users to the complex. Appropriate number of vertical accesses be explored. Including the sizes, capacity of the lifts as per relevant norms/guidelines/regulations etc.

d) The details of the existing number of car parks+additional parking provided is not given in the submission, thereby not providing clear information as to how the additional parking will be addressed. Existing parking and the parking from additional FAR (proposed) to be shown clearly on the layout plan with the bifurcation of two. As not addressing the parking requirements would severely impact the overall aesthetic, environmental, and visual quality of the complex.

e) Keeping in mind the environmental considerations and the climatic conditions of the city of Delhi, the use of the glass on the façade shall be reduced especially on the west façade with proper understanding of its cleaning mechanism and other maintenance issues. The selection of the glass shall be as per relevant norms/guidelines/regulations etc.

f) A lot of waste (dry and wet, food items, etc.) supposed to be generated in the hotel, a detailed solid waste management plan proposal along with its location on the site plan be submitted.

g) A lot of live/dead load is being added to the existing building. Structure shall be such designed that it can withstand weather effects, impacts from calamities like earthquake etc. and can withstand the additional load.

h) Public Art is missing in the submission. The proposed artwork should be thematic to the building use. It shall depict the character and imparts an identity to the complex. Public art of suitable scale to the context to be installed and 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.

i) The elements of sustainability are missing in the design scheme. These shall be identified and marked on the plans. Roof-top utilities are not shown in the plan/ 3D views and thus require to be shown on the relevant drawings. The screening for the same shall also be mentioned and marked clearly in the plans/3D views.

j) 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.

k) 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 using same architectural elements and materials.

5. The architect was advised to adhere to the above observations and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.

Building plan proposal for additions/alterations in respect of School building for M/s Gyan Mandir Society at Josip Broz Tito Road, Mool Chand, Sadiq Nagar.

(Conceptual Stage)

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

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on December 15, 2006, and the NOC for Completion plan proposal was approved in the meeting held on May 02, 2012.

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

a) All external outdoor AC units, plumbing pipes, electrical conduits etc. clearly visible on the external façade spoiling the aesthetics of the façade shall be screened appropriately using architectural mechanisms.

b) The Commission observed that with the addition of one more floor (4th floor) above overall height of the building has been increased, for the convenience of the users (students/teachers etc.), thus lifts of appropriate sizes and numbers shall be added to the structure in accordance with the relevant guidelines/norms/statutory provisions in this regard. Addition of lifts may have a bearing on the visual, aesthetics of the elevational façade which may be reviewed in the subsequent submission.

c) The fire staircase provided at the rear is standing out it shall be such incorporated in the design and screened using exiting architectural design, elements etc. so as merge with it.

d) The parking plan does not seem to be functional, the same shall be relooked at and reviewed. The Parking arrangements shall be as per applicable norms/guidelines/regulations 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.

f) 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 using same architectural elements and materials.

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

Revised layout and building plan proposal for additions/alterations in respect of Green Fields Primary School (A/2 Block) at Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi.

(Conceptual Stage)

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

2. The revised layout and building plan proposal for additions/alterations received (online) at conceptual stage was scrutinised and following observations were given:

a) It was observed that the Development Control Regulations (DCR) related to the proposal submitted along with the submission are incorrect. The same shall be reviewed and correct DCR’s be submitted.

b) The drawings submitted by the architect are not comprehensible i.e. they are not self-explanatory. Co-ordinated drawings shall be submitted for clarity and understanding.

c) Annotated 3D views of the proposed design scheme shall be superimposed on the existing superstructure along with the existing context of the surroundings, including road networks, structures around the site, for better understanding of the proposal in the actual environment to make it clearer. Also, 3d views shall be enhanced with better visuals.

d) The submitted site photographs do not clearly indicate the required details. An appropriate number of existing site pictures to be provided from all sides. They need to be resubmitted with proper uncut views from all the sides.

e) Fire staircase proposed in the existing block has blocked the direct light and ventilation of the class rooms, it shall be such incorporated so as to allow direct light & ventilation, to be relooked at.

f) A large stage with temporary structure (roof above) has been erected in the rear set-back, also presence of a canteen and DG set has been noticed in the rear set-backs blocking the hindrance free movement of the vehicles proposed at the car parking lot needs to be relooked at and clarify.

g) The Car and the bus parking have been proposed by replacing a large existing volleyball court. Provision of proposed parking not clearly understood. Car and bus movement form entry/exit shall also be shown especially with the presence of a canteen & DG Set in the side set-back etc. Existing parking and the parking from additional FAR (proposed) to be shown clearly on the layout plan with the bifurcation of two.

h) The Commission also observed that students have to cross the proposed bus and car parkings to access the playground, considering the safety and security of the students, it is not acceptable, needs to be relooked at. Instead, explore the possibility of creating/accommodating all parking requirements on the extreme northern side of the site and converting car parking area into a large consolidated green for users/students.

i) A combined mobility plan showing seamless, conflict-free pedestrian/users and vehicular movement plan from outside to be submitted, to understand the movement pattern within site.

j) It is observed that a new block has been proposed in the area where there is presence of a large concentration of grown up mature trees which are likely to be cut for the block. The landscape plan should indicate the details of the existing trees, levels, types of species on an appropriate scale (in terms of the point nos. Six of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.

3. Taking into consideration the facts above, it was, accordingly, decided to request the architect/ proponent to furnish all the details related to previous sanction/NOC for completion plan of the proposal and any other information deemed fit, along with existing site conditions including drawings and photographs of existing structure and landscape, tree details etc., only then the proposal shall be reviewed and observations/comments be given by the Commission.

Building plan proposal for additions/alterations in respect of the Indian Institute of Public Administration on plot no-5B, I.P. Estate, Ring road, 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 building plan proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on April 8, 2021 specific observations were given.

3. The revise conceptual building plan proposal for additions/alterations (demolishing the existing auditorium and proposing an academic block) received (online) was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-07042123009 dated 13.04.2021 and following observations were given:

a) It was observed that in terms of the earlier observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no. OL-07042123009 dated 13.04.2021 indicated at sr. no. 2 (h) inadequate compliance for this has been given.

b) It is again reiterated that toilets, lifts and staircases be housed in separate cores for better usability, working, convenience and economics, needs reconsiderations.

c) The toilets shall be screened appropriately for the privacy of users.

d) The proposed artwork, especially on the facade, is not appropriate and cannot be considered as ‘Work of Art’.  Work of art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at appropriate level (human eye) which is also visible from outside, to be installed, accordingly, modified.

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

Building plans proposal in respect of Motel at Khasra no. 12/19 (4-8), 12/20 (1-2), 31 (1-8), 21(0-14), 22(4-8) Village Kapashera, Delhi.

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

2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on April 12, 2021 specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plan proposal received (online) at formal level was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-08042155016 dated 16.04.2021 and following observations were given:

a) Internal Road network around the site needs to be minimized to reduce the heat island effect. Fire tender path shall be as per 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.