Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1630th meeting held on 30.12.2021.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1630th meeting held on 30.12.2021 was discussed.

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

2. The Commission approved the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on October 12, 2001. NOC for completion in respect of administrative block was accepted in the meeting held on October 12, 2009.

3. The building plan proposal for NOC for completion (for auditorium cum business centre (block C & D), future block (block E) and ESS) received (online) at completion stage was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The proposal has been submitted at the completion stage (part, for auditorium cum business centre (block C & D), future block (block E) and ESS) but an appropriate number of uncut photographs of the built construction (including interior areas) associated with the block for which NOC is required with proper labelling/delineation, to substantiate the actual work executed at the site, has not been provided. An appropriate number of photographs of the completed superstructure (for which NOC for completion is required) shall be provided with proper labelling/delineation and uncut/clear photographs from all sides to substantiate an actual work executed at the site.

b) One of the blocks has been delineated as ‘Future Block’, it shall be submitted with the correct nomenclature as the proposal is for completion.

c) Approval received from DUAC (at the formal stage) shall be superimposed, on the plans/elevations etc., over actual built structure on the site to understand the modifications (showing existing & proposed changes) done in the design from the approval (by DUAC), if any.

d) The statement on the ‘Energy Efficiency Features of the Building’ furnished by the architect is for the works to be taken up in the future, but the proposal is at the completion stage. Therefore, the statement shall be corrected and coordinated with the completed works shall be submitted.

e) A lot of spelling mistakes have been observed in the submission, the same may be corrected and resubmitted.

4. Overall, the design scheme submitted by the architect is not comprehensible i.e., they are not self-explanatory. The proposal is submitted for the NOC for completion needs to be complete and comprehensive. In absence of sufficient information provided by the architect, the proposal could not be examined appropriately by the Commission.

5. The architect was advised to submit the completion plan proposal for NOC only when all works including civil, landscape etc. are complete and adhere to the above observations & furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

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

2. The Commission accepted the concept of the building plan proposal at its meeting held on August 25, 2021.

3. The building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) As the subject suggests, it’s a Commercial complex with commercial units on the three floors. The Commission opines that areas for loading/ unloading for goods/commercial vehicles shall be delineated with proximity to the freight elevators.

b) It is suggested to use Double glazing instead of framed glass for the exterior façade.  

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

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on May 30, 2018.

3. The building plan proposal for NOC for completion (for Pink house hostel) received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised and found acceptable.

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

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on March 01, 2017. The Commission did not approve the revised building plan proposal at its meeting held on September 23, 2021, specific observations were given, and accepted the concept of the revised proposal at its meeting held on November 03, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with an email dated 12.01.2022 received from the concerned architect and conceptual acceptance given by the Commission vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-29102127075 dated 13.11.2021. It was observed that the proposal submitted at the formal stage is not as per the conceptual acceptance given by the Commission.

4. Taking into consideration the disparity between the conceptual acceptance given & the formal submission made for consideration of the Commission, and the email request received from the architect, the proposal is not approved and returned to the concerned local authority i.e. DDA.

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

2. The proposal was deferred.

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

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on June 21, 1996, specific observations were given. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of a lift from ground to the fourth floor, administrative area on the second floor, and fourth floor) at its meeting held on December 30, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of a lift from ground to the fourth floor, administrative area on the second floor, and fourth floor) received (online) at the 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-24122122047 dated 05.01.2022, inadequate compliances for this has been given. Several attempts were made to contact the architect telephonically to find out the reasons for incomplete submission, but he did not respond, the following observation is to be complied with:

a) It was observed that the floor wise drawings of every floor are missing in the submission. The proposal is submitted for formal approval needs to be complete and comprehensive. In absence of sufficient information provided by the architect, the proposal could not be examined appropriately by the Commission.

4. The architect is advised to revise the submission adhering to all the above observations given by the Commission and submit a complete submission (with complete drawings/documentation etc.) for the consideration of the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

Building plans proposal for additions/alterations in respect of Senior Secondary School for Sanatan Dharam Adarsh Sikshan Sansthan at Mayur Vihar, phase -I. (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the architect (online) at the conceptual stage for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on August 04, 1995, and the NOC for completion plan was approved at its meeting held on February 09, 2019. The concept of the building plan proposal for addition/alterations (additions of a fourth floor) was not accepted in the meeting held on July 23, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plan proposal for addition/alterations (addition of a fourth floor) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised. The Commission intended to discuss the parking provisions made on the site, but the architect did not respond. Based on the submission made the following observations are to be complied with:

a) To accommodate the additional necessary parking requirements due to the increase in FAR, double-stack parking provisions have been made in the side setbacks (along the boundary wall) with one level below the ground. The Commission could not understand its working mechanism/functioning/maintenance etc. 

b) In absence of sufficient information provided by the architect, the proposal could not be examined appropriately by the Commission.

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

Building plans proposal in respect of Residential Colony (Type III and IV) for Rajya Sabha Secretariat at Sector 12, R.K. Puram. (Conceptual stage)

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the architect (online) at the conceptual stage for consideration by the Commission.

2. The building plan proposal received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:

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

b) Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

c) Inconsistency observed in the detailed sheet submitted for gate & boundary wall details and the 3D views submitted needs to be corrected and coordinated. The Commission prefer the one submitted in the separate detailed sheet.

d) Also, the ramps appear to have been covered with an RCC slab, which is not appreciated by the Commission. Due thought shall be given to cover the ramps including their design, material, forms, shape etc. at this stage as it could spoil the visual, urban, aesthetics of the area. Its details are to be worked out and submitted.

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 plumbing pipes, service equipment 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.