Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1640th meeting held on 10.03.2022.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1640th meeting held on 10.03.2022 was discussed.

Revised layout and the building plan proposal for additions/alterations in respect of Group Housing complex at Magazine Road, Khyber Pass, Civil Lines, Delhi.

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

2. The Commission approved the revised layout of the Group
The housing complex at Magazine Road, Khyber Pass, Civil Lines at its meeting held on April 08, 2015, and the building plan was approved in the meeting held on April 19, 2016. The proposal for additions/alterations was approved in the meeting of the Commission held on August 14, 2020, specific observations were given.

3. The revised layout and the building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of new towers E (main units), K1 (for service personnel), and K2 (EWS units)) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco WebEx meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the discussion held and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the proposal is at formal stage and the Performa indicating the Development Control Regulations related to the proposal has a lot of discrepancies in the respective areas concerning FAR calculations, height and parking calculations etc. which was also brought to the notice of the architect during discussion (online). As the proposal is for additions/alterations (addition of new towers E (main units), K1 (for service personnel), and K2 (EWS units)) therefore, in absence of correct information furnished by the architect, it would be difficult to comprehend the proposal judiciously.

b) The Commission observed that the quality of 3d views are not appropriate for an important building project like this (formal submission). They are very sketchy and the scale, proportion, materials etc. are not understood clearly. Annotated 3D views clearly specifying the materials to be used on the façade shall be provided.

c) The Commission observed that the proposal is located at an important location in Delhi (in the vicinity of the Civil lines area) which has a very distinct architectural character and is also opposite the ‘Delhi Ridge’. The Commission has also taken note of the fact that the proposed height of the new building block is 199.00m with provisions of EWS units and the height of the units currently under construction on the site is approx. 33.00mtrs. To visualise and compare the height difference between the existing and the proposed development at the site and taking into consideration such developments in future in the City, and its influence on the visual and urban aesthetics of the city,  it is suggested to submit detailed sections of the site (longitudinal and cross-section across the site as well) with heights of each block and elevations. Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

d) The provision of air-conditioning units on the façade is not given in the proposal (drawings/3d views). The air-conditioners could be an eye-sore to the building façade. To avoid the same, provision shall be made in the design to accommodate and screen the outdoor units appropriately, so as not to mar the aesthetics. The same shall be reflected in appropriate layouts and 3d views. The materials/finishes used for screening should be similar to the materials used in the elevation.

e) The Commission observed that the provisions made for the screening of drying of clothes, dish antenna etc. have not been shown in the submission, it shall be presented through a design scheme in a graphical format to understand it better. The same needs to be revised, co-related with other drawings and be resubmitted. Innovative architectural features and materials shall screen dish antennas in the balconies.

f) The provisions made for proposed parking are not clearly understood, considering the proposed development is for 550 units not addressing overall parking requirements for the complex could spoil the overall visual, urban, environmental, and aesthetic quality. Existing parking and parking from the proposed scheme are to be shown on the layout plan along with the bifurcation of two.

g) Solar photovoltaic panels shall be suitably accommodated in the design so as not to mar the aesthetics and help to reduce the carbon footprint. 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. The screening for the same shall also be mentioned and marked clearly in the plans/3D views.

h) All service equipment, outdoor air-conditioners units, areas accommodating DG set, exhaust pipes etc. should be suitably screened using appropriate architectural mechanisms so as not to remain visible, and mar the aesthetics of the complex (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.

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

j) Overall, the design scheme submitted by the architect is not comprehensible i.e., they are not self-explanatory. The proposal is submitted at the formal stage needs to be complete and comprehensive.

4. Considering the facts enumerated above, the architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission and suggested to resubmit the revised design scheme adhering to all the above observations given by the Commission at the conceptual stage first along with pointwise incorporation & reply.

Building plan proposal for Kiran Nadar Museum of Art & Kiran Nadar Centre on Plot No. 3 & 4 Mustil No. 19, Killa No. 17(4-16), 18(4-16), 19(4-16), 20(4-16) and Mustatil No. 19, Killa No. 11/2 Min (3-19), 12(4-16), 13(4-16), 14(5-14) at village Samalkha, Tehsil Vasant Vihar.

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

2. The building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and while appreciating the innovative structural system the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The design proposal is at a formal stage and is located at a prominent location in the New Delhi area (near international airport), where a lot of international and domestic travellers would be passing through the area. Fragmented 3D views of the design scheme have been submitted which do not provide the required details. The quality of 3d views is not appreciated by the Commission. The scale, proportion, materials etc. are not understood appropriately.

b) Considering one of a kind proposals in the City and its location, the Commission observed that the proposal cannot be studied in isolation i.e. it needs to be reviewed in conjunction with the surrounding facilities, therefore, an appropriate number of complete 3D views (with better viewing angles) of the design scheme shall be superimposed 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. Annotated 3D views (including night-time 3D views to understand the lighting mechanism) specifying the materials to be used on the façade shall be provided.

c) It was observed that the location of the boundary wall, main gate, public toilet (under Swachh Bharat), guard room, ESS, diesel tank location (with screening mechanisms), vehicular ramps etc. are also part of the formal submission but their design scheme is not represented judiciously in the 3D views (with the material) submitted. Also, the Commission observed that these components have a bearing on the overall visual, urban, and aesthetic quality of the complex. The same is to be revised and be incorporated for review by the Commission with an appropriate number of detailed drawings (including screening mechanism, elevations, sections, 3D views etc.).

d) The Commission observed that for a design proposal like this which has extensive public interface, the submitted landscape plans lack clarity in explaining the landscape scheme as well as amenities including seating, pavement treatment, signage, lighting etcetera. The landscaping on the site is to be improved with appropriate treatment (Hardscape & Softscape) and needs to be shown clearly in the respective drawings/3D views on an appropriate scale in terms of the point nos. 06 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in and resubmitted.

e) The Kitchen, café house and restaurant have been provided. A lot of waste (dry and wet, food items, etc.) is supposed to be generated in the complex, a detailed solid waste management plan proposal along with its location on the site plan be submitted.

f) Overall, the design scheme submitted by the architect is not comprehensive and/or self-explanatory. The proposal is submitted at the formal stage needs to be complete and comprehensive.

3. Considering the points enumerated above, the architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission and suggested to resubmit the revised design scheme adhering to all the above observations given by the Commission and the conceptual stage first along with pointwise incorporation & reply.

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

2. The Commission approved the layout plan in respect of the State Guesthouse complex in the meeting of the Commission held on November 05, 1993, and the revised layout was approved in the meeting held on February 21, 2000. The building plans were also approved in the meeting held on February 21, 2000, and the NOC for the completion plan proposal was approved in the meeting held on January 29, 2004. The Commission approved the revised layout and building plan proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on June 17, 2021, specific observations were given.

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

a) The Commission observed that the proposal cannot be studied in isolation i.e. it needs to be reviewed in conjunction with the surrounding facilities, therefore, 3D views of the site shall be superimposed 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, the quality of the 3d views shall be enhanced with better visuals. Ramps etc. should be appropriately represented in the 3D views.

b) The entire elevation is suggested to be relooked at to improve the scale and grandness of the building with appropriate architectural elements.  Overall, the visual elements of the elevations are not sufficiently resolved.

c) Work of art has been proposed to be exhibited on the façade without much thoughtfulness. The two females’ figures displayed on the ground floor resemble to be more Greek than any of the descriptions related to Tamil Nadu architecture, and need to be relooked at. Also, provisions made for the work of art on the boundary wall should be removed.

d) 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.

e) All 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.

f) Overall, the drawings/design scheme submitted by the architect is not comprehensible i.e. they are not self-explanatory. As of now, due to a lack of clarity of understanding, the scheme could not be appreciated by the Commission.

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

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

2. The Commission approved the revised layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on April 28, 2010, and the NOC for completion plan proposal was accepted in the meeting held on November 24, 2010. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations was approved in the meeting held on May 15, 2019.

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

Building plans proposal for addition/alteration in respect of Vasundhara CGHS Ltd at Plot No. 01B, Sector-22, Dwarka.

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

2. The Commission approved the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on September 26, 2003, and the NOC for completion was accepted in the meeting held on August 12, 2009. The proposal for regularisation/completion was approved in the meeting held on October 29, 2018.

3. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations (extension of balconies) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the design scheme is for the extension of balconies in the existing residential units. The 3D views of the design scheme presented are unrealistic and do not represent the actual site conditions. The same should be revised and resubmitted.

b) From the photographs of the existing superstructure submitted by the architect, it is evident that a lot of balconies are covered with the temporary material, the same should be removed.

c) The proposed balconies extensions have been designed differently and not consistent with the continuing existing balconies spoiling the aesthetic unity of the complex, the same should be relooked at and revised accordingly and resubmitted. Furthermore, the new proposed balconies have not sufficiently integrated the air conditioners with appropriate screening.  This should be addressed as the complex looks ugly due to present positioning of outdoor units without any harmony or thoughtfulness.

d) The added structure shall be such designed that it withstands weather effects, impacts from calamities like earthquakes etc. as it is an additional structure added to the existing superstructure. It shall be ensured it is braced firmly to the building and does not impact the safety of the superstructure.

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

f) Overall, the design scheme submitted by the architect is not comprehensible i.e., they are not self-explanatory. The proposal needs to be complete and comprehensive.

4. Considering the facts enumerated above, the architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission and suggested to resubmit the revised design scheme adhering to all the above observations given by the Commission along with pointwise incorporation & reply.

Revised building plans proposal in respect of Residential Building at Plot No.207, Golf Links.

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

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on November 27, 2019, specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the comments given by the concerned local body i.e. NDMC, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The entire proposal should adhere to all the applicable statutory provisions, and norms/regulations of the prevailing Lutyens Bungalow Zone (LBZ) guidelines.

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.in.

c) All service equipment, water tanks, outdoor air-conditioning units, solar panels etc. 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.

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

2. The Commission approved the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on July 17, 1998, and the NOC for completion plan proposal was approved in the meeting held on May 26, 2005. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on February 24, 2022, specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations (expansion of the kitchen, store area and balcony area in various dwelling units, construction of a public toilet) 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-15022222008 dated 04.03.2022. Based on the replies submitted and revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) It was observed that in terms of the earlier observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observations letter no: OL-15022222008 dated 04.03.2022 inadequate compliances for this has been given.

b) The Commission has also taken note of the fact that the proposal has been considered six times before and a detailed discussion was also held with the architect but not much improvement has been observed. The Commission opines that the requisite parking requirements of the site has not been sufficiently resolved and again reiterated that not addressing the parking requirements for the site would spoil the visual, environmental, urban aesthetics of the area. Accordingly, it is suggested to provide appropriate solutions to accommodate requisite parking requirements (existing + proposed) and shown clearly on the relevant plans with the bifurcation of the two.

c) In view of the inadequate compliances given by the architect, it 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.

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

2. The Commission approved the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on January 18, 2017.

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

a) The proposal is at completion stage but, the submitted site photographs do not clearly indicate the required details. An appropriate number of site pictures of the built construction (including basement, parking areas, landscaped areas, gate, boundary wall etc.) should be provided. They need to be submitted with proper uncut views from all sides.

b) Layout plan and parking plan are found to be missing in the submission made for the consideration of the Commission, the same needs to be submitted.

c) It is observed that the proposal was submitted for NOC for completion. Approval received from DUAC (at the formal stage) should be superimposed over actual built up on the site to understand the modifications/deviations, if any, done in the design from the approval (by DUAC).

d) In view of the insufficient information provided to the Commission related to built construction at the site, the proposal for NOC for completion plan could not be understood clearly.

4. The architect is advised to submit the completion plan proposal for NOC with an appropriate number of uncut photographs of the built construction (including civil works, landscaped areas, parking, basement, signage, screening of services etc.) to substantiate the actually built construction at the site.

Building Plans proposal for addition/alteration in respect of Institutional Building (Social Culture) On Plot No. B-14A, Qutub Institutional Area (For Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaja Memorial National Committee). (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 September 05, 2003, and the NOC for completion was accepted in the meeting held on January 14, 2005, specific observations were given.

3. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of multipurpose hall on Second, third and the fourth floor) received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) Existing site photographs do not provide a clear understanding of the existing complex, thus difficult to appreciate and visualize the proposal in the current context. An appropriate nos. of site photographs (including the terrace, setbacks etc.) shall be provided to get in-depth clarity of the site. They need to be resubmitted with proper uncut views from all sides.

b) Existing photographs show the construction of temporary structures including DG set, exhaust pipes etc. in the rear setback area where car parking has been proposed. In that case, the DG set, its exhaust pipes etc. would be relocated, its new location along with the screening mechanism should be indicated in the plans/3D views etc. so as not to mar the aesthetics.

c) The parking plan should be in terms of point no. 18 (related to parking) of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

d) A lot of live/dead load is being added to the existing building. Considering structural changes in the existing building structure shall be such designed that it can withstand weather effects, impacts from calamities like earthquake etc.

e) It was observed that the location of the public toilet (under Swachh Bharat) is also part of the submission but their detailed drawings (including screening mechanism, elevations, sections, 3D views etc.) have not been submitted. The Commission observed that these components could have a bearing on the overall visual, urban, and aesthetic quality of the complex. The same is to be revised appropriately and be incorporated for review by the Commission.

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

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.in.

h) All water tanks, DG sets, DG exhaust pipes, plumbing pipes, service equipment, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 &12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

i) Overall, the design scheme submitted by the architect is not comprehensible i.e., they are not self-explanatory. The proposal needs to be complete and comprehensive.

4. Considering the facts enumerated above, the architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission and suggested to resubmit the revised design scheme adhering to all the above observations given by the Commission along with pointwise incorporation & reply.

Found conceptually suitable (not limited to these observations).

‘The conceptual suitability is only with reference to the mandate of the Commission. However, it would be reassessed at the formal stage based on the 20 point criteria as available on the DUAC website.  It would not be a substitute for formal approval of the proposal referred through the concerned local body in terms of section 12 of the DUAC Act, 1973.’

Building Plans proposal for Serendipity Arts Foundation- Live Museum at Plot No.02, Industrial Area Phase-II, Vasant Kunj. (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 layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on June 05, 2007. The Commission approved the revised layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on August 12, 2021, specific observations were given.

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

a) The Commission observed that the outdoor air-conditioners/split AC etc. have been provided to address the requisite air conditioning requirements of the site. It is suggested to explore the possibility of a centralised ammonia-based air-conditioning system instead of individual air-conditioning as indicated in the presentation submitted for the consideration of the Commission, it would also support increasing the overall rating for the project.

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.in.

c) All 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.

4. The architect is advised to incorporate all the suggestions given by the Commission in the subsequent submission i.e. at the formal stage and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

Found conceptually suitable (not limited to these observations).

‘The conceptual suitability is only with reference to the mandate of the Commission. However, it would be reassessed at the formal stage based on the 20 point criteria as available on the DUAC website.  It would not be a substitute for formal approval of the proposal referred through the concerned local body in terms of section 12 of the DUAC Act, 1973.’

Proposal in respect of Vasant Vihar Bus Depot at Vasant Vihar. (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) Considering first of kind proposals in the City and its location right at the important junction, the Commission observed that the proposal cannot be studied in isolation i.e. it needs to be reviewed in conjunction with the surrounding facilities, therefore, an appropriate number of 3D views (with better viewing angles including night-time 3D views to understand the lighting mechanism also) of the design scheme complete in all respect (including signages, hoarding, if any) should be provided. Annotated 3D views should specify the materials to be used on the façade, for a better understanding of the proposal with materials.

b) The submitted 3d views should also depict elements like electric signboards, boom barriers and other such informational/navigational elements likely to be used in the design scheme.

c) 3D views of the areas (including terrace) accommodating Bus parking/bays etc. should be submitted for a better understanding of the proposal. Also, bus parking provided on the terrace should have a shading mechanism (preferably with solar panels)  to serve a dual purpose to provide shade as well as helps restrict carbon footprint.

d) Elevations/sections are found to be missing in the submission. The elevations and sections need to be detailed clearly showing the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, provisions for screening of air-conditioning, plumbing details etc. The same shall be co-related with appropriate 3D views.

e) The design proposal should submit an appropriate number of detailed sections (longitudinal and cross-section across the site) through end to end of the proposed scheme for a better understanding of the overall scheme. Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

f) The area shall also be used for retail and office spaces, a lot of waste is supposed to be generated in the complex, a detailed solid waste management plan proposal along with its location on the site plan be submitted.

g) It was observed that the location of the public toilet (under Swachh Bharat) is also part of the submission but their detailed drawings (including screening mechanism, elevations, sections, 3D views etc.) have not been submitted.

h) Similarly, the design of the gate and the boundary wall would also have a bearing on the overall visual, urban, and aesthetic quality of the complex, thus a detailed drawing complete in all respect (plan/elevations/sections/3D views etc.) shall be provided.

i) Proper spaces should be designed for Signages, hoardings etc. at this stage so as not to mar the aesthetics at a later stage. A planned scheme of signages to be created and the same shall be implemented throughout the design proposal.

j) Greenery and foliage has not been sufficiently integrated into the design.

k) 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.  Calculations showing proportion of energy needs being internally met should be provided.  Also, integration of future-proofing for electric mobility for buses, cars, and two-wheelers are not evident in design.

l) 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.

m) The air-conditioning mechanism of the design proposal should be presented appropriately (also for the individual shops/offices etc.), as the outdoor air-conditioning units could spoil the visual, aesthetics of the façade/complex. An ammonia based centralized system could be considered.  A detailed scheme should be presented with an appropriate screening mechanism so as not to mar the aesthetics.

n) All water tanks, DG sets, DG exhaust pipes, plumbing pipes, service equipment, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 & 12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in. 

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

Layout and building plan proposal in respect of Senior Secondary School at Satbari. (Conceptual Stage)

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

2. The Commission did not accept the concept of the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on June 10, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The layout and building plan proposal received (online) at the conceptual 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-07062127041 dated 18.06.2021. Based on the replies submitted and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) Two small basements with ramps have been proposed near the main building block to accommodate the requisite parking requirements for the site. The architect/proponent should ensure its construction at the site. The same would be checked at the time of receiving the proposal at NOC for completion.

b) Also, the Commission suggested exploring the possibility of covering those ramps with solar panels to protect against extreme weather conditions like heat, rain etc. and also helps reduce the carbon footprint & load on conventional electricity requirements.

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 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.

4. The architect is advised to incorporate all the suggestions given by the Commission in the subsequent submission i.e. at the formal stage and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

Found conceptually suitable (not limited to these observations).

‘The conceptual suitability is only with reference to the mandate of the Commission. However, it would be reassessed at the formal stage based on the 20 point criteria as available on the DUAC website.  It would not be a substitute for formal approval of the proposal referred through the concerned local body in terms of section 12 of the DUAC Act, 1973.’