Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1646th meeting held on 13.04.2022.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1646th meeting held on 13.04.2022 was discussed.

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

2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on August 05, 2022, and the concept of the proposal was not accepted in the meeting held on September 02, 2022, specific observations were given.

3. The building plan proposal (2 basements+G+4 floors) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letters no: OL-29072155032 dated 10.08.2021 and OL-30082127063 dated 08.09.2021 respectively. Based on the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. 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.

b. All service equipment, water tanks, outdoor air-conditioning units, DG set, DG exhaust pipes, plumbing pipes 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 South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal in respect of the Police Station and Residential quarters at its meeting held on September 14, 2011. The proposal for NOC for completion was not accepted in the meeting held on December 04, 2019, specific observations were given.

3. The revised proposal for NOC for Completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-30111958011 dated 12.12.2019. Based on the revised submission made, the proposal for NOC for Completion for Police Station and Residential Quarters was found acceptable. 

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

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal in respect of Police Lines and Residential Quarters at its meeting held on January 5, 2011. The proposal for NOC for completion was not accepted in the meeting held on December 04, 2019, specific observations were given.

3. The revised proposal for NOC for Completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-28111959006 dated 10.12.2019. Based on the revised submission made, the proposal for NOC for Completion for Police Lines and Residential Quarters was found acceptable. 

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

2. The Commission approved the overall layout and building plan proposal (for phase-I) at its meeting held on May 08, 2006, and the proposal for NOC for completion of staff housing (phase-I) was accepted in the meeting held on March 17, 2010. The building plan proposal for staff housing (phase-II) was approved in the meeting held on March 16, 2016.

3. The building plan proposal for NOC for completion for staff housing (phase-II) received (online) was scrutinised and found acceptable.

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

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

2. The Commission approved the layout and the building plan proposal at its meeting held on September 30, 2009, and the proposal for additions/alterations in respect of a library, addition of canteen, demolition & reconstruction of Principal bungalow was approved in the meeting held on February 26, 2020.

3. The building plan proposal for addition/alterations in existing boys’ hostel (addition of two floors (2^nd & 3^rd) above, reconstruction of a kitchen and dining on the ground floor, common rooms on first & second floor above kitchen & dining, addition of 2 lifts, broadening of existing staircases etc.), and addition of a new faculty block (G+1) adjacent to existing academic block received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco Web Ex 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. Faculty Block:

a. The Commission observed that a small part of the terrace has been utilised to install solar panels though a large terrace is available. A sufficient part of the terrace should be utilised to install solar photovoltaic panels and help to reduce the carbon footprint. It should be suitably accommodated and screened so as not to mar the aesthetics. 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.

b. The provision of air-conditioning is not clear in the submission. The Commission opines that the outdoor air conditioner units on the façade could be an eye-sore to the building façade. To avoid the same, provisions should be made in the design to accommodate and screen the outdoor units appropriately, so as not to mar the aesthetics. It should be ensured that the water drainage coming from air-conditioning does not spoil the surfaces and walls. 

B. Boys Hostel Block:

a. Two floors have been proposed (2nd & 3rd) over an old construction (along with the reconstruction of a kitchen and dining on the ground floor, common rooms on first & second floor above kitchen & dining, addition of 2 lifts, broadening of existing staircases etc.). The arrangement of the structural columns, in the old hostel block, has been designed so that it is made independent of the old construction and protrudes out from the existing superstructure from all the sides. Though the Commission appreciated its arrangements in the front façade, in the internal courtyard, it does not seem to be aesthetically pleasing.  Therefore, the Commission desires that some more alternative options (2 to 3) should be explored & presented for the internal courtyard along with appropriate details including 3d-views other details, material specifications etc. for better understanding & clarity.

b. In addition to the above, the Commission did not appreciate the structural column arrangement proposed under the vault (on the 2/3rd floor) which appears to have been proposed without thoughtfulness & visual/aesthetic considerations. The structural arrangement for that area should be relooked at and reworked to achieve maximum efficiency and not mar the aesthetics.

c. Taking into consideration the proposed structural arrangements for the proposed two floors above, the Commission desires to understand the mechanism for plumbing & rainwater pipes with appropriate details including 3d-views, plans etc. & other details (including screening), material specifications etc. for better understanding & clarity.

d. Inconsistencies have been observed in the drawings and 3d views i.e. the details in the drawings like steps and ramp at the entrance have not been reflected in the 3d views thereby not representing a correct condition. Also, the proposed extension on the upper floors is not shown appropriately in the plans. The drawings should be made self-explanatory, correlated and revised, and needs to be reviewed and resubmitted.

e. It is understood that most of the rooms in the hostel block may not be air-conditioned but can preplan for potential additions in future. Air-conditioners could be an eye-sore to the building façade. To avoid the same, the provision shall be made in the design to accommodate the outdoor units, at this stage, so as not to mar the aesthetics. A scheme needs to be submitted to show the placement, screening and material of screening for the same in plans/elevations and 3d views.

f. The Commission observed 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. 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.

h. As the kitchen and the dining area have been proposed on the ground floor as well, a lot of waste (dry and wet, food items, etc.) would be generated therefore, a detailed solid waste management plan to depict effective means of waste disposal along with their location should also be submitted.

i. The Commission observed that the terrace has not been utilised appropriately to install solar panels though a large terrace is available. A sufficient part of the terrace should be utilised to install solar photovoltaic panels and help to reduce the carbon footprint. It should be suitably accommodated and screened so as not to mar the aesthetics. 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.

j. All service equipment, water tanks, outdoor air-conditioning units, DG set, DG exhaust pipes, plumbing pipes 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.

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 South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and a detailed discussion was held with the architect during Cisco Web Ex 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 proposal is located at an important location (on a busy traffic intersection) in West Delhi. 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. The Commission observed that 3d views from all the four sides have not been submitted. A sufficient number of Self-explanatory, annotated 3D views (including night views, to understand lighting mechanism, and birds' eye views) at various angles, clearly showing the proposed design scheme with proper annotations and corresponding to proposal drawings be submitted for a better understanding of the scale, proportion, materials etc. in the actual context of the surroundings.

b. As the site is located in a congested area (on a busy traffic intersection) and with the addition of activities including Retail, Bus parking etc. would put an additional load on the existing site and surroundings. A detailed traffic assessment is suggested to be carried out before the commencement of the project to ensure hindrance free accessibility to the site and does not further congest the existing site surroundings.

c. The frontage development has been proposed along the main roads as ‘Retail’ which would be accessible to the pedestrians from the main roads. Pedestrian movement (circulation and pattern) needs to be detailed (details in the street including street furniture, signages, lighting etc.)  and ensure a seamless and safe pedestrian movement which needs to be clearly marked on the plans, 3D views etc. for better understanding the proposal.  An appropriate number of 3D views (at eye level) of the frontage should be provided for better clarity and understanding.

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

e. The status of the site is not very clear, in terms of title/holding, site demarcation etc. The proposal is to be examined holistically, in absence of the correct situation of the site, it is tough to examine the proposal judiciously. Also, the overall site has been shown in three parts. The proposed submission is for one part of the site. It is unclear from the submission as to how the rest of the site be utilised (considering it is in the vicinity of the proposed development, the context needs to be known) and the integration of three parts of the site.

f. The 3d views and layouts (plans/elevations/sections) need to be co-related to ensure there are no discrepancies in the submission.  The elevations and sections need to be detailed clearly showing the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, plumbing details etc. The Plans and elevations for all drawings across the site should be co-related.

g. In future, it is expected that the fleet of electric buses would be increased substantially, it is suggested to envisage and include the appropriate infrastructure including charging stations in the proposal at this stage and be shown appropriately in the design scheme with relevant details.

h. As the proposal is for a Bus Depot, a lot of maintenance works including washing, cleaning etc. of the buses shall be undertaken. To ensure the oil spilling and cleaning activities do not percolate into the soil and mix & contaminate the other discharge of the complex, it should be ensured that appropriate treatments and catchments are created in designated areas to avoid soil and water pollution.

i. Also, a lot of waste (dry and wet, food items, etc.) would be generated in the complex therefore, a detailed solid waste management plan to depict effective means of waste disposal along with their location shall be submitted.

j. As the provisions have also been made for the retail, office spaces etc. it should be ensured that the noise and smell from the depot do not disturb the functioning of the retail, office spaces by appropriate screening and insulating mechanisms. The details shall be reflected appropriately in the respective drawings.

k. The air-conditioning mechanism is not clear, its mechanism needs to be detailed i.e. location and the appropriate treatments used to conceal/screen the air-conditioning system. Also, it shall be ensured that there is no leakage from the AC unit causing deterioration of spaces (indoor and outdoor).

l. The terrace plan shows the buses being parked with no shade. The Commission observed that the terrace has not been utilised appropriately to install solar panels though a large terrace is available. A sufficient part of the terrace should be utilised to install solar photovoltaic panels which shall not only provide shade to the parked buses and help reduce the carbon footprint. It should be suitably accommodated and screened so as not to mar the aesthetics. 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. Submitted landscape plans lack clarity and need to be improved with appropriate treatment (Hardscape & Softscape). They shall be submitted in the respective drawings and shall indicate details of trees planted, and types of species on an appropriate scale, (in terms of the point nos. Six of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

n. All service equipment, water tanks, air-conditioning units, DG set, DG exhaust pipes, plumbing pipes 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.

3. 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 South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on March 17, 2022, and the concept of the building plan proposal was accepted in the meeting held on April 07, 2022, respectively, and specific observations were given.

3. The building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-15032255012 dated 22.03.2022 and OL-04042227026 dated 13.04.2022 respectively. Based on the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission suggested relooking the option given for ‘Headroom Mitigation under triangular openings’ with some alternate arrangements.

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 plumbing pipes, service equipment, diesel tank location, water tanks, solar panels etc. shall 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 North DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission accepted the concept of the building plan proposal at its meeting held on February 17, 2022, and specific observations were given.

3. The building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the observations of the commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-20122127088 dated 29.12.2021 and OL-01022227010 dated 22.02.2022. Based on the revised submission made the following observations are to be complied with:

a. 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.

b. All plumbing pipes, service equipment, outdoor air-conditioner units, DG set and its exhaust pipes, 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 building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission intends to examine the proposal in context to the surroundings 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. A sufficient number of Self-explanatory annotated 3D views (including birds' eye views) of each tower separately (including EWS block, Community hall)  at various angles, clearly showing the proposed design scheme with proper annotations and corresponding to proposal drawings be submitted for a better understanding of the scale, proportion, materials etc. in the actual context of the surroundings.

b. The provision of air-conditioning is not clear in the submission. The air-conditioners could be an eye-sore to the building façade. To avoid the same, the provision shall be made in the design to accommodate the outdoor units, at this stage, so as not to mar the aesthetics. A scheme needs to be submitted to show the placement, screening and material of screening for the same in plans/elevations and 3d views.

c. The balconies need to be screened appropriately along with the provision of screening of drying clothes. Innovative architectural features and materials shall screen dish antennas in the balconies. 

d. A planned scheme of signages to be created and the same shall be implemented in the design proposal to maintain uniformity and enable facade control.

e. The design of the gate and the boundary wall could have a bearing on the overall aesthetics of the complex, the same needs to be detailed for gate/grill detail/material applications coordinated with plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc.

f. The two ramps (open to the sky) provided access to the basement, which could lead to problems in case of harsh weather conditions like heat, rain etc. Thus, appropriate solutions like covering the ramp with appropriate material are to be explored to ensure the basement is protected from water seepage etc. The covering detail for the ramp to be designed and submitted at this stage, keeping in mind the aesthetics of the complex i.e. Design, form, material etc. used for covering of the ramps.

g. Work of art is missing in the submission.  It shall be located at an appropriate level (human eye level) which is also visible from the outside, and be of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the building.

h. Provisions are to be made for public toilets/washrooms should be as per applicable rules/regulations/guidelines etc. It could have a bearing on the overall aesthetics of the complex. Therefore, relevant details including plans/elevations/sections/3d views to be submitted along with the screening mechanism.

i. In addition to the above, the detail of the parapet shall be such that the rainwater does not fall outside leading to seepage/waterlogging.

j. To maintain the architectural control and the façade of the complex, the Commission desires that the proponent should formulate some strategies and lay down preconditions which strongly ensure that the approved façade of the building complex cannot be changed without the approval of the Commission (at all times in the future).

k. The Commission observed that the terraces have not been utilised appropriately to install solar panels though a large terrace area is available. A sufficient part of the terrace should be utilised to install solar photovoltaic panels and help reduce the carbon footprint. It should be suitably accommodated and screened so as not to mar the aesthetics. 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.

l. All plumbing pipes, service equipment, outdoor air-conditioner units, DG set and its exhaust pipes, 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.

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

a. The Commission intent to examine the proposal in context to the surroundings 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. A sufficient number of Self-explanatory annotated 3D views (including birds' eye views) of each tower separately (including EWS block, Community hall)  at various angles, clearly showing the proposed design scheme with proper annotations and corresponding to proposal drawings be submitted for a better understanding of the scale, proportion, materials etc. in the actual context of the surroundings.

b. The provision of air-conditioning is not clear in the submission. The air-conditioners could be an eye-sore to the building façade. To avoid the same, the provision shall be made in the design to accommodate the outdoor units, at this stage, so as not to mar the aesthetics. A scheme needs to be submitted to show the placement, screening and material of screening for the same in plans/elevations and 3d views.

c. The balconies need to be screened appropriately along with the provision of screening of drying clothes. Innovative architectural features and materials shall screen dish antennas in the balconies. 

d. A planned scheme of signages to be created and the same shall be implemented in the design proposal to maintain uniformity and enable facade control.

e. The design of the gate and the boundary wall could have a bearing on the overall aesthetics of the complex, the same needs to be detailed for gate/grill detail/material applications coordinated with plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc.

f. The ramps (open to the sky) provided access to the basement, which could lead to problems in case of harsh weather conditions like heat, rain etc. Thus, appropriate solutions like covering the ramp with appropriate material are to be explored to ensure the basement is protected from water seepage etc. The covering detail for the ramp to be designed and submitted at this stage, keeping in mind the aesthetics of the complex i.e. Design, form, material etc. used for covering of the ramps.

g. Work of art is missing in the submission.  It shall be located at an appropriate level (human eye level) which is also visible from the outside, and be of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the building.

h. Provisions are to be made for public toilets/washrooms should be as per applicable rules/regulations/guidelines etc. It could have a bearing on the overall aesthetics of the complex. Therefore, relevant details including plans/elevations/sections/3d views to be submitted along with the screening mechanism.

i. In addition to the above, the detail of the parapet shall be such that the rainwater does not fall outside leading to seepage/waterlogging.

j. To maintain the architectural control and the façade of the complex, the Commission desires that the proponent should formulate some strategies and lay down preconditions which strongly ensure that the approved façade of the building complex cannot be changed without the approval of the Commission (at all times in the future).

k. The Commission observed that the terraces have not been utilised appropriately to install solar panels though a large terrace area is available. A sufficient part of the terrace should be utilised to install solar photovoltaic panels and help reduce the carbon footprint. It should be suitably accommodated and screened so as not to mar the aesthetics. 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.

l. All plumbing pipes, service equipment, outdoor air-conditioner units, DG set and its exhaust pipes, 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.

3. 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 NDMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.

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

a. 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.

b. All plumbing pipes, service equipment, outdoor air-conditioner units, DG set and its exhaust pipes, 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 NDMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on April 07, 2022, specific observations were given.

3. The building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-04042224006 dated 13.04.2022. Based on the revised submission made the following observations are to be complied with:

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

b. The Parking norms should adhere to the applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc.

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 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) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

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

2. The Commission approved the revised layout plan in respect of Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) at its meeting held on July 25, 2012.

3. The building plan proposal for the Administrative Block (Phase-I) comprising G+5 stories received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that the proposed design scheme for the administrative block (phase-I) is part of a large campus with many existing buildings in the close vicinity. To understand the scale, form, character, material and architecture of the surrounding buildings, an appropriate number of photographs uncut photographs of the surrounding buildings should be provided to understand the context of the surroundings and harmony in the proposed design scheme better.

b. As the design proposal is part of a large campus with many existing buildings in the close vicinity. The Commission desires that the proposed design 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.

c. A sufficient number of Self-explanatory, annotated 3D views (including night views, to understand lighting mechanism, and birds' eye views) at various angles, clearly showing the proposed design scheme with proper annotations and corresponding to proposal drawings be submitted for a better understanding of the scale, proportion, materials etc. in the actual context of the surroundings.

d. The Commission observed that the proposal is at a Formal level, but the quality of submitted drawings is not appropriate i.e. scanned copies from a report have been submitted for the consideration of the Commission and observed that the submission is found to be not comprehensible. The 3d views do not provide a clear understanding of the materials on the facade. The proposed design scheme should be submitted with an adequate medium for clarity and a better understanding of the proposal.

e. One of the 3d views shows a boundary around the building complex. As the submission is part of an existing complex, boundary might not be feasible/permissible and thus should not be shown in the layout, the same should be clarified and relooked at, and a corrected coordinated drawing should be submitted.

f. The requisite parking requirements of the site have been provided on the surface, spoiling the visual, urban aesthetics of the surroundings creating a heat island effect, and also depriving the site of valuable consolidated green spaces.  Also, phase II of the administrative block has been envisaged for future construction. It was, accordingly, suggested to explore the possibility of creating basements and accommodating all the current and future requirements of parking in the basement itself. The freed up spaces be utilised for creating large consolidated greens, recreational spaces etc. for the users.

g. A lot of waste (dry and wet, food items, etc.) would be generated in the complex therefore, a detailed solid waste management plan to depict effective means of waste disposal along with their location shall be submitted.

h. 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.

i. All plumbing pipes, service equipment, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels, DG set, DG exhaust pipes 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.

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 NDMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission approved the building plans at its meeting held on August 10, 2006, and the NOC for completion was accepted in the meeting held on January 23, 2015.

3. The building plan proposal for regularisation (part) of the existing completion of the India International Centre (IIC) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco Web Ex 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. While forwarding the proposal the concerned local body i.e. NDMC has indicated the following:

“…….applicant has submitted plans for regularisation of following existing structures: Room (at ground floor in setback) facility (at second floor) facility (at ground floor) Panel room (at ground floor in setback) for staff and drivers (at ground floor in setback) Passage between main kitchen & Lotus lounge (at first floor)…….”  

b. The Secretary, IIC vide their letter dated 25.01.2022 has indicated the following:

“…….2. This request for rectification concerns a small area of about 130 sqm, on which the IIC has only changed the material used for the roofing of the space (from cloth to a metal sheet roof).

3. No increase in height of the said space has been done. The space (on the 2^nd floor) has a roof height of 12.5 Metres from the Natural Ground Level.

4. No changes have been done in the elevation of the space……..”

c. In addition to the above, the architect has submitted a proposed design scheme for the toilet under Swachh Bharat (without detailed drawings, elevations, sections, 3D views etc.) near one of the entrances of the campus. The Commission observed that it could have a bearing on the overall aesthetics of the complex. Therefore, relevant details including plans/elevations/sections/3d views are to be submitted along with the screening mechanism for the consideration of the Commission.

d. The Commission has taken note of the comments given by the concerned local body, Secretary IIC, a detailed discussion held with the architect, and the submission given by the architect/proponent for the consideration of the Commission. The Commission observed that all three (local body, Secretary IIC and the architect/proponent) have conflicting views on the same proposal submitted for the consideration of the Commission which is not appreciated by the Commission.

e. In addition to the above, insufficient information related to the portion for which regularisation is required has been furnished by the architect/proponent. An appropriate number of photographs with other relevant details (including plans, elevations, sections, photographs etc.) should be provided with previous approvals (formal) for that area so that the proposal can be examined judiciously by the Commission.

f. Given the insufficient information provided by the architect/proponent, the proposal could not be understood 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 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 the 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 March 17, 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-14032222015 dated 22.03.2022. Based on the replies submitted and revised submissions made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. Triple stack parking provisions have been shown in the front setback to achieve the requisite parking requirements. The architect/proponent shall ensure its actual execution at the site and the same shall be examined at the time of receiving the proposal at the completion stage. Also, this area should be appropriately screened so as not to mar the aesthetics of the complex. Simultaneously, the drainage system of that area should be properly addressed to avoid flooding of the triple stack parking during the rainy season.

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 plumbing pipes, service equipment, 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 NDMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.

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

a. The quality of 3d views is not appropriate. They are sketchy and the scale, proportion, materials etc. are not understood. Also, the 3D views have been submitted without annotations thus making it difficult to comprehend the materials etc. on the façade, which could have a bearing on the visual, urban aesthetics of the complex. A sufficient number of Self-explanatory, annotated 3D views (including bird's eye view etc.) at various angles, clearly showing the proposed design scheme with proper annotations specifying the materials to be used on the façade shall be provided for a better understanding of the proposal.

b. The submitted site photographs do not clearly indicate the required details. The photographs of the existing built construction at the rear are missing in the submission.  An appropriate number of existing site pictures (from various angles) to be provided to understand the existing site condition better. They need to be resubmitted with proper uncut views from all sides.  

c. The project is submitted at the Formal stage therefore, an appropriate number of sections (longitudinal and cross-section across the site as well) shall be submitted for a better understanding of the overall scheme 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.

d. The mechanism for air conditioning is not clear in the submission, needs to be detailed and the appropriate treatments used to conceal/screen the air-conditioning system. Provisions should be made in the design to accommodate and screen the air-conditioning system such that they do not mar the aesthetics of the complex. Also, it shall be ensured that there is no leakage from the AC unit causing deterioration of spaces (indoor and outdoor).

e. The submitted landscape plans lack clarity in explaining the landscape scheme. The same needs to be more detailed with appropriate treatment (Hardscape & Softscape) and need to be shown clearly in the relevant drawings, 3D views etc.

f. The boundary wall and entrance gate would have a bearing on the overall visual, and aesthetic quality of the complex and thus need to be designed appropriately and highlighted with relevant details (including plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc.).

g. Work of art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at the appropriate level (human eye) which is also visible from outside, to be installed 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.in need to be made.

h. The elements of sustainability are missing in the design scheme. The proposal shall be designed to maximise energy efficiency with appropriate use of the solar panels on building rooftops etc. and screen them by using appropriate architectural mechanisms. These shall be identified and marked on the plans.  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.

i. All service equipment, air-conditioning units, solar panels, water tanks, DG set, exhaust pipes 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.

j. Overall, the design scheme submitted by the architect is not comprehensible i.e. they are not self-explanatory.

3. 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 did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on April 07, 2022, specific observations were given.

3. The building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-23032222018 dated 13.04.2022, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. Double stack parking provisions have been shown in the basements (B1 & B2) to achieve the requisite parking requirements. The architect/proponent shall ensure its actual execution at the site and the same shall be examined at the time of receiving the proposal at the completion stage.

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 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) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

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

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

a. The Commission observed that the submission is at the formal stage but, the quality of 3d views is not appropriate. They are sketchy and the scale, proportion, materials etc. are not understood. Thus, making it difficult to comprehend the materials etc. on the façade, which could have a bearing on the visual, urban aesthetics of the complex. A sufficient number of Self-explanatory, annotated 3D views (including bird's eye view etc.) at various angles and corresponding to proposal drawings be submitted for a better understanding of the scale, proportion, materials etc. Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

b. The design proposal is part of a campus accommodating the Government of India Press as well. The Commission desires that the proposed design scheme for the housing proposal cannot be studied in isolation i.e. it needs to be reviewed in conjunction with the surrounding facilities, therefore, 3D views of the overall 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.

c. As the proposed development is part of an existing complex (Govt. of India-Press), it shall be ensured that the façade/elevation should have a resemblance to the existing character to ensure harmony in the design scheme. The colour palette and the choice of material shall be similar/same as the existing development.

d. The project is submitted at the Formal stage therefore, an appropriate number of sections (longitudinal and cross-section across the site as well) shall be submitted for a better understanding of the overall scheme clearly showing the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, plumbing details etc.

e. The Commission observed that the proposal is at a Formal level, but the quality of submitted drawings is not appropriate (scanned copies from a report), and found to be not easily comprehensible. The 3d views are unclear and do not provide a correct picture of the materials on the facade. The pictures are blurred and not easy to comprehend. The current submission lacks legibility & clarity and thus is not appreciated by the Commission.

f. The submission shows parking in the stilt area under segregated blocks. It is suggested to provide the parking in the basement (one interconnected basement beneath the proposed building blocks) to ensure the parking requirement is fulfilled. Also, this would fulfil the need for additional parking in the future. The stilt area can then be used for community purposes including recreational etc. for gatherings and functions.

g. The boundary wall and entrance gate would have a bearing on the overall visual, and aesthetic quality of the complex and thus need to be designed appropriately and highlighted with relevant details (including plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc.).

h. A lot of waste (dry and wet, food items, etc.) would be generated in the complex therefore, a detailed solid waste management plan to depict effective means of waste disposal along with their location shall be submitted.

i. Work of art of suitable scale, size and material, imparting character and identity to the complex, at the appropriate level (human eye) which is also visible from outside, to be installed 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.in need to be made.

j. Provisions be made for public toilets/washrooms should be as per applicable rules/regulations/guidelines etc. It could have a bearing on the overall aesthetics of the complex. Therefore, relevant details including plans/elevations/sections/3d views to be submitted along with the screening mechanism.

k. The area under solar panels to be maximised and help reduce the carbon footprint. It should be suitably accommodated and screened so as not to mar the aesthetics. 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.

l. All plumbing pipes, water tanks, service equipment, outdoor air-conditioner units, solar panels, DG set, DG exhaust pipes 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.

m. Overall, the design scheme submitted by the architect is not comprehensible i.e. they are not self-explanatory.

3. 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 Additional Building and Workshop For I.T.I. Shahdara. (Conceptual Stage)

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

2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal for additional building and workshop at its meeting held on January 04, 2021, and did not accept the concept of the proposal at its meetings held on July 17, 2019, February 26, 2020, and June 26, 2020, respectively specific observations were given.

3. The building plan proposal for additional building and workshop received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letters no: OL-28121856005 dated 10.01.2019, OL-03071927069 dated 25.07.2019, OL-31012027019 dated 05.03.2020, and OL-26.06.2020 dated 03.07.2020 respectively, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. An appropriate number of photographs of the existing built construction in the campus (near the proposed scheme) should be provided to understand the context better.

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 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) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

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.

Layout and Building plan proposal in respect of Residential development for Delhi Transport Corporation at Hari Nagar. (Conceptual Stage)

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

2. The proposal was deferred.

Layout and Building plan proposal in respect of 135 nos. Railway Quarters on a parcel A of 7123 sqm Railway land. (Conceptual Stage)

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

2. The proposal was deferred.

Feasibility study for the elevated corridor between INA to airport integrating GPRA colonies. (Conceptual Stage)

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

2. The proposal was deferred.

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

2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on April 07, 2022, specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-31032223018 dated 13.04.2022. Based on the revised submission made the following observations are to be complied with:

a. 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.

b. All service equipment, water tanks, solar panels, DG exhaust pipes, plumbing pipes 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.