Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1657th meeting held on 30.06.2022.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1657th meeting held on 30.06.2022 was discussed.

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 June 16, 2022, specific observations were given.

3. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations 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-15042223020 dated 26.04.2022 and OL-14062223036 dated 21.06.2022 respectively. Based on the replies submitted and submissions made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the proposal is at the formal stage and the address for the property indicated on the title of the proposal is as under:

“…….2590-30 situated at Chaman Wara Phatak Habash Khan Tilak Bazar, Khari Baoli, Delhi…...”

However, the address indicated on the project report/drawings etc. is as under:

“……...2529-30 situated at Chaman Wara Phatak Habash Khan Tilak Bazar, Khari Baoli, Delhi-110006…….”

b) In view of the above, due to a mismatch in the proposal received at the formal stage, it is returned to the concerned local body.

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

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

a) After going through the overall design proposal (formal stage), the Commission observed that the quality of the submission is far below standards and incomplete (only one very basic elevation and section has been provided, and detailed layout plan, landscape plans etc. are missing, floor plans have been prepared incorrectly etc.) have been provided for the consideration of the Commission which is not appreciated. Design proposal complete in all respect must be submitted for consideration by the Commission.

b) A detailed layout plan of the site is missing, a detailed layout plan of the site must be prepared and submitted with all the relevant details including mandatory setbacks etc. The unit plans appear to be inefficient in terms of better functionality in design, allocation of spaces its connections with various spaces, need to be relooked at and accordingly revise the design scheme.

c) The proposal is at the formal stage, the quality of 3d views is improper & unacceptable and is not appropriate for submission at the formal stage. The scale, proportion, materials etc. are not understood properly. They shall be revised and submitted with clarity and better viewing angles.

d) The proposal is located in an area (Old Delhi) surrounded from all sides by the existing residential locality. Considering its location, the proposal cannot be examined in isolation it needs to be reviewed in the existing site context to the surroundings. Annotated 3D views of the proposed design scheme must be superimposed on the existing context of the surroundings, including road networks, and structures around the site, with better viewing angles and present with overall clarity of the site, façade, material specification etc. in a judicious manner for the Commission to comment on.

e) The Commission observed that only one very basic elevation has been provided. The building proposal is situated in Old Delhi (Darya Ganj area) the façade of the building looks very gaudy and is also not contextual to the surroundings i.e., does not match the heritage character of Old Delhi. Thus, Commission suggested that elevation needs to be redesigned completely and detailed elevations need to be submitted by taking inspiration from the heritage character of Shahjahanabad with better architectural features, elements, form, materials etc. by exploring the possibility of using natural materials similar to the character of Old Delhi.

f) The Commission also observed that the proposal is primarily a housing society, a combined mobility plan must be submitted clearly indicating the pedestrian and vehicular circulation with proper drop-off points for the users (residents).

g) The parking plan is not understood. The accessibility to the basement is not understood properly. The parking plan needs to be detailed including ramps, accessibility to the basement, location of no. of cars, car movement patterns etc. to have a clear understanding of the functioning of the basement floor. Also, provisions made for back-to-back parking in the basement appear to be not feasible and need to be relooked at.

h) The design proposal is at the formal stage, but only one very basic section has been provided. An appropriate number of sections (longitudinal and cross-section across the site as well) must be provided clearly highlighting the materials, finishes, architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, plumbing details etc. for a better understanding of the overall scheme. Also, the plans and elevations for all drawings across the site shall be co-related and submitted. The elevation features in the buildings are not reflected in the sections. Detailed sections reflecting the elevation features (as shown in 3d views as well) shall be submitted.

i) Also, the skin sections (in detail) must be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials better.

j) 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.

k) A planned scheme of signages is to be created and the same shall be implemented in the design proposal to maintain uniformity.

l) The air-conditioners could be an eye-sore to the building façade. To avoid the same, a design scheme must be prepared thoughtfully with screening mechanism provisions, so as not to mar the aesthetics. The same shall be reflected in appropriate layouts and 3d views.

m) Innovative architectural features and materials shall screen dish antennas in the balconies, it shall be presented through a design scheme in a graphical format to understand it better.

n) The greens in the site are fragmented and scattered. Being a residential complex with so many residential units consolidated greens should have been created for the users (including women, children and the elderly).  A landscape plan is missing in the submission, a detailed landscape plan explaining the landscape scheme including appropriate treatment (Hardscape & Softscape) details of the trees planted, types of species on an appropriate scale (in terms of the point nos. 06 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

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

3. Overall, incomplete design submission (at the formal stage) has been presented. Considering the proposal at the formal stage, it needs revisions completely including plans, elevations, sections, & other relevant details required for the project at the formal stage and make it self-explanatory for its judicious examination by the Commission.

4. The architect is advised to re-design/re-look at the design scheme with a fresh approach for the best utilisation of the available space, adhering to the above observations of the Commission & furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.

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 DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. Earlier, the building plans of the proposal were approved by the Commission at its meeting held on January 20, 2005, and approved the proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on October 16, 2019, specific observations were given.

3. The proposal for NOC for Completion (Part- for additions/alteration approved in the meeting held on October 16, 2019) received (online) at the completion 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 related to completeness of the proposal received at the Completion stage (part). The architect has confirmed during discussion (online) that some of the information required is indeed missed from their side and assured of its completeness in the subsequent submission. Based on the discussion held and the submission made the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that incomplete submission has been submitted at the completion stage (part) for its consideration (superimposed drawings are missing, actual photographs of the area for which completion (part) is required are missing etc.). A proposal for NOC for completion, complete in all respect, must be submitted for consideration by the Commission.

b) The proposal being at the Completion stage (part) needs to provide an appropriate nos. of uncut/clear photographs (areas for which completion is required) to substantiate the actual work executed at the site.

c) In addition to the above, approval received from DUAC (at the formal stage) must be superimposed on the plans/elevations/sections etc., over the actual built structure on the site, existing & proposed changes done in the design from the approval (by DUAC), to understand the extents of deviations made internally as well as external changes made with respect to the sanctioned plan.

4. In view of the insufficient information provided by the architect the proposal at the Completion stage, it could not be appreciated by the Commission.

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

2. The Commission approved the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on April 18, 2018.

3. The proposal for NOC for Completion (Part-in respect of Residential block and Basement floor) for Vietnam Embassy at EP-7A, Chandragupta Marg, Chanakyapuri Diplomatic Enclave received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the comments given by the concerned local body i.e., NDMC and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco Web Ex meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission related to completeness of the proposal received at the Completion stage (part). Based on the comments received from the concerned local body (NDMC), a discussion held (online) with the architect, and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The proposal has been submitted at the Completion stage (Part-in respect of Residential Block and Basement floor) and needs to provide an appropriate nos. of uncut/clear photographs from all sides (areas for which completion is required including basement, ramps to basement, stilt area, common areas provided under residential block etc.) to substantiate an actual work executed at the site.

b) In addition to the above, exposed plumbing pipes are visible in the stilt area. Exposed DG exhaust pipes are visible running on the façade of the residential block spoiling the visual, urban aesthetics of the complex which should have been screened appropriately so as to avoid marring the aesthetics.   

4. In view of the insufficient information provided by the architect the proposal at the Completion stage, it could not be appreciated by the Commission.

5. The proposal for NOC for completion must be submitted completed in all respect including uncut/clear photographs from all sides for areas for which completion has been requested and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

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

2. The Commission approved the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on September 23, 2015, and the NOC for the completion plan proposal was accepted in the meeting held on August 12, 2021.

3. The building plans proposal for additions/alterations (construction of planters, waterfall & water bodies, spiral staircase in place of planter at ground floor, landscape, feature wall near guard room, elevational features projection at terrace level, extension of dining at ground floor & bedroom, toilet, dress at first floor, pergolas at ground floor, first floor & terrace, glass passage at first floor, rooms & WIW (Walk-In-Wardrobe) at first floor, double height passage, retractable roof at terrace level in the open courtyard etc.) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the comments received from the concerned local body i.e. NDMC. Based on the comments received and the 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) Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

c) 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) 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 February 27, 1998. No previous record of NOC for completion has been found in the available record of the Commission.

3. The building plans proposal for additions/alterations 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 related to the completeness of the proposal received for its consideration. The architect has confirmed during discussion (online) that some of the information required is indeed missed from their side and assured of its completeness in the subsequent submission. Based on the discussion held and the submission made the following observations are to be complied with:

a) It was observed that the proposal has been received at the formal stage and incomplete submission has been provided (site photographs, 3d views, elevations, sections, bifurcation of additional parking provided and other relevant details are missing in the submission). The design proposal received at the formal stage must be completed in all respect and must be submitted for consideration by the Commission.

b) All rainwater pipes from the proposed balconies are screened appropriately so as not to spoil the visual, urban aesthetics of the area. A design scheme should be submitted for its review by the Commission.

c) Furthermore, new rooms added along with the balconies must show the provision of outdoor air conditioners with appropriate screening to understand its design scheme better.

d) All requisite parking requirements should be as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc. Existing parking and the parking from additional FAR (proposed) are to be shown clearly on the layout plan with the bifurcation of two.

e) 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 that it is braced firmly to the building and does not impact the safety of the superstructure.

f) All temporary coverings/extensions must be removed.

g) All water tanks, 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.

4. Overall, incomplete submission has been provided for the consideration of the Commission. The proposal needs to be complete and comprehensive.

5. 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 did not approve the building plan proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on June 23, 2022, and specific observations were given.

3. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the comments received from the concerned local body i.e., NDMC, replies submitted by the architect in response to the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-21062224017 dated 29.06.2022. Based on the comments received, and the 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) Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

c) All water tanks, 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 NDMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The building plans proposal for demolition & reconstruction received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the comments given by the concerned local body i.e., NDMC. Based on the comments received and the 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 Commission observed that the property is located at a highly visible location in the Capital city of New Delhi and near Diplomatic residences and embassies. Thus, the overall form, aesthetics, function etc. shall be such that they respect the surrounding context because the building is located in the LBZ area & the Diplomatic Embassy area.

c) The layout on the second floor is not appropriate. The random placement of elements like pergola on either side distorts the façade by making it off-centred.

d) The elevation shows use of diverse architectural elements, on the façade making it look complex and chaotic. The rear elevation though simple lacks coherence due to the awkward placement of the window which might be relocated suitably.

e) The northwest view shows a triangular top with a decorative element in the middle, which is not appreciated by the Commission and must be appropriately resolved.  Also, as there are gaps visible between the elements, considering the safety concern for the users they must be treated appropriately. Besides the stated technical reasons, this architectural feature does not seem relevant and can be removed from the elevation to simplify the facade.

f) The southwest view shows too many architectural elements including limestone chajja, a band with decorative elements etc. thus making the design too cluttered. The design shall be simplified by removing or reducing the elements on one face to keep it clean and minimalistic. Also, the façade shows windows of different shapes and apertures thus making it visually unaesthetic.

g) Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

h) All water tanks, 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.

3. Overall, it seems not much thought has been put into the design process. The elevation needs to be revised. The play of elements shall be such that it does not look cluttered and chaotic, but simplistic and creative.

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 building plan proposal at its meeting held in 1995. NOC for completion was accepted in the meeting held on August 24, 2005. The proposal for additions/alterations was approved in the meeting held on October 3, 2012.

3. The proposal for NOC for Completion (Part-for the proposal for additions/alteration approved in the meeting held on October 3, 2012) received (online) at the completion stage (part) was scrutinised, and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) It is apparent from the photographs submitted by the architect that a lot of temporary extensions have been made by the users on the areas for which NOC for completion has been applied, which is not appreciated by the Commission. All temporary coverings/extensions must be removed, and the outdoor air-conditioner units visible on the façade spoiling the overall visual and the urban aesthetics of the complex must be screened appropriately.

b) 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 the areas for which NOC for completion has been applied.

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 North DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.

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

a) The site plan submitted is not appropriate, a detailed site plan must be prepared and submitted indicated with the surrounding properties, including road network, access to the site etc. for a better understanding of the proposal in the right context.

b) The photographs of the site provided appear to be from the first floor clearly indicating the existence of the ground floor, which is not understood. Uncut/clear photographs from all sides of the site with annotations etc. must be provided for a better understanding of the proposed site and its surroundings.

c) Parking arrangements for the site are not understood, all parking must be as per prevailing norms/regulations/guidelines etc.

d) The proposal is at the formal stage, elements shown in the elevations must be correlated with the plans/3D views etc.

e) Considering the location of the property some of the elements derived from the heritage character of Shahjahanabad be replicated in the proposed facade design etc.

f) Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

g) All water tanks, 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.

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