Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1661st meeting held on 28.07.2022.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1661st meeting held on 28.07.2022 was discussed.

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

2. The building plans proposal in respect of Foreign Students Hostel at Jamia Millia Islamia, Okhla 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 foreign hostel block 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. The 3D views are not properly rendered and submitted without annotations making it difficult to understand the scale, proportions, material applications on the façade etc. 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 design proposal in the actual context of the surroundings.

d. The proposed building has been fenced with a boundary wall, but the plot has not been properly demarcated in the overall master plan of the campus, making it difficult to understand the location and the orientation the plot in the campus area. A properly dimensioned plan with area details etc. must be supplemented to understand the proposal in judicious manner.

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. Precaution must be taken to raise the DPC level appropriately to stop the water damaging the structure as it is evident that the plaster of the existing boundary wall is peeling off its surface.

f. The provision of air-conditioning units on the façade is not understood in the design proposal (drawings/3d views). The air-conditioners could be an eye-sore to the building façade. To avoid the same, the provision shall be made to accommodate the outdoor units, so as not to mar the aesthetics.

g. The Commission observed that the requisite parking requirements of the proposal have been accommodated on the surface. Since the area of the plot was not indicated by the architect, the Commission opines that the parking arrangements on the surface could spoil the visual, urban aesthetics of the surroundings & simultaneously creating a heat island effect, and also depriving the site of valuable consolidated green spaces.  It was, accordingly, suggested to explore the possibility of creating alternative parking arrangements and the freed-up spaces be utilised for creating large consolidated greens etc. for the users.

h. The kitchen and the dining facility has been provided for the users. 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. The elevations and sections need to be detailed clearly showing the architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, plumbing details etc. The project being submitted at the Formal stage should submit detailed drawings of sections (longitudinal and cross-section across the site as well) and elevations. Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

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

k. It has been observed that a large chunk of space is available on the rooftop, the same can be utilised appropriately for the installation of solar panels above and help 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.

l. 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.

3. Overall, the design scheme submitted by the architect is not fully comprehensible i.e., they are not self-explanatory. In absence of sufficient information provided by the architect, the proposal could not be examined appropriately by the Commission.

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

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

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on August 28, 2020, 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-21082023038 dated 03.09.2020 and 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) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

b. 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 directly by the East DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission had approved the layout and building plan proposal (3B+ G+6 floors) in its meeting held on November 22, 2007. Earlier, the submission made by the architect/proponent for additions/alterations, in the year 2010 (3B+G+7 floors) & 2014 (3B+G+8 floors), was returned vide DUAC letter no: 22(16)/2010-DUAC dated March 09, 2010 and 22(23)/2014-DUAC dated December 01, 2014 respectively due to incompleteness.

3. The Commission did not approve the proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on July 21, 2022, specific observations were given.

4. The building plans proposal for additions/alterations again received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-06102127069 dated 20.10.2021 and OL-14072256002 dated 26.07.2022 respectively.

5. The Commission discussed in detail the matter with the owner & architect of the project that confirmed that two floors of the additions/alterations proposal (addition of seventh & eighth floor), were already constructed at the site.

6. Based on the discussion held with the Owner & the architect, replies submitted, previous data available in the Commission, and submissions made (including the project report), the following observations are to be complied with:

a. It was observed that in terms of earlier observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter nos. OL-06102127069 dated 20.10.2021 and OL-14072256002 dated 26.07.2022 respectively inadequate compliances for this have been given.

b. The title and the subject of the proposal received at the formal stage are still incorrect. The title of the subject has been given as under:

“……… Plot No-11, C.B.D. Shahdara, Delhi……”

However, the proposal under consideration is in respect of a “Hotel at Plot no-11, CBD (East), Shahdara” (taken from the earlier reference received in the year 2007).

c. The project report is still ambiguous and does not sufficiently and/or clearly distinguish between what is constructed, previously sanctioned, and is being proposed.

d. The proposal has been submitted at the formal stage and the schematic sections have been provided which are insufficiently detailed for understanding the proposal of this scale. Overall, the proposal has been submitted without much clarity and thoughtfulness.

e. In addition to the above, the architect has indicated in his report that details related to previous sanctions and completions of the project, were enclosed, however, during discussion he has clarified that no NOC for completion has been taken from any of the statutory authorities.

7. Taking into consideration all the facts enumerated above including insufficient replies submitted, the absence of specific proposals on refrigeration, generators, exhaust pipes, kitchen servicing for waste management and exhausts, screening of services, public toilets on boundary, night-time views showing external lighting,  and in absence of any comments received from the concerned local body i.e., EDMC, the Commission opines that it would review the matter only after the various shortfalls have been addressed and the proposal is sufficiently complete and correct to be reviewed by the Commission.  The concerned local body i.e., EDMC was requested to furnish a detailed comment on the matter.

8. The Owner and the Architect are advised to study, before re-submission of the project to DUAC for approvals, the applicable laws and provisions of the statutory authority for the appropriateness of category under which the approval of the said project is/shall be sought; i.e., whether the project is to be submitted under category of addition/alteration for additional works to be carried out or to be submitted under category of regularization to reflect the already constructed two floors. It is duly advised that the Owner and the Architect must follow the appropriate channel, as may be applicable as per provisions of the statutory authority, for re-submission, as well.   If submitted for addition/alteration to reflect future work to be carried out, the proposal must fully reflect existing site conditions and acknowledge the incremental two floors relative to the prior sanction. 

9. Owner and the Architect are also advised to submit all the documents as per their list of enclosures, at the time of re-submission of the project to DUAC for approval.

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. 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.

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

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on May 19, 2022 and April 01, 2022, specific observations were given. No previous record of the NOC for completion taken has been found in the available record of the Commission.

3. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations (demolition of both the existing staircases, the addition of a fire escape staircase (from ground floor to terrace), passenger lift and a lift lobby) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:

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

b. The building plan proposal is for the additions/alterations to the existing building. From the photographs submitted by the architect, it is observed that a lot of exposed outdoor air conditioners & plumbing pipes are spoiling the facade of the superstructure. It is suggested that an overall revamp scheme of the whole façade should be envisaged for better visual & aesthetics and to avoid mitigating the visual inconsistency between the old and new construction/additions.

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

2. The Commission accepted the concept of layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on November 18, 2021.

3. The layout and building plan proposal in respect of for Hon’ble Lok Sabha MPs at Baba Kharak Singh Marg received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC approval letter no: OL-12112127076 dated 01.12.2021, 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, replies submitted and the submissions made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. It was suggested to organise the stilt parking to enhance the space available close to the entrance lobby for community purposes including seating visitors and other purposes. 

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 Set, 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 directly by the DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission approved the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on May 31, 1996.

3. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on July 21, 2022, specific observations were given.

4. The building plans proposal for additions/alterations (extension of 3 balconies & construction of a toilet in type-A & type-A1 units, and extension of 2 balconies & construction of a toilet in type-B units) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the DUAC observation letter no: OL-15072222037 dated 26.07.2022. Based on the replies submitted and the 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 observation letter no: OL-15072222037 dated    26.07.2022 inadequate compliance for this has been given. It needs to be resolved completely.

b. The design scheme presented to screen the air-conditioners, rainwater pipes from the balcony etc. are not appreciated by the Commission, the same needs to be revised taking into consideration the overall aesthetics of the area.

c. The Commission observed that approx. 3.60 m deep projected balconies have been proposed in a building which is already occupied by the residents and is 24.45 m high. The structural arrangement addition of column arrangements in the proposed balconies have not been clearly indicated/shown in the proposal. Thus, it is difficult to comprehend the scheme holistically. The absence of the visible structure arrangement in the elevations would impact the overall   aesthetic, environmental, and visual quality of the complex, it needs to be relooked at, revise and resubmitted.

d. It was observed that the proposal had been submitted for addition/ alteration). The added balcony structure shall be such designed that it withstands weather effects, impacts from calamities like earthquake etc. as it is an additional structure added to the existing superstructure. It shall be ensured it is braced strongly to the building and does not impact the safety of the superstructure while addition/alteration.

e. All temporary coverings/extensions must be removed.

f. All parking requirements must be as per appliable norms/regulations/guidelines.

g. 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.

5. Overall, the design scheme submitted by the architect is not comprehensible i.e., the compliances of the previous observations of the Commission are not resolved sufficiently.

6. 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 proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on August 19, 2021.

3. The revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the comments of the concerned local body i.e., NDMC. Based on the comments of the concerned local body, and the 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 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 Commission approved (formal) the building plan proposal at its meeting held on February 19, 2014, observations were given.

3. The Commission did not accept the NOC for completion at its meeting held on July 27, 2022, specific observations were given.

4. The proposal for NOC for completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the comments received from the concerned local body i.e., NDMC along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-25072250006 dated 01.08.2022. Based on the comments received from the NDMC, replies submitted and the submission made, the proposal for NOC for completion is found acceptable.

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

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

2. The proposal was deferred on the request of architect vide his email dated 11.08.2022.

Building plans proposal in respect of Residential Building at plot no. 831 situated at Kucha Pati Ram, Bazar Sita Ram.

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

2. The building plan proposal for 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 inconsistencies observed in the submission. Based on the discussion held and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. Inconsistency has been observed in the submission. The report indicated the application of plater and distemper on the façade but the 3d views indicated the use of stone and the tiles. The Commission opine that the proposal is at the formal stage the submission must be coordinated each other including project report, drawings, 3D views etc.

b. Location of the property is not understood properly. The key plan of the area clearly indicating the location of the property must be submitted for appropriate understanding of its location.

c. 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.

d. All water tanks, DG Set, 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. The proposal is at the formal stage and inadequate information has been provided, thus Commission could not appreciate the overall proposal.

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