Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1662nd meeting held on 04.08.2022.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1662nd meeting held on 04.08.2022 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 May 19, 2022, specific observations were given.

3. The building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted in response to observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-17052255029 dated 26.05.2022. Based on the replies submitted and 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) 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 layout plan proposal at its meeting held on June 18, 2014, specific observations were given, and the building plan proposal for teachers' housing house no-22 was approved in the meeting held on January 13, 2016.

3. The proposal for NOC for Completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., South DMC in part ‘C’ Proforma, 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 comments received in part ‘C’ Proforma, the detailed discussion held and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that the proposal (teachers’ residence no-22) is part of a large campus with individual parking requirements and its execution. A basement has been provided to accommodate these parking requirements but no photograph of the same is supplemented to substantiate its actual execution at the site. An appropriate nos. of uncut/clear photographs (from all exterior sides) to substantiate an actual work executed at the site (including basement, parking etc.) be provided to get in-depth clarity of the site and surroundings.

b. 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 to the Commission, the proposal for NOC for the completion plan could not be appreciated fully by the Commission.

5. The architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply to the observations given above by the Commission.

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

2. The Commission approved the layout plan proposal at its meeting held on June 18, 2014, specific observations were given, and the building plan proposal for teachers' housing house no-21 was approved in the meeting held on January 13, 2016.

3. The proposal for NOC for Completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., South DMC in part ‘C’ Proforma, 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 comments received in part ‘C’ Proforma, the detailed discussion held and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that the proposal (teachers’ residence no-21) is part of a large campus with individual parking requirements and its execution. A basement has been provided to accommodate these parking requirements but no photograph of the same is supplemented to substantiate its actual execution at the site. An appropriate nos. of uncut/clear photographs (from all exterior sides) to substantiate an actual work executed at the site (including basement, parking etc.) be provided to get in-depth clarity of the site and surroundings.

b. 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 to the Commission, the proposal for NOC for the completion plan could not be appreciated fully by the Commission.

5. The architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply to the observations given above by the Commission.

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

2. The Commission approved the layout plan proposal at its meeting held on June 18, 2014, specific observations were given, and the building plan proposal for teachers' housing house no-19 was approved in the meeting held on January 13, 2016.

3. The proposal for NOC for Completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., South DMC in part ‘C’ Proforma, 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 comments received in part ‘C’ Proforma, the detailed discussion held and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that the proposal (teachers’ residence no-19) is part of a large campus with individual parking requirements and its execution. A basement has been provided to accommodate these parking requirements but no photograph of the same is supplemented to substantiate its actual execution at the site. An appropriate nos. of uncut/clear photographs (from all exterior sides) to substantiate an actual work executed at the site (including basement, parking etc.) be provided to get in-depth clarity of the site and surroundings.

b. 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 to the Commission, the proposal for NOC for the completion plan could not be appreciated fully by the Commission.

5. The architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply to the observations given above by the Commission.

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

2. The Commission approved the layout plan proposal at its meeting held on June 18, 2014, specific observations were given, and the building plan proposal was approved in the meeting held on February 11, 2016.

3. The proposal for NOC for Completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., South DMC in part ‘C’ Proforma, 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 comments received in part ‘C’ Proforma, the detailed discussion held and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that the proposal (faculty club-36) is part of a large campus with individual parking requirements and its execution. But, no information on these parking requirements has been supplemented to understand its location & actual execution at the site. An appropriate nos. of uncut/clear photographs (from all exterior sides) to substantiate an actual work executed at the site (including public interface areas, entrance lobby, kitchen, dining areas, parking areas, recreation facilities etc.) be provided to get in-depth clarity of the proposal.

b. 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 to the Commission, the proposal for NOC for the completion plan could not be appreciated fully by the Commission.

5. The architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply to the observations given above by the Commission.

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

2. The Commission approved the layout plan proposal at its meeting held on June 18, 2014, specific observations were given, and the building plan proposal was approved at its meeting held on January 13, 2016.

3. The proposal for NOC for Completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., South DMC in part ‘C’ Proforma, 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 comments received in part ‘C’ Proforma, the detailed discussion held and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that the proposal (guest house-34) is part of a large campus with individual parking requirements and its execution. But, no information on these parking requirements has been supplemented to understand its location & actual execution at the site. An appropriate nos. of uncut/clear photographs (from all exterior sides) to substantiate an actual work executed at the site (including public interface areas, entrance lobby, kitchen, dining areas, typical guest room, parking areas etc.) be provided to get in-depth clarity of the proposal.

b. 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 to the Commission, the proposal for NOC for the completion plan could not be appreciated fully by the Commission.

5. The architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply to the observations given above by the Commission.

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

2. The Commission approved the layout plan proposal at its meeting held on June 18, 2014, and the building plan proposal was approved at its meeting held on January 13, 2016.

3. The proposal for NOC for Completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., South DMC in part ‘C’ Proforma, 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 comments received in part ‘C’ Proforma, the detailed discussion held and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that the proposal is part of a large campus with individual parking requirements and its execution. A basement has been provided to accommodate these parking requirements but no photograph of the same is supplemented to substantiate its actual execution at the site. An appropriate nos. of uncut/clear photographs (from all exterior sides) to substantiate an actual work executed at the site (including public interface areas, basement parking etc.) be provided to get in-depth clarity of the site and surroundings.

b. Though superimposed drawings have been provided, but completion drawings are found to be missing in the submission. The same need to be provided.

4. In view of the insufficient information provided to the Commission, the proposal for NOC for the completion plan could not be appreciated fully by the Commission.

5. The architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply to the observations given above by the Commission.

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 Commission did not approve the design proposal for the Feasibility study for the elevated corridor between INA to airport integrating GPRA colonies at its meeting held on May 05, 2022, and September 23, 2021, respectively, specific observations were given.

3. The design proposal for the Feasibility study for the elevated corridor between INA to airport integrating GPRA colonies received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-19042227031 dated 11.05.2022 and OL-09092161028 dated 30.09.2021, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect and the proponent who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the replies submitted, the discussion held, and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The proposed artwork on the concrete columns should be removed and instead the wall can either be kept as exposed concrete or it can be covered with green elements like creepers or vertical greens.

b. Universal accessibility shall be ensured at all the locations in the complete stretch of the proposal including pedestrian and cycling zones. Elements like table-tops for crossings, ramps etc. shall be appropriately used to ensure seamless movement for the users.

c. The architect & the proponent has informed that the project will be implemented on EPC mode and the details like street furniture, cycle tracks, pedestrian areas, railing designs, noise barrier designs, signages, scheme for areas under elevated corridors, landscaping details, sustainability features, murals, sculptures and materials will be finalised in the construction drawings. However, the schematic drawings and views for the same has been provided in the design scheme submitted at the conceptual stage for the consideration of the Commission.

4. The Commission observed that the items covered under EPC mode would have an impact on the overall visual, urban and environmental aesthetics of the area.  The Commission is of the strong opinion that the elements covered under EPC mode would be examined separately once the detailed EPC drawings are submitted for its consideration at the formal stage.

5. Taking into consideration the facts enumerated above, the Commission decided to give its acceptance to the proposal except for the items covered under EPC mode. The elements covered under EPC mode (like street furniture, cycle tracks, pedestrian areas, railing designs, noise barrier designs, signages, scheme for areas under elevated corridors, landscaping details, sustainability features, murals, sculptures and materials etc.) would be examined separately once the detailed EPC drawings are submitted for its consideration. 

Found conceptually suitable except for the items covered under EPC mode, (not limited to these observations).

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

Building plans proposal in respect of addition of Two floors to Boys’ Hostel, addition of Faculty Block and addition of Public Toilets in Hindu College, Delhi University, North Campus. (Conceptual stage)

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

2. The Commission approved the layout and 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. The building plan proposal for the addition of a new faculty block (G+1) adjacent to the existing academic block was approved in the meeting held on April 28, 2022, and specific observations were given.

3. The building plan proposal for addition/alterations (addition of two floors to Boys’ Hostel, and addition of public toilets) received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted in response to the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no. OL-25042223022 dated 05.05.2022. Based on the replies submitted, and submissions 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) are 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.

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.