Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1654th meeting held on 09.06.2022.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1654^th meeting held on 09.06.2022 was discussed.

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

2. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and the Commission intended to discuss the design proposal with the architect for the inadequacy of the submission which appears to be incomprehensible. It was disappointing to observe that despite repeated attempts to connect to the architect (online) he did not respond to the calls citing his occupation in another meeting, though communication for his availability (online) was communicated through DUAC email dated 22.06.2022. Based on the submission made and the inability of the architect to attend the meeting (online) and address the queries of the Commission, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that the building proposal is situated in Old Delhi but did not specify the materials used on the façade. Thus, unable to comprehend & visualise the proposal with materials, as it could have a bearing on the visual and the aesthetics of the area. Annotated 3D views with façade materials be submitted for a better understanding of the proposal.

b. Toilets and the kitchen etc. have been provided without specifying the plumbing arrangements, shaft to be created to house all the plumbing pipes with properly screening to avoid spoiling the façade of the building. Spaces for cup-boards shall also be created in the bedrooms for better usability of space.

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

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.

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

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on May 20, 2015, and the NOC for completion was accepted in the meeting held on December 12, 2018.

3. The proposal for NOC for part completion (hostel and basement only) received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the comments given by the concerned local body i.e. CPWD, and the following observations are to be complied with:

a. Overall, the campus for India International Institute of Democracy & Election have three components:

i. Institutional Block

ii. Hostel block

iii. Auditorium Block

b. Part NOC for completion for Institutional Block was accepted in the meeting of the Commission held on December 12, 2018, the Auditorium Block is under construction (as indicated in the report submitted by the architect), and the Part NOC for Hostel Block has been applied for.

c. The Commission observed that while applying for Part NOC for Completion for Auditorium Block which is under construction, the architect/proponent must ensure to submit (in addition to auditorium block) an appropriate number of uncut/clear photographs from all sides of the overall built construction, landscape of the site, parking areas, main gate & the boundary wall, screening of services etc. to substantiate the actual work executed at the site which shall also be examined in detail 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 October 15, 2008, and the revised building plan proposal was approved at its meeting held on August 24, 2011.

3. The Commission did not accept the NOC for completion at its meeting held on December 28, 2017, specific observations were given.

4. The proposal for NOC for completion received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised and the following observations were made:

a. It was observed that while forwarding the proposal to the Commission at the completion stage following observation/recommendations has been made in Part-C (completion stage) by NDMC:

“……. Observations/recommendations of the sanctioning authority while forwarding the matter to DUAC for consideration in the Performa Part-C of the Completion stage from serial no 1 to 4 indicates the following:

“…. NO...…”

However, the Commission considered the proposal taking into consideration the comments given by the Concerned local body i.e. NDMC and the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: 50(7)/2017-DUAC dated January 18, 2018, as per its mandate as prescribed under relevant provisions of DUAC Act 1974, and found it acceptable.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the CPWD (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 for the development/redevelopment in respect of the proposed Executive Enclave (Block A) at plot no.36, 1 Dalhousie Road received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-12052262012 dated 26.05.2022, 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) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

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

1. The proposal was forwarded by the CPWD (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 for the development/redevelopment in respect of the proposed Executive Enclave (Block B) at plot no.38, 1 Kamraj Road received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-12052262013 dated 26.05.2022, 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) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

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

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

2. Earlier, the Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on July 19, 2005. The Commission did not approve the NOC for the Completion plan proposal at its meeting held on November 27, 2020, specific observations were given.

3. The Building plan proposal for demolition and reconstruction (Basement + Ground + S + 4 floors) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The quality of 3d views is not appropriate they are very sketchy. The scale, proportion, materials etc. are not understood. They shall be revised and submitted with clarity, enhanced visuals, and better viewing angles.  A sufficient number of Self-explanatory, annotated 3D views (at least 6 in numbers) including 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 proposal.

b. The property is located at a highly visible location in the Capital city of New Delhi on a main distributary road of a critical artery and in the immediate vicinity of Diplomatic residences and embassies. Considering its location, the submitted proposal with stilt parking and insufficiently worked out elevations are not appreciated by the Commission.  The elevations seems to have been designed without keeping in mind the context (in terms of time and space).  Thus, the elevation needs to be completely revised strongly considering the fact that the building is located in the vicinity of the LBZ & the Diplomatic Embassy area.

c. The areas for drop-off are not clear in the submission and shall be clearly marked in the proposal along with other relevant details including detailed 3d views, and hindrance free access to upper floors.

d. The submission shows stilt parking to accommodate the requisite car parking requirements for the project. It is suggested that alternative options should be explored including basement parking to accommodate requisite car parking requirements. This would also reduce the requirement of the hardscape all around the building complex.

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

f. A combined mobility plan showing seamless, conflict-free pedestrian and vehicular movement (connecting external areas to various parts of the site) to be submitted, to understand the circulation within the site.

g. The plumbing mechanism in not clear. Toilets and the kitchen etc. must be provided with shafts to house all the plumbing pipes with properly screening to avoid spoiling the façade of the building.

h. To understand the internal functioning of the units better, a detailed functional furniture arrangement of a typical unit should be submitted.

i. 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.

j. The proposal is at formal stage and the basic elevations and sections have been provided. An appropriate number of detailed elevations and sections (longitudinal and cross-section across the site as well) must 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.

k. The proposal shall be designed so as to maximise energy efficiency with appropriate use of the solar panels on building rooftops etc. and screen them by using appropriate architectural mechanisms. 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 service equipment, water tanks, DG Set, DG exhaust pipes, air-conditioning units, solar panels etc. should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 & 12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

4. Overall, the design scheme submitted by the architect is not comprehensible i.e., the details are not sufficiently provided for a proposal at the formal stage. The proposal needs to be detailed and comprehensive.

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

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

2. The proposal for the Upgradation of the District Centre at Bhikaji Cama Place received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and a detailed discussion (online) was held with the architect/proponent wherein a detailed presentation was made by the architect and replied to the queries made by the Commission. Based on the discussion held and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed and understood that the District Centre (DC) at Bhikaji Cama Place was built by the Delhi Development Authority approx. four decades ago and understand that it would need urgent repairs, up-gradation of Services etc. But the Commission opines that the DC is located at an important location in New Delhi surrounded by the five-star hotel, Government offices, Institutional offices etc. Therefore, it cannot be studied in isolation i.e. it needs to be reviewed in conjunction with the surrounding facilities (in and around the complex). Therefore, a sufficient number of Self-explanatory, annotated 3D views (including night-time views to understand lighting arrangements etc.) birds’ eye views at various angles, clearly showing the proposed design scheme with proper annotations 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.

b. The design scheme has been submitted at the formal stage but, the 3d-views submitted for consideration are very sketchy and not appropriate for submission at the formal stage, thus not being appreciated by the Commission. Also, the 3d views of the proposed amphitheatre design and street elements including kiosks need to be integrated into the existing site complex to clear its scale, it's merging with the surroundings and its appropriateness in the site context.

c. The Complex shall also be accessed by the pedestrians who would be using Bus & the metro to commute and the complex does not have a boundary and thus has direct connections with the surrounding areas. It is important to clearly highlight in the design scheme the pedestrian connections of the site to the nearby bus stops, metro stations and other transit hubs to ensure effective integration with these zones.

d. Also, the site is situated in an area with heavy traffic and congestion at peak hours. The proposed design scheme shall be done keeping in mind the traffic volume and patterns and appropriate measures shall be taken to ensure improvement of accessibility and circulation.

e. Although the proposal for Multi-Level Car Parking (MLCP) is being proposed in Phase II, it needs to be well-integrated into the submitted design scheme including details like vehicular accessibility & connections to the MLCP, movement within and to other parts of the site from the MLCP etc. to understand it’s functioning.

f. The design of the toilets, kiosks and shops etc. submitted in the design proposal is very ordinary and required to be improved relevant to context (time and place). It does not seem to be thoughtfully designed. Since the complex is a landmark building in the city and forms a part of an active public area, it becomes imperative to design the elements in the public realm i.e. the street furniture.  Inspiration for street furniture and kiosks can be taken from metropolises around the world or even exemplary modern designs.

g. The various street furniture elements including light poles, signages, benches etc. have not been emphasised in the design scheme. The scheme being for up-gradation should consider all urban design elements in unison.

h. The design of the tensile structure seems to be very ordinary. Instead, it is suggested to use pergolas, trellis, creepers etc. Also, the material and the scale of the structure are not understood, thus the details for the same shall be clearly mentioned in the submission.

i. The submitted scheme seems to have huge paved areas which would add to the heat Island effect. Options to be explored to reduce the quantum of paved areas by judicious use of design elements.

j. The selection of the materials and design for benches, tables for eating etc. should be such that it is low-maintenance. Materials like wrought iron, stainless steel, cast or drawn aluminium, and solid stone slabs (as opposed to stone cladding) can be explored which require relatively low maintenance.

k. The details of services and utilities need to be provided as they would have bearing on the urban and environmental aesthetics of the complex, thus shall be included in the submission.

l. 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. Along with other services including drinking water, handwashing etc. to be marked clearly on the respective layout.

m. The design and location of dustbins to be such integrated into the design that it forms part of the overall design scheme needs to be relooked at and redesigned.

3. Overall, a very ordinary and basic design scheme has been submitted by the architect for an important project which is not fully comprehensible i.e. the details are not sufficiently provided for a proposal at the formal stage. The proposal needs to be detailed and comprehensive.

4. Considering the facts enumerated above, the architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission and suggested to resubmit the revised design scheme adhering to the above observations along with 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 at its meeting held on June 02, 2022, specific observations were given.

3. The building plan proposal for the additions/alterations in respect of the residential building at plot no. 22, Bazar lane, Bengali market received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the comments given by the concerned local body i.e. NDMC and the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-25052224013 dated 08.06.2022. Also, Commission intended to discuss the design proposal with the architect for the inadequacy of the submission which appears to be incomprehensible. It was disappointing to observe that despite repeated attempts to connect to the architect (online) he did not respond to the repeated calls though communication for his availability (online) was communicated through DUAC email dated 22.06.2022. Based on the previous observations, submission made and inability of architect to attend the meeting (online) for discussion with the Commission and address its queries, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that in terms of the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-25052224013 dated 08.06.2022 inadequate compliances for this have been given.

b. The Commission observed that only one very basic 3D view of the design proposal has been submitted which did not elucidate the overall design. The design proposal is at the formal stage need to provide an appropriate number of 3D views from all sides (including birds eye views) clearly showing the proposed design scheme with proper annotations be submitted for a better understanding of the proposal.

c. It was disappointing to observe that the architect did not prepare & submit the design proposal considerately and submitted an inappropriate/incomplete proposal to the Commission again for its consideration, which is not appreciated. For example, the railing design shown appears to be unrealistic with no vertical members supporting the horizontals. Moreover, it was rejected on earlier occasion at its meeting held on June 02, 2022 due to its incompleteness.

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

e. All requisite parking requirements should be as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc.

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

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

h. All water tanks, plumbing pipes, 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, the design scheme submitted by the architect is not comprehensible for a proposal at the formal stage.

5. Considering the facts enumerated above, the architect is advised to adhere to the above observations of the Commission and furnish pointwise incorporation & reply.

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

2. The Commission approved the layout for Gateway and Downtown District at IGI Airport at its meeting held on March 16, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on June 02, 2022, specific observations were given.

4. 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: 65(3)/2022-DUAC, OL-27052265003 dated 09.06.2022. Based on the replies submitted 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, 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 PWD (GNCTD) (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal for the existing building (B+G+4) for the DSSSB at its meeting held on June 19, 2004, and the building plan proposal for extension (B+G+5) was not approved in the meeting held on April 07, 2022, specific observations were given.

3. The building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage for extension of building block comprising of (B+G+5) and a mechanical five tier parking was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-05042261008 dated 13.04.2022. Based on the replies submitted and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. All requisite parking requirements should be as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc.

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 additions/alterations only.

c. All temporary coverings/extensions must be removed.

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

e. All water tanks, plumbing pipes, outdoor air-conditioner units, DG Set, DG 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.