Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1664th meeting held on 18.08.2022.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1664th meeting held on 18.08.2022 was discussed.

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

2. The Commission approved the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on March 20, 2013, and specific observations were given.

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., East 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 observations/recommendations received, a discussion held and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that the proposal is at the Completion stage and needs to provide an appropriate nos. of uncut/clear photographs (all sides) to substantiate the actual work executed at the site including rooftop utilities, basement etc., to get in-depth clarity of the site and surroundings.

b. Exposed outdoor air-conditioners, services on the terrace, and DG Exhaust pipes (protruding out from the parapet above) visible on the façade need to be screened appropriately.

c. Approval received from DUAC (at the formal stage) shall be superimposed on the plans/elevations/sections etc., over 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 concerning the sanctioned plan.

4. In view of the insufficient information provided to the Commission related to building construction at the site, the proposal for NOC for the completion plan could not be appreciated by the Commission.

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 approved the building plan proposal for additions/ alterations at its meeting held on January 29, 2004, and January 13, 2016, respectively.

3. The proposal for NOC for Completion (part-newly constructed block) received (online) at the completion stage was scrutinised along with the observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., NDMC in part ‘C’ Proforma. Based on the observations/recommendations received, and the submission made, the proposal for NOC for completion (part-newly constructed block) was found acceptable.

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

2. The layout and building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the observations/recommendations given by the concerned local body i.e., NDMC. Based on the discussion held and the 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, solar panels, outdoor air conditioner units, water tanks 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.

Building plans proposal (demolition & reconstruction) in respect of Bhagwan Mahavir Super Speciality Hospital at Bhagwan Mahavir Marg, Sector-14, Madhuban Chowk, Rohini. (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 building plan proposal at its meeting held on February 05, 1986, and the NOC for completion was accepted at its meeting held on January 29, 2004, and specific observations were given.

3. The Commission approved the revised building plan proposal at its meeting held on November 24, 2010.

4. The layout and building plan proposal (demolition & reconstruction) received (online) at the conceptual 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 submissions made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that the proposal cannot be studied in isolation i.e., it needs to be reviewed in conjunction with the surrounding facilities. The 3D views of the site shall be superimposed with the existing context of the surroundings including road networks, and structures around the site, for a 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, night-time views etc.) 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 environment to make it clearer.

b. Detailed 3d views of the critical points like the public interface areas, ramp area at the rear, drop-off points etc., with materials specifications, should be supplemented for a better understanding of the overall design scheme.

c. Parking numbers/calculations not given. Provision of proposed parking needs to be indicated in appropriate plans with other parking details including the location of no. of cars, car movement pattern, etc. All parking provisions shall adhere to all the applicable norms/guidelines/regulations etc.

d. A combined mobility plan showing a seamless, conflict-free pedestrian and vehicular movement plan from outside, to understand the movement pattern within the site better, is to be submitted. It shall be indicated clearly with clear segregation of pedestrian and vehicular movement.

e. An appropriate number of detailed sections (longitudinal and cross-section across the site as well) should be provided highlighting the materials, finishes, architectural elements, sun shading mechanisms, plumbing details etc. for a better understanding of the overall scheme. Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

f. Provision made for VCB panel, meter room etc. in the front setback need to be screened appropriately to avoid spoiling the area visually and aesthetically.

g. A lot of waste (dry and wet, food items, etc.) is supposed to be generated in the complex, a detailed solid waste management plan proposal along with its location on the site plan be submitted.

h. Almost all of the site area is covered under a hard/road network with negligible spaces for the greens.  Landscaping scheme to be appropriately planned and detailed.

i. Work of art shall ensure to be in terms of the public art provisions as stipulated under point no. 14 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

j. The elements of sustainability are missing in the design scheme. These shall be identified and marked on the plans.  Roof-top utilities are not shown in the plan/ 3D views and thus require to be shown on the relevant drawings. The screening for the same shall also be mentioned and marked clearly in the plans/3D views. 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.

k. All service equipment, solar panels, outdoor air conditioner units, water tanks, 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.

5. In view of the insufficient information provided to the Commission, the proposal could not be appreciated fully by the Commission.

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

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

2. The proposal was withdrawn at the request of the architect vide his email dated 01.09.2022.