Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1666th and 1667th (Extra-ordinary) meeting held on 01.09.2022 and 07.09.2022 respectively.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of Minutes of 1666th and 1667th (Extra-ordinary) meeting held on 01.09.2022 and 07.09.2022 respectively was discussed.

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

2. The Commission did not approve the proposal for a petrol pump at its meeting held on August 25, 2022, specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-22082223054 dated 02.09.2022, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco Web Ex meeting (online) who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the replies submitted, the discussion held (online) and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission taken note of one of the replies submitted by the architect in response to the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-22082223054 dated 02.09.2022 that:

“……… we intended to installing solar panels above canopy. The proposal for installation of solar panel above the terrace and canopy terrace above dispensing unit) is submitted in explosive department for approval, once it will be approved from explosive, we will install the same. We have shown solar panels above the building terrace…..”

b. The Commission opines that this is one of the opportunities that architects have to help reduce the carbon footprint by utilising the available spaces to their maximum by installing solar panels above the dispensing area as well with suitable screening mechanism and presented with all details (including 3d Views) for its review.

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, 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. 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 plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and a detailed discussion was held with the architect at the Cisco Web Ex meeting (online) who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the discussion held (online) and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission has taken note of one of the submissions made by the architect (online) that:

“……… we intended to installing solar panels above canopy. The proposal for installation of solar panel above the terrace and canopy terrace above dispensing unit) is submitted in explosive department for approval, once it will be approved from explosive, we will install the same. We have shown solar panels above the building terrace…..”

b. The Commission opines that this is one of the opportunities that architects have to help reduce the carbon footprint by utilising the available spaces to their maximum by installing solar panels above the dispensing area as well with suitable screening mechanism and presented with all details (including 3d Views) for its review.

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, 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.

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

2. The Commission did not approve the building plans proposal at its meeting held on August 04, 2022, specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plans proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the previous observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-25072261013 dated 10.08.2022. Based on the replies submitted and the revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. All parking norms must be as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines etc.

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 plumbing pipes, service equipment, outdoor air-conditioning units, solar panels, 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.

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

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

a. The Commission observed that since the solar panels and VRV systems have been placed on the surface of the roof and are not visible from outside, there is no need to screen them with a stone jaali work.

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 plumbing pipes, service equipment, water tanks, DG sets, 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 South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on September 08, 2022, specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plans proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-07092255051 dated 12.09.2022. 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 DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The building plans proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco Web Ex meetings (online) who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the discussion held (online) and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that only one 3D view of the proposal has been submitted. Also, the Commission opines that the proposal cannot be studied in isolation i.e., it needs to be reviewed in conjunction with the surrounding facilities, therefore, an appropriate number of annotated 3D views (including night views, birds-eye views etc.) 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. On the Commission’s enquiry on context and site demarcation, it was informed by the concerned architect during the discussion online that the proposal for the Zonal office for DDA has been carved out from a large plot meant for a local shopping centre (LSC). The leftover area shall be utilised later on for developing LSC.  The Commission observed that the coverage and the FSI for the plot have not been utilised fully.  Moreover, the smaller plot compromises the efficiency of the basement for parking and drastically compromises options and efficiency of parking in the future shopping centre.  The goal in such projects should be to integrate designs in the entire plot rather than fragment into smaller pieces.  The Commission strongly advises to provide a comprehensive and integrated plan including the local shopping center with sufficient basement across the entire footprint to accommodate all cars at maximum FSI.  This would also free up surface area for greenery and reduce surface parking.  If required, the project can be split into two phases.  Also, the DDA office and the LSC can be split horizontally, rather than vertically, i.e., rather than dividing the plot into less usable pieces, have an integrated design and use most of lower floors for LSC and higher floor for DDA office.

c. A lot of surfaces have been converted into parking all around the building and the basement appears to be not efficient which is not appreciated by the Commission. The paved parking is spoiling the available open/green space in the complex. For achieving suitable efficacy of the current & future proposals, it was suggested to make provisions and design the complete basement (current and future) so that future parking requirements could be addressed as well.

d. The site appears to be vehicular-friendly. The pedestrian and vehicular circulation at the site is not shown properly. A combined mobility plan showing seamless, conflict-free pedestrian and vehicular movement plans from outside is to be submitted, to understand the movement pattern within the site better. It shall be indicated clearly with clear segregation of pedestrian and vehicular movement.

e. The width and the turning radius of the ramp for accessing the basement shall be as per applicable rules/regulations/ norms/guidelines etc.

f. An appropriate number of sections from end to end of the proposed scheme 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.

g. The provision of air-conditioning is not clear in the submission. The Commission opines that the outdoor air conditioner units on the façade could be an eye-sore to the building façade. To avoid the same, provisions should be made in the design to accommodate and screen the outdoor units appropriately, so as not to mar the aesthetics. The same shall be reflected in appropriate layouts and 3d views. The materials/finishes used for screening should be similar to the materials used in the elevation. Provision of water drainage coming from air-conditioning to be given to ensure it does not spoil the surfaces and walls.

h. The design of the gate and the boundary wall would have a bearing on the overall visual and urban aesthetics of the complex, thus detailed drawings of the gate and boundary wall complete in all respect must be provided including 3D views/elevations/sections/ material applications etc.

i. The public toilet under Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM) and the guard room etc. are also part of the formal submission but their detailed drawings (including screening mechanism, elevations, sections, 3D views etc.) have not been submitted. The Commission observed that these components could have a bearing on the overall visual, urban, and aesthetic quality of the complex. The same is to be revised appropriately and incorporated for review by the Commission.

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

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 elements of sustainability are missing in the design scheme. 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) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

m. 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 was advised, to re-design/re-look at the overall design proposal including current and the future design proposal with a fresh approach, utilising the FSI to the maximum extent possible and adhere to the above observations & furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.

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

2. The proposal was deferred.

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

2. The Commission approved the Master plan layout at its meeting held on December 16, 1994, and approved the revised Master plan layout at its meeting held on July 10, 2013.

3. The layout and Master plan proposal for the Redevelopment of AIIMS Campus on either side of Aurobindo Marg received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the comments given by the concerned local body i.e., NDMC, and a detailed presentation was given by the architect who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the comments received, the discussion held, and the submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed and appreciated that an extensive exercise has been undertaken by the Government to Redevelop the AIIMS Campus on either side of Aurobindo Marg covering an area of 196.10 Acres at one of the prime & busiest locations in the Capital city of Delhi connected through Ring Road, Aurobindo Marg, Delhi metro, number of Bus stops etc. A lot of patients and their relatives keeps visiting AIIMS for receiving medical treatments from all over the India.

b. Taking into consideration its importance and location, the Commission opines that the proposal can not be studied in isolation i.e., it needs to be reviewed in conjunction with the surrounding facilities, therefore, the proposed design scheme must 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.

c. It was informed that the overall Master Plan is likely to be taken up in different phases. The Complete delineation of the phasing of the Master Plan Redevelopment shall be detailed comprehensively with macro level detailing incorporated with the locations of public utilities, CETP, STP, street furniture, Kiosks, dhalos, ESS, landscape strategies, provisions of solar panels, DG set, DG exhaust pipes etc., and presented through an appropriate medium for the understanding of the Commission better.

d. The location, design, form, material selection of the Kiosks, to be distributed all over the campus along with the waste disposal, be judiciously done.

e. Since every stratum of society would be visiting the facility, to get the best of medical treatment, from all over the country, it was, accordingly, suggested to prioritise the on-campus pedestrian movement to the extent that the shortest possible pedestrian routes be envisaged starting from Bus stands, metro, taxi stands etc. To mitigate the conflict between pedestrians and vehicular movement entry/exits be appropriately segregated from each other. A combined mobility plan for the pedestrians & vehicular movement across the campus must be submitted for review by the Commission.

f. The overall area of the hospital is so large, the pick-up & drop-off points should be carefully designed, selected, and evenly distributed near the entry points, planned exclusively for the pedestrians to minimise congestion of auto, taxi and e-rickshaws outside the hospital.

g. Considering the location of the design proposal, the design of the entry gates & boundary wall would play a major role in the overall visual, urban aesthetics & environmental quality of the area. Thus, the design, planning, form, material selection, signages etc., of these elements must be carefully selected & detailed and presented through an appropriate medium including 3D views (night time as well) to understand the overall impact on the whole area.

h. The areas delineated for creating an appropriate number of public toilets under the Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM) with a provision for outside access shall also be indicated in the overall Master Plan for review 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 directly by the PWD-GNCTD (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The proposal was deferred.

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

2. The proposal was deferred.

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

2. The proposal was deferred.

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

2. The proposal was deferred.

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 proposal was deferred.

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

2. The Commission approved the layout and building plan proposal at its meeting held on August 24, 2001, and the NOC for completion plan proposal was accepted in the meeting held on June 18, 2014.

3. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of balconies, room) at its meeting held on September 08, 2022, specific observations were given.

4. The revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of balconies, room) 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-07092255052 dated 12.09.2022, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco Web Ex meetings (online) who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the replies submitted, a discussion held, and revised submission made, the following observations are to be complied with:

a. The Commission observed that the proposal is for (the addition of balconies, room) and it is rejected on seven previous occasions by the Commission (meetings dated 15.03.2022, 07.04.2022, 26.05.2022, 07.07.2022, 21.07.2022, 04.08.2022, 25.08.2022, and 08.09.2022 respectively) on some very basic observations given in a detailed manner in the observation’s letters issued by the DUAC.

b. The Commission observed that unsatisfactory replies to its earlier observations communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-07092255052 dated 12.09.2022 has been given.

c. The Commission has specifically requested for providing the details of fixing aluminium strips to screen the outdoor air conditioners including its fixing etc., but inconsistencies have been observed in the replies submitted, section detail provided, and the 3D views. Since the proposal is at the formal stage the plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc. must be correlated to each other.

d. All temporary coverings/extensions must be removed.

e. All parking requirements must be as per applicable norms/regulations/guidelines.

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